Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 680

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 675

←

Archive 678

→

Citing a 1912 race program pamphlet in Wikipedia?

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and I'd like to get a citation right. First, the item is a race program pamphlet that is cataloged in a library. I want people to be able to locate the item, should they choose to do so. Also, I believe the pamphlet is in the public domain as it was published prior to 1923, so I'm hoping to scan the map in the pamphlet and add an image to the article (please correct me if I'm wrong regarding public domain). Thanks for your help.BPLibraryfan (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@BPLibraryfan: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse (and editing Wikipedia). I think more information would be needed, but chances are you can certainly use the image in the article. However, if you are going to "cite" the image for any information, it has to be supported by a secondary source as a 1912 pamphlet is probably a primary source. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 03:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @BPLibraryfan:, and let me also welcome you to the Teahouse. I was in the middle of trying to research your answer when I noticed that Alex Shih provided an excellent answer for you. Although I am not a copyright expert, it appears that the map should be in the public domain and therefore should be able to be added to Wikimedia Commons. Regarding citation of the pamphlet itself, it definitely depends on what exactly you are attempting to cite; the link that Alex provided some good information, as does WP:USEPRIMARY, about how primary sources can be used within an article. With some additional information about the race program and how the library identifies it, we can probably also explain how to create a citation for it. CThomas³ (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and help, Alex Shih and Cthomas3! BPLibraryfan (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Date mismatch in a citation

I am trying to cite an article that was originally published in 1895, but was reprinted at the 100th anniversary in 1995. How do I reference both dates without getting the date mismatch error?Lsfoster (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lsfoster. Generally speaking one cites the original publication date, unless it was significantly changed for the reprint. If you want to cite both anyway, use the date of the reprint to fill in the |date= or |year= parameter (but not both), and then set the |orig-year= parameter to something like "First published 1895". – Joe (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Lsfoster (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of religious events

I’ve been on Wikipedia for over a year now and I am spending time working on charismatic Christian focused articles. I’d like to get some advice on how to address/include reports of supernatural miracles. What I mean by this is that, in cases where newspapers or other quality secondary sources discuss the occurrence of miraculous events, how should it be included? If I understand WP:MEDRS WP:Biomedical information correctly, we can't put medical advice into the articles without proven medical documents to back it up. And since WP:Biomedical information states that religious beliefs are not considered biomedical information, I'm thinking it would be acceptable to simply include what the secondary sources say, and write it in a way so it isn't providing advice. I'd appreciate any advice. Thanks! Doctor^G (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Doctorg. Something to keep in mind about the scope of biomedical information, is that it doesn't just cover this type of information per se, but also any information where the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information. So, context is important here. On the exemption for religious beliefs, it may be appropriate so say These people believe prayer can heal blindness, since you're recording a religious belief as such, but it is probably not okay to say Local newspapers reported a blind man was healed, since this is addressing a claim of fact on the effectiveness of a treatment (i.e., prayer), that either is or is not effective, and using popular press as a source, especially where quality sources have already addressed the effectiveness of prayer overall, and concluded that it is not an effective treatment.

In other words, if the question is what people believe, then that belief in an of itself may be sourced to information about what they believe, so long as it stops short of suggesting that belief might be objectively true, since that is information about the universe as it exists, and the belief system is a part of that universe, even though it might not be an accurate description of it.

Hopefully this clears things up more than it confuses them. GMG ^talk 16:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Doctorg. We might be of more help if you could give a specific example, but generally I would say the key is properly attributing any claims like this to the person who made them, and not stating them as fact in Wikipedia's voice. For example, you might write:

Jane Smith claimed she was miraculously cured of her condition.^[1]^[2]

But not:

John Smith was cured of his condition by a miracle.^[1]^[2]

However the context is important. I would do the above in a biography, but it would be completely undue weight to add purported miracle cures to articles on medical conditions. If in doubt you can always raise the issue on the article's talk page before adding anything. – Joe (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for your advice. I agree this type of content should only be in biographical articles and not in any article related to medical procedures, etc. There are many articles in the charismatic Christianity category that mention this type of information, but none of them are the same, so I'm thinking if I can come up with a standard acceptable phraseology, I can then standardize it throughout a stack of articles. I figure attribution is the key to getting this right. Can you give me your thoughts on a few examples?:

The Louisville, KY Courier-Journal reported that William Upshaw no longer needed crutches after he attended a revival meeting and reported he was healed. Would one of these be a good way to write this?:

The Courier-Journal reported that William Upshaw no longer needed crutches after using them for 42 years

William Upshaw reported being miraculously healed and that he no longer needed crutches after using them for 42 years

I also have an article written by a medical doctor and published in the Southern medical journal that discusses supernatural healing and cites multiple patient cases where unexplainable miracles occurred. I'm thinking something like this may work:

Dr. Orr reported that two of his patients were mysteriously healed and suspected that there was some form of "supernatural interference"

Thank you again for your input. Doctor^G (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In the first case, the link on William David Upshaw appears to be broken, but I'm assuming the Courier Journal is reporting the claims of Upshaw, in which case it would probably be more appropriate to say that Upshaw "claimed to be healed", or that "the Journal reported he claimed to be healed". And I would only include it to begin with if it was somehow central (i.e., WP:DUE).

The second one is trickier. I don't know the subject you refer to, but again, context is important. Citing a doctor, citing what I assume to be outdated or poorly done research in the SMJ... that's getting pretty heavy on contxt in suggesting that this may be a viable option for people with certain illnesses. I would be very careful there. GMG ^talk 18:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well we're definitely in WP:FRINGE territory here, so that would be the relevant area of policy to familiarise yourself with. To me "reported" implies a factual observance; I would go with "claimed". I would also try to attribute the claims to the actual person who made them wherever possible, rather than the newspaper that published or reported on them. In your last example, we generally avoid professional titles like Dr, which can be construed as an attempt to editorialise their authoritativeness. Instead, just describe who he is and where the claim was made. You can never go wrong with more context. It's also important to balance fringe views with the mainstream viewpoint, so in your last example you should mention any reviews or critical responses to that article or, failing that, follow it up with a general statement like the ones found in faith healing. – Joe (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I like those thoughts. So if I wrote William Upshaw claimed to be miraculously healed after using crutches for 42 years and cited the newspaper article, I think that conveys it well. I agree with including the opposite viewpoint as well and have some content about those who didn't believe him. I'm not sure about the SMJ article, just something I came across earlier so I can't make assumptions about its quality, just wanted to toss it out there as another discussion point. In regards to WP:FRINGE, my understanding is that it deals with "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." So if I'm only putting this type of content in articles about faith healers, I'm sticking to that particular field (as opposed to the medical field). For example, there are a lot of charismatic theology textbooks, etc. that discuss supernatural healing at length so, at least in the field of charismatic theology, it wouldn't be considered fringe. Similar arguments could be made for Catholic theology because divine healing has been part of the Catholic Canon for over 1000 years. So, if I'm sticking to the field of charismatic theology, I think I'm OK. Please let me know if I am way off there. Doctor^G (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's ...not really how it works. In the field of crystal healing, healing people with crystals isn't considered fringe, because the field itself is fringe. The thing is, we can record that people believe otherwise outlandish things, since that belief itself is objectively a thing that exists, but we can't record those outlandish things themselves as anything other than a belief. Even further, we should not imply that these things are plausible in the case there is ample evidence to presume they're not. GMG ^talk 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the entire field is considered fringe. Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for helping me think through this. I'm re-reading through the fringe article now to get some better context/perspective on my thoughts. So let's circle back, can you give me your thoughts on my latest line about the Upshaw claim? (from my last post) Doctor^G (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with claimed to be miraculously healed. Although I may have a higher bar for what I consider "self-evidently false to the point of needing no detailed rebuttal" than some, at least in some circumstances. GMG ^talk 19:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again! I'd love to hear your thought on the "self-evidently false" piece. Doctor^G (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a bit like claims to have miraculously flown across town, and I'd like to assume our readers don't need it pointed out that this is unlikely to have been true. GMG ^talk 20:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I respect your viewpoint. I know doctors and researchers who are now cataloguing and medically/scientifically verifying miracle claims....but we have a long way to go until this can be moved out of the pseudoscience arena. Thanks again for all your help. Doctor^G (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

How to link to another wikipedia without red link

I want to link an article from the Dutch Wikipedia, but I don't know how. The Verified Cactus 100% 21:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi VerifiedCactus. Like this: [[:nl:Foo]] → nl:Foo. – Joe (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was thinking of the kind that look like this "Foo(nl)", do you happen to know how to do that? The Verified Cactus 100% 21:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a template for that: {{Interlanguage link}} or ill for short. For example, {{ill|Foo|nl}} gives Foo [nl]. Mduvekot (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me edit my draft?

Hello,

My draft was rejected, and I am wondering if you can tell me where there is "promotional content" and how to meet Wikipedia's "verifiability policy".

Thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Olson_Communications_Inc.

Jeremydandrus17 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jeremydandrus17. Just looking at your first few sentences:

provides strategy, design and execution of programs to promote business
specializes in delivering fully integrated marketing communications programs
provides essential brand building services
provides the next layer of customer understanding and needs assessment to facilitate marketing communications and sales connection

For lack of a better term, these are mostly just empty business jargon, of the type that sounds nice on a company website or press release, but doesn't actually convey any information to the reader. Overall, encyclopedia articles are supposed to be written like a "neutral editorial robot" that only reports the bare dry facts, and doesn't really understand colorful language, or, for the most part, human emotions pretty much at all.

Other things are similarly mostly vague puffery. I see national conferences, and still have no idea what conferences, where, what nation, by whom, how many, or recognized as important by whom? Similarly I see foodservice professionals, and still have no idea who these people actually are, on whose authority they are professionals, or whether maybe some of them are actually rather unprofessional and tend to fairly often miss appointments and forget to reply to emails, but we're calling them "professionals" because it makes them sound uniformly important.

These are the kinds of things that our editorial robot would throw out as Does Not Compute, because it actually ends up raising more questions than it answers. GMG ^talk 16:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Convenience typo-free link to the draft: Draft:Olson Communications Inc. Maproom (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, so if there is a Wikipedia page for all of this "empty business jargon" then my page should have been accepted, right? There are links that show what national conferences and I will add links to define what a "foodservice professional" is. Are there any other changes that pop out at you @GreenMeansGo: ??

Jeremydandrus17 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe you've gotten it somewhat backward, Jeremydandrus17. It's not that the jargon is meaningless because there is no Wikipedia article for it. It is that there is no Wikipedia article for things like next layer of customer understanding because it is empty jargon, meant to sound pleasant but mean nothing. There would be nothing to write an article about. GMG ^talk 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|GreenMeansGo} Just out of curiosity, did you check the references/links of my submission? Jeremydandrus17 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I did. They all look like trade magazine articles to me. Not enough to support notability. David notMD (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Publish Draft Articles

I have written two short articles that can be reviewed and/or published. I've found info about page moves but don't understand it fully. Is there a simple way to move from the draft phase to the publish phase? Articles below:

Thanks, Ryan Wendlander (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. As a new editor, you will need to have your draft reviewed by another editor before it can be published. I've submitted both drafts for review for you. – Joe (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. One of your drafts has been declined and if I were to guess (or if I were to review it), the other one will be too. I didn't look too closely at the declined one, but the article on Ralco is lacking a showing of notability. The sources you provided did a great job of verifying the facts, but only one of them (WSJ) even mentioned the subject of the article. You've got to have multiple (how many exactly depends on how good the sources are) reliable sources, totally independent of the company, that discuss the company in detail. Verifiability is required for everything you add (altho not every niggling little detail needs references - only claims of achievement or other "wow" factors, direct quotes, and anything likely to be disputed must be referenced initially. Sources must be provided if anything is disputed.) However, you must provide the multiple independent sources discussed above to show notability, without which your drafts will never be published.

Two technical issues: first, please note I edited your original post here changing the URLs you provided to wikilinks. Second, you really bollacks up the references (it happens. No sweat.) I fixed the WSJ reference on the shrimp draft so you could see how it's done. All in all, you're doing a good job for your first stab at it. Keep up the good work. Pretty sure Ralco is a notable subject; you just haven't shown it yet. The shrimp draft, not so much, but you can merge the two into one article easily. John from Idegon (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Can Someone Help Me Review My Article?

I've revised my article about Bruno Goussault to include more valid sources and would love to have someone look it over and give suggestions before I submit it for approval again. Any chance someone can help me? Would really appreciate it! Hwilson51 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Hwilson51. There may be some places to town it down a bit. For example from around the world. Presumably all chefs are "from around the world" somewhere, and all a phrase like that does is strongly imply that he has trained chefs from a wide range of different countries, but does so without actually saying anything material. I also see that there is still one press release used, which is generally frowned upon, and since it's used to support a pretty big claim, I would definitely try to replace that with a more reliable source. But other than that it looks pretty good honestly. GMG ^talk 10:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Search Term Not Showing Up In Search Results

At the article Signature artwork I find an internal link to Jim Gary. When I use our search function to search for article containing "Jim Gary" I find no occurrences other than the article with "Jim Gary" as the title. How is this possible? Why doesn't the Signature artwork article show up as an article containing "Jim Gary"? Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop. I get 42 mainspace hits on "jim gary", also when I write it in the search box and select "containing". Signature artwork is the 7th hit. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter. These are my results. Why are we getting different results? I'm not sure what you mean by "mainspace". Is that the same thing as article space? I am using the "search" window on the left side of the page. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Bus stop, and welcome to the Teahouse. It may be because PrimeHunter is enclosing "Jim Gary" in quotation marks. When I leave them out I get the same result as you do, as the search engine is looking for the terms "Jim" and "Gary" separately. In answer to your question about "mainspace", it is in fact the same thing as the article space. The namespace that normal articles live in has no prefix like "Wikipedia:" or "Template:", so it is referred to as "mainspace". I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cthomas3. That is all very helpful information. I will have to watch out for the the distinction in results between two or more terms enclosed in quotes and not enclosed. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I get 36,461 results on your search without quotation marks. Does it work if you are logged out? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I get 2,673 results without quote marks and I get only 8 results with quote marks. Why would it make a difference if I logged out? Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The search you've just linked to is for signature artwork, not Jim Gary, which is why the numbers differ from PrimeHunter's. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I currently get 2,675 and 8 results on your Signature artwork search. You reported a problem where I got another result, and a common cause of that is account settings so I asked whether it made a difference to log out. You didn't answer so I'm not spending time looking for specific settings which might produce a difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Cordless Larry, I accidentally searched for a different search term. And I see, PrimeHunter, your consideration was that perhaps account settings could effect search results. That is a logical consideration and I hadn't considered that. But it was my switcheroo of search terms by which I inadvertently caused differing results.

Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

FITSWORD

Hi guys, I've inserted a proposed article on my sandbox; I just wanted to know if I have to do something else in order the proposed article is analyzed. thanks. andrea Andrea Mainini (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. A number of useful links were provided in the welcome message on your user talk page. Among those is WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Andrea Mainini. You seem to be trying to use Wikipedia to tell the world about your invention: that is called Promotion, and is strictly forbidden on English Wikipedia. Once several people who have no connection with you or with Fitsword have chosen to write about it, and been published in reliable sources (these do not have to be in English), then we can have an article about it, based almost entirely on what those independent sources have said; but you are discouraged from writing this article, because of your conflict of interest. I suggest you look for another outlet rather than try to do this on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

somebody deleted my sandbox

I've been editing wikipedia this afternoon after posting an article last night from my sandbox about a dead Virginia politician, Edward E. Lane. I noticed that someone with the moniker RickinBaltimore had deleted my sandbox at some time today, without contacting me. I tried to click on the links to talk to him or view his contributions, but nothing works--just goes to the page Creating User Sandbox. I planned on starting another article if I can get to a reference library, but I'm stuck in a cafe -- trying for the 5th time to download and install a windows update (I wrote that article and edited a couple of similar others during the 4 failed updates at a couple of reference libraries). Frankly, I don't know how he did it, and it seems like vandalism, but I'd rather move on or at least figure out how to re-create my sandbox.Jweaver28 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jweaver28. It looks like it's slightly more complicated than that. From the looks of it, you accidentally moved your sandbox to User:Edward E. Lane, and it was spotted by Train2104 who moved it into mainspace where it is currently at Edward E. Lane. The only thing that Rick deleted was a redirect to a nonexistence page. If you would like to recreate your sandbox to continue to work on content there, then you are free to do so. If you would like to continue working on the article on Lane, then you should do so at Edward E. Lane. GMG ^talk 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, GreenMeansGo, for so quickly relieving my anxiety about possible malevolence. I detoured this afternoon for further info about Lane, but couldn't find it, so that article's going on hold on my end til my next drive down to Richmond. However, as the Windows feature update has now failed to install twice more (although fortunately the security updates finally did), I seem to be digging myself into a weird hole with this sandbox. I was just expecting to see a redirect page yesterday/this morning. This evening I expected to see a new draft article from the material I added below the line (about another dead Virginia politician), but I don't. Probably it's my fault for working til the library closes and I'm tired and short on caffeine, LOL. But I started a new sandbox page, and while the sandbox shows, the draft doesn't, whether on preview or save, although at least the markup is saved under edit. Again I don't know what I did. Can you explain it?Jweaver28 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jweaver28: You accidentally deleted the ending ">" in . I have restored it.[1] Everything inside  is a non-displayed source comment which ends at that ">". The only content in the deleted version of the sandbox is a redirect from the move and a {{db-redirnone}} request to delete the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Now I can futz with the infobox order error tomorrow!Jweaver28 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

My work-in-p-progress page does not have a "Save page" button

Sorry, I cannot see the left side of this page as the contents section is overriding it. I created an article "Martha Simpson Eastlake" in User:CarolynLeigh/sandbox/Martha Simpson Eastlake; however, under the info box on work-in-progress there is no "Save page" button. Although I am logged in as CarolynLeigh, Wikipedia keeps saying there is not a user page with that name. So I am confused on both these issues and can't seem to find the right links to figure it out. I have 3 websites that I code myself, so I'm not a complete stranger to this, but I need help, thanks. And I'm not sure where to look for an answer to this post. CarolynLeigh (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi CarolynLeigh. No edits have been made yet to your User page, therefore it technically doesn't exist. Make an edit to your User page and click "Save" and then your User page comes into existence. By the way, your Martha Simpson Eastlake article looks like a good article. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm dense on this. I'm on the page that says User:CarolynLeigh/sandbox. When I click on CarolynLeigh at the top left of the page, I get User:CarolynLeigh with a note that Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name with various links. However, I don't see an edit button.CarolynLeigh (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

When you go to User:CarolynLeigh it gets you straight into the edit function to allow you to create that page. The instruction at the top of the page says: "To start a page called User:CarolynLeigh, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it." --David Biddulph (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think we have an article on her husband, William Eastlake. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bus stop, CarolynLeigh. Your draft looks very, very good. It's very well sourced, passes the notability standards with flying colors and is very well written. (A small amount of fluff, but nothing significant enough to even concern yourself with) It looks like you're still working on it (the places where your referring to figure 1, etc), but there is one major style issue you'll want to correct prior to submitting it. Your use of bold text is out of style guidelines. The only thing that should be in bold text is the first instance of the subject of the article's name in the lede (if there are other names she's used that would be significant enough that you suspect a person might search for it, after publication a Redirect article should be created for that name and then the first instance of that name should be bolded also). I noticed nearly every phrase you've italicized is also bolded, and many wikilinks are too. There are also a few bolded phrases that probably should be wikilinks but aren't. Easy fixes all. Great work! John from Idegon (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Those images however probably won't last long. We have very strict copyright release criteria and usually for works of art that are still copyrighted, that becomes problematic real fast. You need to give away a lot of rights to the public (and essentially you have already done so by uploading these). Since this often is claimed incorrectly, or by the wrong people, we require explicit license evidence for works like these to be send to our OTRS-team. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

And now I'm not sure how reply works either, so here goes. Thanks for all your comments and I will get back to editing. I took a two hour seminar as part of our Museum of Contemporary Art on writing for Wikipedia in 2015, but the person who ran it is no longer there. So, I'm now trying to figure it out again as I get time.

Re the images. Martha did not register copyrights for her work. Several of us who knew and worked with her have attempted to see if she had any legal heirs to her sold work without success. We do own the works themselves. I expected some pushback, but went ahead and posted them in the draft as it seems unfortunate to write about an artist without showing any work. Afterwards, I realized that they go to a separate space (I think), Commons, that I would need to sign up for but haven't had time to figure that one out. I created Figure 3 in Photoshop from the ceramics that some of us own. So any more advice on this topic re a workaround?CarolynLeigh (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Concern about Isha Foundation page

Hello,

The Isha Foundation page seems to have some problematic editing. In the past there have been quite a few incidents of sock puppetry, especially in relation to the Rally for Rivers section. It seems to be happening again. Is there a way to address this? I am concerned that the article is unlikely to stay balanced.

Thank you for your time

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

SunnyBoi (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist Q

Hello, I was wondering if there is a way to restore an old feature of the watchlist in which unvisited pages are marked in bold (instead of the solid dot). Thank you! NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or at least you can re-activate the bold in addition to the green dot. In Preferences, look under Gadgets, and there is an option there for doing this. (Info courtesy of Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists - I have the boldface watchlist myself but couldn't recall how I got it...) --bonadea contributions talk 05:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I am new and I want to post an article about a great book that I read. Please help.

I have started a draft on a book that I read. It changed my life and I wanted to see it on Wikipedia. I just need some help as this is my first articleRogerdanford (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rogerdanford. Begin by reading Your first article. Then, read our notabilty guideline for books. Most articles about notable books are built largely by summarizing professional book reviews from reliable publications. Be sure that those reviews are referenced properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing an existing article

I would lke to improve an existing article by including some text, inline references (books)and an External Links (website).

I don't want to mess up the existing article with clumsy editing. Can you help?

If someone replies to this, please indicate how I can reply to you on the Teahouse (as a beginner it is not obvious to me).BRP1BFP1 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can add text, providing that it is supported by references to reliable sources. You'll find more information about references at Help:Referencing for beginners, and about external links at WP:external links. It will help if when making your edit you include an appropriate edit summary. You can use the "Preview" button to check youredit before saving it. To reply to an existing thread here, click the "Edit" link alongside the section heading. Put your reply after the message to which you are replying, and indent your reply by preceding it with one more colon than the message to which you are replying, see WP:talk page guidelines. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@BFP1: In addition to the excellent advice above: even if something goes wrong you can always revert ("Undo") such edits in the article history (click "View history" on top of the article to see the history and edit log for an article). If you feel unsure about some new syntax or formatting, you could also try some test edits in your own user sandbox (Special:MyPage/sandbox) before you edit the article itself. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will proceed carefully.BFP1BFP1 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Fear not, BFP1. There is nothing really that you could "mess up". Each edit is recorded in the article's revision history, so it's easy to return good content even if you accidentally did away with it. One useful Wikipedia motto is: "Be bold!". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

At the article(s) that interest you, I suggest you click on View history to see changes by other editors. This will give you an idea of how 'hot' the topic is. Note that most editors write something descriptive in the Edit Summary - see it at bottom when you are actively editing - to describe what they did. People doing major changes may also create a new section in Talk to explain their intent. If YOUR changes are reversed/reverted, start a discussion in Talk rather than just reverting the last editor. That is known as an edit war, and considered bad manners. David notMD (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

German Joe, can an article be transferred to my sandbox so that I can try out experimental editing on said article?BFP1BFP1 (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My page was rejected for being to similar to another one, why?

I made a draft article for the State of Anjouan. It was rejected for having too much of a similar subject to the Anjouan itself. Is there any way I could edit it to make it more relevant?

AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AnswerMeNow1. Well, that kind of things happen. Your draft seems to be mostly about Anjouan as a (kind-of, sort-of) autonomous state, but those events are already described in what I would say is enough detail at Anjouan#Secessionist/Autonomous Anjouan. The topic is probably not different enough to warrant a second article.

You can however head to Anjouan and edit the currently-existing article; it would probably benefit of the addition of the sources you have used. Remember that you are encouraged to edit articles you did not start yourself! Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What's this "r" next to revisions now?

Hi! I'm a semi-experienced recent changes reviewer who has come back after a longish hiatus. I now see a lowercase "r" next to some edits, with a tooltip of "This edit needs review." Is there some way that I can mark the edit as reviewed (a la NPP), or is that just a permanent "this might be bad" marker? (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gaelan. This sounds like Wikipedia:Pending changes, check the protection status of the page (you did not link to it or an edit, so I cannot check myself). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gaelan: That sounds to me like the ORES review tool. It cannot be reviewed – it's just a marker. I've found it to be of little use, due to the extremely low threshold for what is considered possibly "damaging" (for example, lots of my own minor reference fixes get flagged). It also seems to miss a lot of obvious vandalism. Dairy_{talk} 10:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Two different graphs

On page List of Confederate monuments and memorials, under the picture (top right) of the statue of the soldier there is a graph. There is a gray horizontal bar labeled "Jim Crow era". It extendes over another gray horizontal bar labeled "Civil Rights Era". However when I click on the chart to get a larger view I see a different chart. In this one the top gray bar is shortener and does not reach over the Civil Rights movement" bar. why is that? it seems to me that they both should be the same? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Hello! I think this is related to Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials#RFC: Graph of Monument Construction. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, @Alex Shih:, it quite likely is, but why are there two different versions of the chart happening? Carptrash (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: You uploaded a new version of commons:File:Confederate monuments.png yesterday. It sometimes takes a while before all displays of an image are automatically updated. A purge of a given page will sometimes but not always force the page to update its image. I see the current version everywhere I checked. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Help!

I seem to be taking it from all sides recently. I've had at least one administrator make a retort about one of my articles for discussion that basically made it seem he had decided that I was a idiot and a vandal, and I've had to put the same sentence in a different article three times. Does anybody know anywhere to go to report this sort of thing? TomBarker23 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You did not give a link to any of the problems you mention. I looked around in your contributions, but I could not find anyone anywhere saying anything about you being an idiot and a vandal. Is this about Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/uw-veil-group?

In any case, the procedure that always work is to WP:LETITGO. There are other procedures, but it is hard to make a relevant suggestion without having the facts. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Verifying a Claim

Hello - I'm a new editor and am looking to practice finding and inserting citations. On the Museum of Fine Arts' page, there are two sentences that I can only verify through the museum's page itself: "The Museum of Fine Arts holds one of the most comprehensive collections in the world" and "The museum maintains one of the largest online databases in the world". I assume I can't use the museum's site as a reference, so I was wondering how I could verify a claim like this. For instance, what makes a "comprehensive" museum? Who is the authority on this? Thank you in advance for your time. Librarianstevie (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Librarianstevie. First off thank you for trying to fact-check, it's a very valuable task and sorely needed in many articles! You're absolutely right that referencing claims like these to the museum's own website wouldn't be appropriate. We'd be looking for a solid independent source. In fact, I'd say that these claims don't belong in an article at all. What constitutes a "comprehensive" collection is subjective and the "largest online databases" surely depends on what type of online databases you're talking about. The vague wording (one of the most comprehensive, one of the largest) also seems designed to elude verification. Overall they serve to make the museum sound good without actually imparting any solid factual information – a classic case of weasel wording. Since they're not supported by a citation, I would simply go ahead and edit them out. – Joe (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Joe. I figured those were weasel words and when I couldn't find anything to support them, I thought about editing the article. As I'm a new editor, I didn't want to step on toes, but I'll go ahead and edit those sentences out. Thanks again for taking the time to help - much appreciated! Librarianstevie (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

How to submit a page for review

Hi! I created a page, I'm trying to figure out how to submit it for review so that the page can go live. Please advise. Marieokoro (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I moved your article to draft space, Draft:Major General William Shane Lee but unfortunately I inadvertently moved your talk page as well sorry about that hopefully an admin can sort it out! Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorted. It should be OK now. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Basically one my draft of a Light novel was canceled because of sources, need help with chinese.

The thing is as far as I'm aware I can't seem to find any proper sources that are in English, I'm 99% sure there are Chinese sources as it's quite big and has won a "Best work" title, the Light novel in question is "The King's avatar" or "Quanzhi gao shou".

Whippedaway (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:The King's avatar. Maproom (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Whippedaway. Although this is the English Wikipedia and our articles are in English, our sources needn't be. As long as the information is verifiable and comes from a reliable source, the language doesn't matter. So feel free to add Chinese references to your draft.

If you mean that you don't read Chinese yourself and can't find the sources, you could perhaps ask for help at WikiProject China. – Joe (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Any idea if this would work as a source? https://baike.baidu.com/item/千盟书

Whippedaway (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Inserting An Info Box Into A New Article

Hi! I've created a new article and am trying to insert an info box but I can't seem to make it work. I copied the suggested template for a person and added the specific information but I am not doing it correctly. I've read a few articles but still can't seem to get it right. One thing I am confused about is that the tutorial says inboxes live somewhere special and I can't figure out where. I did look up to be sure that the info box I want to create does not already exist.

I pasted the template into the body of the article after the intro paragraph and before the first section of the article.

Can you help? Please? Thanks, Noreen Noreen Banks (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You have left the script that comments out the text and hides it. I'll fix it so you can see the difference. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References instead of External links

Good evening everyone. I started to add inline citations to this article that previously had none, but the first one I added went straight to the External Links section instead of the references. The external links section previously had a non-working link to a photo gallery that I deleted. How do I fix this? Regards, RetiredDuke (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've figured it out myself, no need to worry. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi RetiredDuke, welcome to the Teahouse. The correct solution is to place {{reflist}} where you want the inline references to be displayed. I have done this. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks PrimeHunter. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for Impartial Review

Hello Fellow Wikipedians. The article on Carol Marbin Miller has a tag about style of writing. After careful editing, I believe it no longer warrants that tag and therefore, I have requested a review on the Talk page.

Secondly, I'd like a recommendation on how to deal with a Conflict of Interest issue. Carol is not a business contact; years ago, she was my neighbor. Carol is a friend whom I admire for her work to defend children. I need advice on how to overcome the COI tag. Your guidance is appreciated. TIA. Hilda in South Florida (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Taking the second question first..... Just put a declaration on the talk page of the article describing your relation to the subject and any posible WP:COI. See an example of what I did at Talk:Frederick_C._Leonard.

I or some other editor will remove the tags in time.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What keeps you interested in editing in Wikipedia?

My apologies if my coding is a bit off, but I was curious if anyone would like to share the reasons that keep them actively contributing to this amazing website? For me, I feel Wikipedia has been very useful for casual and formal research so I feel a bond to help improve the articles when I feel able to. Gotta edit 'em all 05:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaorn (talk • contribs)

I get a lot of information from Wikipedia, both in my business and personal lives, so I contribute as a way of giving back a little to the project. Neiltonks (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Like you and Neiltonks, Ivaorn, I edit in part to give back to a resource I utilize so much myself. I also find it very soothing to be able to correct grammar, punctuation, spelling and usage errors that I find on Wikipedia, versus most websites that are not so user-editable. ;) —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an answer to your question, Ivaorn, but a heads-up that your signature appears to be broken. Can you check that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in the signature section of your preferences page is not ticked? You also need to make sure that your signature links to at least one of your user pages, to comply with WP:SIGLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Ivaorn, and welcome to the Teahouse! I am very much the same...I was a longtime consumer of information here (and continue to be), and wanted to help "pass it forward" to future readers. The great part is that there are no deadlines or required subjects; you can help out on your own time, in your own way. All help is welcome. :) Regarding your signature: it may not actually be broken. The other possibility is that instead of four tildes (~~~~), you accidentally used five (~~~~~), which only prints the current date and time. CThomas³ (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome! I started contributing to Wikipedia out of curiosity because I wanted to know how it works and how articles are written. I like seeing how people's understanding of the project policies and guidelines unfold in discussions on the talk pages and result in article content. This is far from being an idle pass time for me. I see involvement with the project as a philosophical pursuit and look at Wikipedia as a metaphor for lots of other areas in life against which I can compare things like real world social interaction, management, politics and research. The more I look at it, the more I discover aspects of the project which could improve my world if judiciously applied on a universal scale. Think about the fact that there are people with radically differing and sometimes even militarily conflicting opinions, ethnicity ,religions and ideologies who all come here to add momentum to the mutual academic goal of cataloging the world's information. It doesn't really matter if they are collaborating or disputing each other here, because ultimately their efforts will result in information being made available to the whole world. This kind of platform where a common goal is both pursued (and ultimately reached) by a such a large and varied number of people has never really been achieved by any company, government or even religion and it's this that keeps me interested in the project. Edaham (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

How do I change a user name

Hello fellow wikipedians!

How can I change my user name? I was asked to write an article for the company I work for.

Yana

Hi Yana. Given you have only made three edits with this account, it would be easier to just log out and create a new one. However, please do not write an article about the company you work for – that would be against our conflict of interest policy. You can try to explain to whoever asked you to do that Wikipedia is a neutral, volunteer-written encyclopaedia, not a business directory or means of promotion. It's inappropriate for a company to pay someone to write an article about them or have one of their employees do it. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@LANtelligence: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can change your username by clicking on WP:CHU and following the instructions on that page.

After your name is changed, I would also strongly urge you to review the conflict of interest policy (WP:COI) and paid editing policy(WP:PAID), the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, such as editing as part of your job. You will need to write any such article as if you did not work for the company you are writing about. That is something that is hard to do for most people. You will need independent reliable sources, that is, sources not related to your company at all, that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines for companies(WP:ORG). I would suggest that you first read Your First Article and thenuse Articles for Creation to create any article about your company due to your COI. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I would add that, kind of relating to what Joe suggests, if all you want to do or have been told to do is merely post information about your company to tell the world about it, that you not do so even through Articles for Creation, as it will just use the time of other editors to tell you what you have been told here and you will likely end up disappointed. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel like 331dot and I have given you slightly conflicting advice, so just to clarify a couple of things:

1. WP:CHU is the usual process for changing a username for accounts that have existed for a long time, but it takes up a lot of the administrators' time so, as explained there and at WP:UNC, editors with few edits are usually asked to create a new account instead. 2. The conflict of interest policy first and foremost "strongly discourages" COI editing and especially paid editing, and this wording is to be understood in the context that Wikipedia has no hard and fast "rules". Articles for Creation is a last resort for COI/paid editors who insist on disregarding the conflict of interest policy, and as such I would strongly recommend that you not pursue editing the draft on your company at all. – Joe (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

And also, why do you want to change your user name? If you decide to go through AfC, and declare COI and paid, you would be able to create as Yana. If you do decide to start a new user name, it should not be the company name. Users are individuals, not teams or companies. And finally, if you decide to start a new user name, do not also continue to use Yana. Having more than one user name (sockpuppetry) will get your blocked. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: Yana's current username is LANtelligence, which is the name of a company and therefore, as you mentioned, against the username policy. I'm guessing this question was prompted by the message on their user page to that effect. – Joe (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD:Having multiple usernames is not going to get you blocked; editing under multiple usernames, especially with the intent to give the appearance that edits come from multiple persons, will. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not request an article about your company and then contribute to it when it is created? That way, the article remains neutral but still gets written, and once you have contributed to it your company will be happy too.TomBarker23 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can request an article at WP:Requested articles, but there is no guarantee that it will be written, or that your company will be happy with it. There are still WP:PAID and WP:COI issues if you edit the article (even under your new user name), and you need to remember that the article will not belong to your company, and your company will have no editorial control, only the facility to correct any factual inaccuracies via a request on the talk page. Dbfirs 08:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Need help finding a circle-c copyright symbol. Also, spacing format.

Hello. I am a first-time editor. I need to find the circle-c symbol (for copyright) to enter into the body of the article that I am writing. I looked in the symbols listing at the top of the page when editing. I found a great many symbols, but not the circle-c copyright symbol. Where may I find this symbol, or, is there a code entry for the symbol?

In regards to spacing after a period. Years ago, the normal spacing after a period was two spaces. Now, I am hearing rumblings about only needing a single space entered after a sentence period. What is correct spacing for usage in Wikipedia, or, does it matter?

I am currently writing only in my User Sandbox. Am not ready for the Draft page as yet. Still building the article.

Thank you for any assistance you may provide. Verbwright981 (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The copyright symbol can be created by holding down the Alt key while pressing 0169 on the keypad. - Hope this helps. NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Verbwright981: Regarding spaces: ccording to MOS:PUNCTSPACE it doesn't matter, since the Wikimedia software will only display one space. RudolfRed (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea about this one, so I went to WP:Style myself to look it up - Thansk for the question Verbwright981 and the quick response RudolfRed :) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Verbwright981: Note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules says:

Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context.

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You said copyright symbol but there is rarely reason for that either and I suspect your case should actually be ™ or ® in publications which do use such symbols. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, we have a rather good article (an FA, in fact) on the history and contemporary debate around spaces after sentences at sentence spacing, if anyone is into that sort of thing! – Joe (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Username problem

I accidentally created a second account, and wish to delete it so somebody else can use the name. How do I get it taken down? TomBarker23 (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you placed this question and its section heading in the middle of the previous section. I've moved it to the foot of the page where it belongs. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi TomBarker23. Accounts cannot be deleted. They can be renamed but ThomasBarker232 does not sound like a name others are likely to want so I see no reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. Sorry about putting it in the middle of another topic, my laptop is playing up. TomBarker23 (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)