Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 714

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 710

←

Archive 712

→

Finding sources

Is there any Google Chrome add on or a gadget which can bring up only reliable sources in a Google search result. — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 07:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello friend, you're in the wrong place.

This is for help editing Wikipedia - writing articles and stuff.

For general knowledge questions, you need the Wikipedia:Reference desk - specifically, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, where you will probably get good answers about your gadgets! Best, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) whoops, Mr. 222 got an answer in there while I was still typing.

Hello Force Radical and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

I doubt that even Google's artificial intelligence bots could decide which sources would be considered reliable by WP standards. Reliability is not just once-and-for-all but has to be considered in terms of "reliable for what?" kinds of questions. It still requires human judgment and humans don't always agree on what's reliable, which is why some references end up being taken to WP:RSN. The world would be very different is such a tool existed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Force Radical: I'm unaware of a Google Chrome add-on, but we do have Wikipedia Reference Search, which is also included in {{Find sources}}. In cases where the sources can be expected to be found in a language other than English, do a normal search. Sam Sailor 10:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

What is dmy dates ??? Noname479 (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Noname479: day, month, year so the request is that on that page dates are formatted in that order which is common for articles using British English as opposed to the US norm of month, day, year. Nthep (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help in re submitting

i need help resubmitting and adding photo to my artist wikipedia page. I'm new hereDevontaii (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @DevonTaii:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing autobiographical articles on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged (see WP:AUTOBIO). Wikipedia is not a repository of personal artist "profiles", but an encyclopedic project based on independent reliable sources (newspaper articles, journals, expert websites, books, etc.). If a topic has been covered in multiple independent sources, uninvolved editors will eventually create an article about it. You'll find additional information about Wikipedia's purpose and guidelines in the "Welcome" message on your user talkpage, but feel free to ask here if you have any further questions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Page on Wikipedia

To make a page for a personality first do we need to make a draft ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC) <! --Autosigned by SineBot-->

We would prefer that you first make a draft (as you have already done) so that we can help you with the grammar. Wikipedia is especially strict about WP:Biographies of living persons, and you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the person has been written about in detail. Having a conflict of interest makes it especially difficult for you to write the article from a neutral point of view. You should forget what you know about the person, and just summarise what you find in the sources. Dbfirs 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft

How to remove AFC tab and that draft mark from the article? Noname479 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:Sanjay Kukreja, I would advise against "removing the draft mark" and converting it to an article. If anyone does that while it's in its present state, it is very likely to be deleted, as providing no evidence that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a general format available to create my first wikipedia article?

I have never created a Wikipedia article before and I am not quite sure how the html coding works. Is there a general template for creating a page?Builder284 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Builder284, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read about how it works here: Help:Wikitext. There is no universal format however. Different kinds of topics mandate different kinds of layouts. You can have confidence in someone fixing it for you if you mess something up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Builder284: Hello. I would caution you that article creation is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users who dive right in to article creation often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spend hours on is mercilessly edited by others and even deleted. I don't want you to end up disappointed. New users are much more successful at creating articles when they first take some time to edit existing articles in areas that interest them first, which helps them to learn how Wikipedia works and what is looked for in article content. If you still wish to attempt to create an article, I would suggest first reading Your First Article to learn about the process, and then going to Articles for Creation to write and submit a draft for an independent review and feedback before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you can learn before the draft is posted instead of afterwards where reviewers and editors will be much more critical. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Where can I find a living person biography template?

I have not submitted a new biography on Wikipedia for three years. Last time I did this was for the author Richard Pine in April 2014. This article was accepted after some help. To begin preparing that article I used a biography template on Wikipedia. I am now having some difficulty finding that very straightforward page. Can you help? Simon Baddeley (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sibadd, is it Template:Biography which did take me some time to find for some reason. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

OK I tried that but didn't scan far enough down the page. The term 'usage' confused me, but now I've got the list of headings I need. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Biography#Biography Simon Baddeley (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sibadd: Try entering {{subst:Biography}} – I did so in my sandbox and it created the full list of headings right there. :) –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear Siren False Alarm

I am not an expert on notability but I do know that there are some strange requirements in some cases so forgive me for being lazy but does this event qualify as notable? The Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in SouthWestern Wake County, NC, USA had its siren system go off earlier today. This is the system that is supposed to notify residents if there is an emergency pertaining to the power plant. I have found a few news articles already for this and their urls are as follows. http://www.wral.com/shearon-harris-nuclear-plant-sirens-activated-in-error/17274101/ http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article195587069.html http://wncn.com/2018/01/19/shearon-harris-alarms-are-false-police-say/ http://www.startribune.com/malfunction-triggers-sirens-at-north-carolina-nuclear-plant/470155053/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/malfunction-triggers-sirens-north-carolina-nuclear-plant-52470130 Thanks, Alex the Nerd (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alex the Nerd: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect that this alarm would warrant some sort of brief mention in the article about the plant, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. I would suggest visiting the talk page for that article, Talk:Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, and post what you think should be in the article there(especially if you don't feel comfortable adding it yourself). 331dot (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

New Article

I want to know about the new article creation, I recently created a draft article and now it is completed and I removed the AFC tab,but now how do I remove the Draft: from article name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiqdawar (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sadiqdawar. I presume you are referring to Draft:Naqib Mehsud? If so, I advise against trying to put this onto Wikipedia. It sounds like a sad story, but this person and their death at the hands of the police is not something Wikipedia is likely to cover. The individual doesn't meet our guidelines for notability for people. Nor do we cover news stories (see WP:NOTNEWS). If there's an article about the police force, it's more suited to a brief mention in a 'controversy' section, in my view. If you do you still want to go ahead and try to submit it (which I advise against), as you're a very new user and aren't therefore what we call 'autoconfirmed', the right way would be to go through Articles for Creation. I've just put a template at the top of the article which you could use to do this, but you will have no success as the article stands unless you can demonstrate his Notability by Wikipedia's criteria. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this page beind made in a Sandbox page about Electronic Entertainment Expo ready as an official page on Wikipedia?

I am working on the page for Electronic Entertainment Expo 2018 in a Sandbox page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greshthegreat/sandbox_Electronic_Entertainment_Expo_2018 I have uploaded the page twice (once by taking the sandbox pages code and putting in that page, and the other time by removing a redirect someone gave the page) before as an official page, thinking it was ready for a page on Wikipedia, but it was marked Wikipedia:Too soon both times not long after I had made the page or removed it's redirect. That was because little was confirmed about E3 2018, it's presenters, press conferences and games being presented both of those times. Since then Microsoft's Executive Vice President of Gaming Phil Spencer confirmed there having a press conference during Major Nelsons Pdocast, and a news article with info from sources they wouldn't name, says CD Projekt will be showing off a trailer ahd have a playable demo of there game Cyberpunk 2077. Does anyone now think the page is ready to move from a Sandbox page to the page Electronic Entertainment Expo 2018, or is the information to much speculation and rumor, or the page being moved from a sandbox page still to soon for much information to be confirmed? If so, I will wait a bit and add to it as information is confirmed, and if not, I'll move it from a sandbox page. I am asking because I don't want to remove the redirect and add the stuff from my Sandbox page if it's to much specualtion or still Wikipedia:Too soon Greshthegreat (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Greshthegreat. Have several people who have no connection with the event or its promoters chosen to write in depth about it, and been published in reliable sources? (This excludes anything published by the event or its promoters, and anything based on an interview or press release from those people). If the answer is yes, then an article can be written, based almost 100% on what those independent commentators have said about it. If the answer is no, then Wikipedia is simply not interested in the subject at present, and no article will be accepted however it is written. Remember that Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about itself (or what people associated with it say about it), and no interest at all in how a subject wishes to be presented. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about templates

Hi, I largely copied and modified {{Company-list table start}} to make a template, and I am planning to largely copy and modify the documentation as well. Should I add some kind of attribution, like we would for text copied from another article?Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your suggested action is exactly what I would recommend, and fits in with the guidance given here: WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Not only would it fulfil the obligation to acknowledge those who wrote the template/documentation, but it would also provide a clear route back to where your own template documentation originated from in case of query or even making global updates (eg the recent 'well-advertised' alteration of Save changes->Publish changes). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Notable

To make an article notable how many references should be made ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Noname479: Hello. It isn't the number of references that make something notable, it is the information within the references. Quality references are far better than the quantity of references. Please review the page on notability; something is notable if it receives in depth coverage in independent reliable sources(sources not written by or affiliated with the subject). 331dot (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, Noname479 - welcome to the Teahouse. You ask a good question, which 331dot has answered more succinctly than I have! You need to provide enough independent reliable references to demonstrate the subject has been covered in depth and meets our Notability criteria. It's virtually impossible to put an actual number on it for you because sources vary. A single detailed obituary in a reputable national newspaper, or a single entry for a species on the International Plant Names Index or WoRMS database would probably be enough in some cases, whereas a software product might need at least three or four detailed references to help establish it meets WP:NSOFT. An obscure actor or the CEO of a company would still need good, in-depth sources. Sometimes we see twenty or more references to a company, all from insider sources or company press releases - and still the article gets deleted for failing notability. It's all very subjective - so submitting an article via Articles for creation gives you feedback before anything you might write goes live. My apologies for not being able to give you a numeric answer. I hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Noname479. Adding to the useful answers above, please be aware that it is the specific topic which either is or is not notable, not the Wikipedia article. It is the responsibility of an editor who writes an article to show that the topic is notable, by providing references to reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage to that topic. Notable topics are still notable even if no Wikipedia article has yet been written on that topic. For example, most editors agree that top ten hit songs, Olympic athletes, and state and provincial legislators are all notable topics. But we lack thousands of articles about early 20th century examples of these types of topics, because no one has yet written these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirming template supports row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS

Hello,

I was asked in my featured list candidate entry List of Tau Kappa Epsilon brothers to confirm that the template being used, which is a subtemplate of template:mem, supports row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS. How would I go about doing this? I have no idea where to start...

Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jmnbqb. Yes it does. Looking at the HTML code that is generated for the first table in the article, the one with the single line for presidents, shows that the column headers use scope:

<th scope="col" style="width:20%; vertical-align:top;">Name</th>

Rows don't have labels in these tables. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks StarryGrandma. For future reference, where did you access the HTML code for the template? Jmnbqb (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Jmnbqb}, most browsers let you see the source code for the page you are on. On Firefox the menu has a "Web Developer" section with "Page Source". For Internet Explorer click "View" then "Source". In both browsers Ctrl-U will do the same thing. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Not found" link

Hello! What should be done if there is a link which no more exists? I would like to edit an article about Amina Figarova and there is the reference link #2 http://www.aminafigarova.com/basicFrameset-6.htm. Can I delete it? ---Lidiia Kondratieva talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't deleted dead links, see WP:Link rot. If you can find an archive url that is preferable, but otherwise you can tag the link as a dead url. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Lidiia Kondratieva-Instead of deleting the link try replacing that link with [this link] (a working archived version) — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear David Biddulph and Force Radical, Thank you for your help! ---Lidiia Kondratieva talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ask for opinion about draft of the new article "User:CD17/sandbox/Water-filtered infrared-A"

Do you think the draft of the new article "User:CD17/sandbox/Water-filtered infrared-A" in this form appropriate for Wikipedia? How shall I improve the draft before sending it officially to a review? Thank you in advance for your help. CD17 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Two comments:

The draft is about a range of wavelengths of electromagnetic wavelength. It would be nice to have a diagram that shows how it compares with other wavebands – I guess it falls within what is often called "infra-red"? But that's just my opinion.
More seriously: the use of this waveband, at least as described in the draft, is medical. An article on a medical subject should comply with WP:MEDRS, which discourages the use of primary sources. The draft relies almost entirely on research papers, which are primary sources. Also, the use of five or more references to support a single statement will suggest to cynical readers that the statement is in fact contentious. I strongly recommend removing as many as possible of the primary sources. A citation of a single good secondary source will be preferable to citations of multiple (12, in one case) primary sources. Maproom (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @CD17:, and welcome to the Teahouse. 2 quick additional points: 1) With a few exceptions (like direct quotations for example), you shouldn't reference statements in the lead section. The lead section should only provide a succinct summary of the main text, thus such additional lead citations are generally seen as redundant (analogous information must be included and then sourced in the main text of course). You'll find more information about function and content of the lead section at MOS:LEAD. 2) Avoid "cite bombing" simple statements with multiple citations. You should verify such statements with the 1-2 best and most reliable source(s). Additional citations will not increase the statement's accuracy and often make verification more difficult instead. Notable exceptions are controversial or complex claims, where additional citations might be useful for the reader - but that's an editorial case by case judgement to make. Hope these general points help a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help.

Following your advices, I have markedly reduced the citations (28 instead of 59), emphasizing on secondary sources; I have explained the neighboring to visible light; no references in the leading section. Do you have further suggestions for improving the draft of my article? Once again thank you in advance for your help. CD17 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft says that wIRA is "in the range 780-1400 nm". Prove it. Show me a reliable source. Use that as a reference for that fact; if not, remove that fact. Repeat for the rest of the article. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk to user:Doc James or one of the other specialists in WP:MEDRS. Primary sources to original papers are not really acceptable for medical articles, and a lot of the remaining sources fall into that category. Guy (Help!) 01:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All the primary sources need to be removed. And than I will take another look.

The lack of EN language reviews is a bit of a concern. As is the fact that the concept revolves around a small group.

I am seeing nothing about this by the FDA. Do we have EU government sources that discuss it?

User also needs to disclose their connection to the subject in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply based on my version of the draft dated 20:28, 18 January 2018, on Water-filtered infrared-A:

The spectra of wIRA, of the Sun, and of two infrared radiators without water-filter are given in the two figures of the article with extensive text explanations (reachable by clicking on the figures from Wikimedia) by a physicist, Dr. Helmut Piazena, as published in a variety of original and review articles by Dr. Helmut Piazena (e.g. reference 28, review, Piazena/Kelleher 2010). Spectrum of wIRA is also given e.g. in “Vaupel P, Krüger W: Wärmetherapie mit wassergefilterter Infrarot-A-Strahlung. Grundlagen und Anwendungsmöglichkeiten. 1. Aufl. (= edition) Stuttgart: Hippokrates, 1992. 2. Aufl. 1995 (monograph about wIRA)” and e.g. in the review by Winkel et al. (reference 11).

References 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 28 are reviews, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 28 are reviews in English and listed in Medline and Pub Med Central. To my opinion references like 9 (Künzli et al.), published in Annals of Surgery, presenting a double-blinded clinical study with 400 patients, or like 17 (Hartel et al.), published in British Journal of Surgery, presenting a double-blinded clinical study with 111 patients (and with significant and relevant effects of wIRA, p<0.000001), or like 13 (Singer et al.), distinguished as best publication of the year of this journal, are worthwhile to be accepted as reliable sources. As well publications with Prof. Vaupel, like reference 14 (Notter et al.), have a high reputation.

The clinical use of wIRA is not as rare as might be perceived by commentators here at the Wikipedia Teahouse: in Germany i.a. approximately 28% (1045 out of 3767) of the dermatologists working outside a hospital had wIRA in use for treatment of patients (published data from 2012). In addition wIRA is in clinical use in other specialties, like surgery or physical therapy, in well known hospitals, by physicians outside hospitals and by patients at home. A variety of scientists and clinicians work scientifically with wIRA, most of them publishing original papers rather than reviews. CD17 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Userpage

Can i write what i like to do outside of Wikipedia on my userpage? Thegooduser talk 02:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse. Stay within the talk page guidelines and you can write pretty much whatever you please on your userpage. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add, for anyone reading this and not just Thegooduser, that it's never a good idea for any editor to include information that might accidentally identify them, show images of family members, or include their email addresses etc. Nobody is prevented from doing any so, but always consider the implications carefully first. (Contact by email can be enabled in one's Preferences, so it's safer not to put it on a user page). Wikipedia recognises it has many brilliant editors who are not yet legally adult, and so offers this additional advice with their best interests at heart:

Hope this is of relevance. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: See Wikipedia:User pages for the guideline. You can write about yourself but not "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia." PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Can I use the same reference at places of article since it has all the information??

Noname479 (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Noname479. Yes, you may use one reference at many different places throughout an article. However, you only need to enter the full reference just once. You then give that reference a name which you then call again and again in shortened form throughout the document. It makes life so much easier. You can find how to do this here: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations.

It's worth mentioning that if you normally only use VisualEditor to create content, it doesn't at the moment let you add your own helpful ref names. (It is a flaw currently being addressed) You might therefore wish to switch Editors and add a name of your own choosing by that route. Otherwise you're stuck with references being just numbered sequentially, in the format 0:, 1:, 2:, etc., if I remember correctly.

I should also add that if you want to reference one book at different pages each time, there is an easy way to do this too. You follow exactly the same procedure above, but you obviously can't enter a page number if you're going to refer to different pages at different places in your article. This is where Template:Refpage comes in handy. Assuming you want to refer to page 25 in one place and page 39 of the same book elsewhere, just add: {{rp|25}} immediately after the first use of the reference (don't insert any spaces between them). On the next occasion you use that reference, add {{rp|39}} after it. This will display as: ^[1]^: 25, showing it is page 25 of reference 1 and then as ^[1]^: 39 later on. Does this help?

And, by the way, has anyone mentioned that your signature in bright yellow is impossible to read against Wikipedia's white background? Perhaps I could advise you to consider changing this to something that those with visual difficulties (i.e. old fogeys like me!) can see easily. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

When referencing a journal article that's available on jstor.com, is it okay to link instead to a free source?

There's a reference to an article in an academic journal (actually a "letter"), and the link provided goes to jstor.com, where the article may be downloaded for a fee. The same article is available at scholarworks.uno.edu (University of New Orleans) without charge. Is there any reason not to change the reference to link to the free article? Fabrickator (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Fabrickator - I've done the same thing myself, on occasion, where I've referenced an article I initially found on JSTOR but it has been uploaded in a more accessible version elsewhere (for example on a university website or on Academia.edu). As long as you keep the original publication information in-tact (i.e. journal article, volume, etc.) and simply change the URL, I can't imagine any situation in which that's an issue, assuming I'm reading this question correctly. Chetsford (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor font size

The font size for the editor was changed recently. For me, the new font size is too small.

How can I increase the font size in the editor? (I did not find a preference to restore the prior size.) BetterMath (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The font size for the source editor looks the same to me. I keep away from the visual editor.

Have you tried hitting ctrl-+ while using the editor? On most browsers, that will enlarge everthing. Maproom (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hadn't noticed any change of font size either, but then I edit in different browsers across at least four devices, which makes everything always seem different. At risk of 'teaching grandma to suck eggs', I presume you've already experimented with Ctrl+minus /Ctrl+plus in any browser, or experimented with Firefox's Language & Appearance settings, where you can set a minimum font size, or from the main menu select 'zoom text only' - which leaves images the same size? It sounds like you've already tried different skins in Preferences and not found that helpful. Hopefully others might be able to offer other alternatives to enhance viewings if these don't work. (I'd be interested to learn if any changes have actually been implemented, and why). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Editor font size, you might have the same issue. Nthep (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep. Following the links given there leads to this page which does appear to offer a solution to anyone wanting to define their own font size via their stylesheet. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That works! Big thanks to Nthep and Nick Moyes for your very kind help.... BetterMath (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Re reference to ? in article re Eileen Myles

In the article, "they" is used throughout for what was written, what organization was started, where "they" moved to.... Who are "they"? Am I missing something? Shouldn't it be "she" instead of they? Thank you, Lynne O'Brophy73.21.38.196 (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:GENDERID. Apparently, the subject prefers the "singular they", and some sources use this pronoun. The usage should be briefly explained in the article. Dbfirs 15:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a note to the top of Eileen Myles explaining this. (I was surprised that I couldn't find a template for the note). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I really think that should go as an invisible note within the article using , or on its talk page, ColinFine. It now badly messes up how the page looks and especially how it displays with Hovercards. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed a couple of "theys" in the lead to reduce the confusion of readers unfamiliar with the convention. Dbfirs 21:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the note could be in running text, or a footnote, at the first instance of "they"? Dbfirs 00:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

31 hour blocks?

Why do admins frequently choose to apply 31 hour blocks? ([1]) Although the number 31 has many interesting properties, it seems unusual that so many admins have chosen 31 hours as their preferred duration for a short term block. Billhpike (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question! On the block page, there is a dropdown menu of standard times and 31 hours is one of them (between 24 and 36). The admin's guide also mentions that "31 hours is the standard duration for most blocks" but doesn't say why. But searching, I found that "why 31 hours?" gets asked quite frequently. The thinking is that if a vandal is blocked for 24 or 48 hours, they will simply come back at the same time the next day (or the day after), whilst adding a few more hours might disrupt their schedule and cause them to lose interest. As for why it's 31 hours and not a round number, it seems to date back to one particular admin's preference for prime numbers, which became a tradition and was enshrined in the software. – Joe (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike:. – Joe (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect quite a few of us were looking forward to seeing that answer. Thanks, Joe. My favourite in that list is "18:48, 19 January 2018 Favonian blocked ***.***.**.* with an expiry time of 3 years, 6 hours, 32 minutes and 24 seconds". That's one lover of interesting numbers! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I recall an administrator saying that 31 hours was based partly on the idea that vandals were often students, and that a 31-hour block would cover that school day and the next school day, and that the 31-hour block was primarily intended for vandals (rather than other sorts who need blocking such as edit-warriors and flamers). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I also think that I recall seeing someone blocked until 2038, but that is sort of techie black humor for blocking them until the end of the world, because that is the Unix doomsday until they expand the size of the clock. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

Someone just created an article. Im not sure if it's notable. Can someone please help to see if it is notable?Thegooduser talk 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not without you telling us which article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: its called Lynn Zelevansky Thegooduser talk 22:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That article has no references, and therefore does nothing to establish that its subject is notable. (It's the subject that can be notable, not the article. If the subject is notable and the article establishes this by citing suitable sources, then the article will be accepted for Wikipedia.) Maproom (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

While an article is being built it will be missing things, have empty sections that the creator is planning to fill soon and so on. So it's a good idea to wait awhile and see what develops. Especially if you can see from the edit history that an editor is making changes every few minutes. Of course, if you see that they need help it's fine to offer assistance. Gab4gab (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk page archiving

Hi, I am this is not the right place to come for help of my question; however, I am not sure where to go to seek for assistance, please let me know who could hep me on the following: I tried to archive my user talk page yesterday and I only added in the "Archive boxes" script but not the managed to do the 3 months automated archive script (lowercase sigmabot III) as I could not make it work. I just found out today that part of my talk page message (earlier part) was missing and it is not in my archive box. So what should I do and is anyone could help to restoring the message back and set it up for the archive script for me? Kindly point me to the right direction. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is some content missing at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1? Dbfirs 15:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC

@Dbfirs:, Yes, this is the content. Thank you. Just wonder, how to put them in the archive box, if you know, could you pleas let me know how or if not, can someone help instead? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on archive scripts, so perhaps someone else can advise you? Dbfirs 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your main problem was that you had the wrong username in the archive config. I corrected it in this edit. That has created User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 1. Your previous data was in User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1 so I've copied it from there into User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 1 which is accessible from your archive box. You should be able to request deletion of User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1 by tagging it with {{Db-userreq}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: and @David Biddulph:, Thank you both of you for helping. Appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tips for my first article

In the next week or so, I'd like to prepare to write my first article on Wikipedia. I've read a fair amount of information on how to go about this, but what advice would you all give me? MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@MirzaTheGreatest: Hello. I would suggest using Articles for Creation to draft an article which you can then submit for a review and feedback from another editor; this way you can find out any issues before the article is placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards(where people will be more critical). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Sounds great, thank you! It says it will take around two months to be published, is that right? Thank you so much for your help. I feel I'm picking up Wikipedia pretty quickly but just have some questions. MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, MirzaTheGreatest. I assume you've read your first article? There's a lot of useful information there. To address your question: in one sense, everything you write, anywhere on Wikipedia, is immediately "published", in the sense that it is visible to anybody - I take it that that was WMF's idea in the recent change from "Save changes" to "Publish changes". But user pages, draft pages etc are not indexed, so they won't tend to be found by ordinary searches: in that sense, only articles in the main space are "published". How long you take developing your draft before submitting it for review is up to you. Once you submit it for review (if you choose to), it may well take a couple of months before somebody reviews it, but that is an estimate: since all editing in Wikipedia is voluntary, it depends on who is available to review it, and who is interested in doing so. And of course, when somebody does review a draft, they may or may not accept it right away. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Bio text boxes

Hi,

I'm looking for the format template for what I believe are called "infoboxes." This is the box that contains the factual bio of the person you're writing about - i.e. Name, Born, Occupations, Years Active, Website. I tried formatting it myself using the {{{ keys but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Is there a way to insert this, or am I missing a step or a button?

Thanks,

Octopus69Octopus69 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. They are explained at WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Top tip: find an article that has an infobox that is similar to what you want, copy/paste it, and change the details. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Octopus69: If you already know, what infobox you'd like to use, say a musical artist infobox, then go to that template page → {{Infobox musical artist}}, and you'll usually find examples of both shortened and expanded use, often with details explained about specific parameters. --CiaPan (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How to reopen an article-for-deletion discussion

I would like to reopen an article-for-deletion discussion. The article was about a young politician Conor Lamb who is running for office in an important upcoming election. Since the first discussion, there has been significant coverage of Lamb in the media. Politico, NYTIMES and Washington Post have all featured a story about him. However, he has never held office. Unlike his opponent. This has led to the highly unsatisfactory situation that there is an article about this unique election with links to all Republican candidates but the Conor Lamb page is continually deleted (I tried to reinstate it). I am also a bit suspicious of the motives of some of the people involved with editing. In any case, it is now clear that Conor Lamb would pass any reasonable appraisal of his notability.

Just one example:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/23/republicans-brace-for-competitive-pennsylvania-house-race-316206

Here the link to the special election. It seems to me that if this election is so insignificant, this page too should be deleted. If not, both candidates are deserving of an article about them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_18th_congressional_district_special_election,_2018#Democratic_convention

Quigley david (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Quigley david: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have some experience in political-related articles, and I can tell you that the problem you have with Conor Lamb is that the notability guidelines for politicians (WP:POLITICIAN) spell out clearly that merely running for a political office almost always does not make someone notable enough for an article. There are some exceptions to this (Christine O'Donnell is a notable one) but that is the general rule. The coverage of Mr. Lamb is all related to the fact that he is running for office(and much of it is likely intended to promote him as a candidate). If he wasn't running, there likely would not be any coverage and he would not be notable. That said, the exceptions that exist(such as O'Donnell) make it in because the coverage of the person rises to meet the general notability guideline; they have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't know if that is true of Mr. Lamb or not.

To get to your question, you could visit Deletion Review and make a proper request there, but I would urge you to read the instructions there carefully. The one opening I think you would have is to argue the third criterion listed there, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I think that the only way you would succeed is if you had sources only tangentially related to his seeking public office(or not at all) indicating how he is notable, such as in his legal career. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you for your help! Quigley david (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What is sandbox?

Hi Teahouse,

I am a new Wikipedia user. I don't what is sandbox? Can you tell me what is this? Thank You Sidon quintin (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sidon quintin: - your sandbox is an area in user space (so not a main article) where you can experiment and work on articles. It is better to develop your first article (WP:YFA) in the sandbox before creating the article, as it will allow you to verify notability and include sources. Going straight into mainspace can lead to a speedy deletion, which is not ideal. So, in short, it is a place to experiment. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with speedy deletion

Hello, I did my first article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIP_TIG) a couple of months ago with the help of Dodger67 from Teahouse. Now, someone tagged my article for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. But in my opinion, there is no copyright infringement. The article is a technical article about a well know welding process. Please can you help me? THX JP1308 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JP1308, and welcome to the Teahouse. I checked and got a 0.0% match of the article against the page, so no copy was copied across them. I've removed the speedy deletion tag and asked the person who tagged it to explain if their concern persists. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I'm not sure how you checked, a quick copy/search shows it's copied from [2] and seems to be a product. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the report, Doug Weller. Can you point out some phrases that are in both because I've obviously missed any. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I might add that, whilst Earwig's Copyvio tool doesn't show an issue to me (nor on the link Finnusertop has just given to suggest why he thinks it isn't a copyvio either), I have found there is some very close paraphrasing in the second paragraph of the article, perhaps not quite to WP:G12 level. Very weirdly, a Google search seems to return a perfect match of text from that 2nd paragrpah to the TIP TIG website, but I cannot then find the text on the page it links to - just the close paraphrasing. The editor might like to address this anyway and read: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: There is something weird, as a Google search using "site:" also shows the identical text. I can see that here the website says:

"The vibratory effect is created by a linear forward and backward mechanical motion created by the custom wire feeder system and the hotwire current is created by a secondary power source within the TIP TIG welding machine." while the article says:

"The vibration comes from a linear forward and backward motion applied mechanically using a custom wire feeder system. A secondary power, on the other hand, creates the hot wire current."

It's tweaked but still a copyright violation. Some of the original wording was copied from Gas tungsten arc welding and the Tig Tig company website. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

One other question I have as I don't edit this sort of article, it's also a trademark and the name of a company, does that need a mention? Doug Weller talk 13:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and JP1308: I see the user made this declaration: " I work for the AWS and the inventor/owner of this welding process allowed us to use every kind of content/pictures/videos about TIP TIG"- so at a minimum, JP1308, you need to declare your COI on the talk page to avoid breaching our terms of use. You can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:JP1308, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Uw-paid2|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do agree that the very close paraphrasing is equivalent to copyright infringement and that " Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same things". If the editor (JP1308) has any nouse, they'd change that right away, as it ought to be easy to reword, even with such a technical description. (I now see a fair few notices on the editors talk page to guide them through the issues to address.) I've not looked at the merits of the article as though it were proposed for deletion, but in my view the questionner was justified in coming to the Teahouse to ask why it was flagged for speedy deletion under WP:G12. I'm not convinced the whole article shows "unambiguous copyright infringement", as per that CSD rationale, though it might be sailing pretty close to the wind on that one. Whether it meets WP:N, or should have got through WP:AFC in the first place is another matter entirely, which we don't need to address here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks. I've left him a note about paid editing and copyright release. I see that the editor who added the tag says that the website has changed since the tag was added, which would explain why Google was still finding the exact text when searched, that's typically what happens, there's a delay. So in fact it probably was copy and paste, not close paraphrase, which agrees with my finding of copy and paste in the first version.Doug Weller talk 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and your time. I am very sorry if I did something wrong. Yes, I am a welding engineer and yes, I am working for the AWS in the R&D department. Please inform yourself what the AWS stands for and what the AWS is (https://www.aws.org/). And no I DO NOT get any money from TIP TIG or any other welding company. And no I am not related to TIP TIG or any other welding company. My intention when I started to do this article was to write down all the new processes like TIP TIG, CMT, STT, RMD, etc., which came out in the last years and which have a big influence on the whole industry. At the moment I am very overstrained and sad. Please feel free to delete the article that this witch-hunt can find an end.JP1308 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

New page deleted following

Ive just tried to create a page ( An artist Bio, requested by the Artist) the page was deleted by user Theroadislong quoting that the article reads like an advertisement?

Can you help? Kind Regards KevinKlara Kazmi (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kevin (Klara Kazmi) and welcome to the Teahouse.

Several things:

If you are Kevin, you should not be logging in as Klara Kazmi. You need to request a name change if you are going to continue to edit.
Your draft is not deleted, it's still visible at Draft:Klara Kazmi.
Theroadislong properly declined your draft. Their comments emphasize that it reads as promotional, but it also fails to establish that the subject is notable and has no proper references for the things it says about the artist. In it's current state, it would be impossible to accept it as an article.

Perhaps you need to read your first article and referencing for beginners to learn what else you need to do to advance your purposes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin. I'm afraid it looks as if you and your artist friend have an (unfortunately very common) misunderstanding of Wikipedia, in supposing that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with promoting oneself or having an online presence. It does not. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects where somebody (preferably several somebodies) with no connection to the subject has already chosen to publish some in-depth information about the subject (the Wikipedia jargon for that is that the subject is notable. If that is the case, then we can have an article about the subject: it should be based almost entirely on what those independent commentators have published, and the subject (and their associates) will have no control whatever over its content. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Many Thanks, I need to back to friend as well as read through reference for beginners.

Appreciate you taking the time to feedback. Kind regards KevinKlara Kazmi (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Person is unclear on their own facts - how to handle?

What is the best way to handle a person being unclear about their own facts/stories when writing their article? For example (this is in fact the exact issue in the article I'm thinking of), if a person changes the spelling of their name by changing a letter. They've been asked about it more than once, and have given 2 answers: sometimes they say it was changed because it made their name easier to pronounce, and sometimes they say that they changed it because it looked better with the new spelling. I can find reliable sources (published articles or video of the person themselves saying it) for both of these explanations. Should the sentence be phrased something like "He was originally called (name) but changed the C to a K before releasing his first album. He is unclear on his reasons for this; when asked he has said both that he was tired of his name being mispronounced and that he thought the K looked better on paper (insert cites here)"

Is there a general policy on how to write & cite people being confused, cagey, or outright dishonest about their own lives? I can think of many cases where I've heard a notable person, whether as a deliberate untruth, simply forgetting, or mixing up stories, tell the same story or explanation of their life in two different ways on two different occasions.

Peeteygirl (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Peeteygirl and welcome to the Teahouse.

Overriding anything the subject has to say about their name is the WP:COMMONNAME policy of using the name that reliable sources use for the subject. If the sources are consistent and don't mention any variations, then you don't need to address the issue at all. If they are inconsistent and give an explanation for the inconsistency, that's what we report. If there's no good explanation for the inconsistency, we simply report the alternate names without trying to resolve the inconsistency. It may seem disrepectful, but get give relatively little weight to what the subject has to say about such things, in part because of the reasons you bring up. Readers who are intrigued about the name variations should be able to satisfy their curiousity by following the citations you give, but do not necessarily get to have their curiosity completely slaked by what you write - that sort of issue is seldom noteworthy enough for detailed coverage in an encyclopedia article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi jmcgnh!

The subject changed the spelling of his name before he achieved any level of fame and has only ever been popularly known by the "k" spelling. All sources, promotional material, his own media etc. refer to him using this spelling. There's no question of what spelling to use in the article. The spelling change is only relevant as a bit of trivia, really, but might from some perspectives be considered significant enough to warrant a brief mention in the biographical section. And that's what it has now - a single line mentioning the spelling change and quoting one of the reasons. There's no inconsistency of the spelling now - only in his explanations of why he changed it. Would it be best then, in this case, to simply state that the spelling was changed, provide a cite, and elaborate no more on the topic beyond those few words? It is quite a trivial thing on the whole since his entire public career has been with the second spelling. It is valuable to briefly mention the old spelling as there are one or two very old (as in, during his childhood old) credits of him with the old spelling, but as you say, including the reasons given for the change may very well be too much anecdotal information for an encyclopedic source such as this.

Editing my own post for extra info: the person in question is Mika, a person in whom I have great interest and am very knowledgeable. His article is very poor and I would like to work on improving it, and this line about the spelling change is one of the things that I noticed needed improvement among the sea of other things wrong with the page.-Peeteygirl (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Peeteygirl, If you look at Mika, you´ll see it´s not an article about a person. Do you mean one of the people under Mika#Nickname_or_stage_name? WP:EXPERT and WP:BLP may be helpful to you, maybe also WP:ADVOCACY (because "great interest in"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång Ah! My apologies. I did not mean to link to the list of people. I actually knew that page existed and I should have realized that's what would happen. My primary forays into editing in the past have been mostly fixing typos, so I am sometimes not well versed in proper formatting here. I was intending to link to Mika_(singer). I would like to make it very clear that while I am a fan/expert of this person, I have no intention of editing the article for advocacy/promotional/biased purposes. I merely want to use my expertise to improve the quality and factual content of an article which is not very good as it stands. Peeteygirl (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)