Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 825

Teahouse/Questions/Archive 825
Teahouse/Questions/Archive 825
Born	Ostermann Helmut
	{{Infobox member of the Knesset \|embed=yes \| image = Uri Avneri 1965-11-01 (cropped).jpg \| caption = Avnery in 1965 \| birth_date = {{Birth date\|df=y\|1923\|9\|10\|}} \| birth_place = [[Beckum, Germany\|Beckum]], Germany \| death_date = {{death date and age\|df=y\|2018\|8\|20\|1923\|9\|10\|}} \| death_place = [[Tel Aviv]], [[Israel]] \| Year of Aliyah = 1933 \| Knesset(s) = [[Israeli legislative election, 1965\|6]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1969\|7]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1977\|9]] \| party1 = [[Meri (political party)\|Meri]] \| partyyears1 = 1965–1974 \| party2 = [[Left Camp of Israel]] \| partyyears2 = 1979–1981 }}

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 820

←

→

creating two pages - Dr Fre and PENHA

Hi - I would like to create a page for Dr Zeremariam Fre and PENHA - Dr Fre has just been awarded the prestigious Desmond Tutu Fellowship award for his lifetime work on environmental care and as founder of the Pastoral and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa (PENHA), of which Joanna Lumley is Patron. Could you point me in the right direction for new page creation? thank you Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolekenton (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The page you need to read is WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nicolekenton. David Biddulph has pointed you in the right direction. I would just like to give you a couple of words of caution. First, what you are proposing to do - create a new article - is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new users to spend a few weeks, or months, improving some of our five million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works. Second, I advise you to frame it as "writing an article" not "creating a page". Wikipedia is explicitly not about telling the world about something, no matter how praiseworthy that something may be: that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: it collects and summarises what has already been published about a subject - preferably by people unconnected with the subject. Wikipedia has very little interest in what any subject says or does (or wins) except insofar as an independent reliable source has talked about it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting sources for BLP age

I came across a case of where the age of a living musician is conflicting. An article from Rolling Stone claims the musician in question (Adonis) was 19 when he recorded a certain song, however, going by his birth date sourced from Encyclopedia of Popular Music, he would've been around 22-23. Where should I ask for advice on how to handle this conflict? RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If both appear to be reliable sources, then the article either needs to omit the information entirely, or to say that the sources disagree, without attempting to resolve the disagreement. If another reliable source discusses the conflict, we can of course report that source's conclusions. But any attempt to resolve the conflict in the article would be original research, which is forbidden. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating my question, but where can I ask more experienced (music) biography editors for help? RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

RoseCherry64, You might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. I have not been involved with that project, but the title suggests that it might be the resource that you need. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indenting. Talk page.

Does one of the edit buttons insert a next-level-indent? MBG02 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi MBG02, as far as I can tell, no. You just change the indent level by typing more colons in source mode. › Mortee _talk 21:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Picking sources/Poor choices of sources

Hi, I'm new. My question is, if I at some point accidentally choose a source that was a bad choice, how might another user point that out and how could I fix it and find a better source? (Or would they just delete it without saying why?)

Jecgecko (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If you add content with a ref that is not considered suitable for Wikipedia (company press release, etc.) another editor may delete the content and ref, hopefully stating the cause. You can see editors' reasons by clicking on View history. I suggest you look at an article topic you are knowledgeable about and see the process. If editors are in disagreement the right place to conduct a debate is the article's Talk page. I noticed you User page stats student, cell biology. Medicine and health articles have a higher standard for citations, explained at WP:MEDRS. Briefly, no in vitro, no animal, no clinical trials. Respond here or create a new section at my Talk page if you have more questions. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Jecgecko, If you need more explanation than what the history provides, you can contact the editor who made the change via his or her talk page. That editor will probably be glad to advise you. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Many edits?

If I'm making heavy editing on an article, can I make many edits or is it better to do just 1 or two edits? AGF (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Agf2: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While it's personal preference, you should save periodically to make sure the edits are saved, especially if there is heavy editing by other users on the article as well. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 22:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. AGF (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Agf2, two further thoughts: 1) making lot of small edits can also help if disagreements arise. It makes it clearer what your thinking was (through edit summaries) and if you do get reverted, it will be a small part of your work, not the whole thing. 2) Your user name happens to be very similar to a commonly cited Wikipedia guideline, AGF. Your signature looks confusing because of that. Might you consider picking a different name, or at least changing your signature to include the 2? Welcome to Wikipedia, and all the best. › Mortee _talk 23:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Extreme example, but in effort to bring Luna moth to Good Article status, about 100 edits before the review started and 100 after. David notMD (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Agf2: While I would encourage newer editors to make small edits while they learn their way around Wikipedia, it's really a matter of personal preference between making small or large edits. One consideration when making a major overhaul or expansion of an article is that the intermediary stages may be a bit messy, disorganized, or contradictory. This may lead to edit conflicts as other editors try to clean up the intermediary stages while you're still working on the article. One solution is to put a template like {{under construction}} or {{in use}} at the top of the article (or section) so readers and editors will know you're working on it and that it may not not be entirely accurate moment-to-moment. Another solution is to do the editing in a sandbox, moving it to the article when you're finished. With the sandbox approach, you can also invite other editors to check your work and build consensus for the changes, if they might be controversial.

I hope this helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all answers, I got it clearly. AGF (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Local vs Municipal elections

Hi, a newbie question here. I have found that local and municipal elections ale considered the same thing on English Wikipedia (municipal redirects to local), yet they seem to be a different things on Wikidata and articles on municipal elections in one language don't consider themselves to be articles on local elections in another (and vice versa). Should they be separate or merged, currently it seems like just a big mess. Thanks for explanation or hints on what to do. Zoted (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In the United States, municipal elections are a subset of local elections, which also include county elections. I don't know about any other Anglophone country. In other languages the terms for different administrative subdivisions may not translate consistently, and I can't speak for Wikidata. I think that any discussion of whether to keep them separate or merge them should be on a case-by-case basis. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In the UK, I don't think we use the term "municipal election". There are local elections and national ones. Elections for county councils, city councils, city mayors etc are all local. I'm not surprised that Wikidata is unable to maintain consistency since these level distinctions are quite arbitrary from society to society and Wikidata tries to be language-agnostic. › Mortee _talk 22:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The differences between countries are enough, and then there are differences in languages. In the United States, Canada, and Australia, there is a level in between national and local, which is state or provincial, and that makes it complicated enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

To do better editing

How can Tea House teach me to do better editing on Wikipedia,please elaborate.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyayan2 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jyayan2, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place designed for newer users to ask any specific questions they have about how to edit Wikipedia. You can have a look through the page to see the kinds of things people ask. While you're getting to know Wikipedia, if there's something confusing or that you'd like confirmation about, you can ask us here. › Mortee _talk 20:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Jyayan2, I agree with the comment above. Reading answers to other people's questions has helped me to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I will also suggest something that I have done — create a list of useful links that people post. When I read a post that contains a link that I think might help me in the future, I add that link to my list. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant any longer to our departed OP, but I have a similar list and I think it's a helpful strategy. › Mortee _talk 23:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is my list User:Shushugah/documentation it's nice way to self document occasional problems and my solutions I found along the way. Shushugah (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How to post my first article page

Hi everybody. I´ve been editing some pages but this is my first full page in Wikipedia but not sure how can I move it. Can anybody tell me or if somebody wants to take a look and help me post it? It´s a simple article about the novel "Lights on the Sea" that I recently read and, I realized that hasn´t had any page in Wikipedia. My idea is to fill more info about the book and the author but first I want to get sure if it´s enough neutral and figure it out how to move it to Wikipedia.

This is the articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Josanva/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josanva (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Josanva: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your article I am Sorry to say that your article might not be ready for Wikipedia this time. But don't be discouraged. Please read Your First Article then submit your draft to Articles For Creation. I myself had many of my articles declined. Keep trying and most importantly do not be discouraged.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Replacing infoboxes

Hi, I found an article about a company in a non-Anglophone country with some outdated info in the infobox. Looking at the article in the country's native language, their infobox had some more up-to-date details. I could update it, but it seems that it would be difficult to keep up with. However, when I look at the page with the (undocumented) Infobox company/wikidata template (after adding the details to Wikidata), it seems like no information is lost from the current state, plus it would have the benefits of keeping up with Wikidata changes. However, when looking up the policy for this, I found a recent discussion on Wikidata infoboxes, and it seems to be a contentious issue. Additionally, I don't know of any other articles which use this template, so maybe it's not ready for primetime. Is there a policy in place for this? ARR8 (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

See here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Issues trying to clean up article

I've tried to clean up some of the issues at People's Mujahedin of Iran article, but my edits have been continuously reverted by the same three editors despite me quoting from RS. The three editors that keep reverting me work together in many Islamic Republic of Iran-related topics, and one of them was recently blocked for POV-pushing/sockpupetry. I've added a RfC on the article's Talk page, where two users have supported my proposed edits, and one has opposed. Based on this, I'd like to include this info to the article, but the opposing editor will likely revert me again, as he's done in the past. I want to avoid edit-warring. Any advice? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You should probably let the RfC run its normal course. Yes, it means that a few bad-faith editors can easily derail a discussion and make it take much more time than needed, but a one-week old RfC with no clear consensus should not be decided by one of the RfC participants. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Tigraan, the RfC was filed on July 30th, and Legobot removed the RfC template as "expired" on August 29th. Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Oh, I misread the dates, I thought it was filed on August 30th. In that case, it is hard to say. You can try listing it at WP:ANRFC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Tigraan, reading through WP:ANRFC's guidelines, the first point states that "Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here... if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early." Since this particular case seems to meet these requirements (30 days have passed, and there is a majority vote supporting the change), am I right to think that the discussion can be closed and the text inserted into the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: majority vote ≠ clear consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. It might be that there is indeed consensus, but it is not such an overwhelming one that an involved editor closing it would be appropriate (hence my suggestion to list at ANRFC). You might get away with implementing the changes without formally closing the RfC, but I would not recommend it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Editcountitis

how many edits have I made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lol dolls (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lol dolls and welcome to the Teahouse. You have made 8 edits until now. By the way, I've added a good heading for this thread. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lol dolls, you can see all your edits by clicking the "Contributions" links at the top of the page, which will take you to Special:Contributions/Lol_dolls. There are lots more statistics in the XTools Edit Counter. › Mortee _talk 15:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Work harder on quality rather than quantity. All of your edits have been reverted by other editors, and your draft has been deleted because it contained copyright material, i.e., song lyrics. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: While those in the know surely had a smile at the header, that laugh came at the expense of the OP. You could at least have linked to the inside joke reference. We should strive to make the Teahouse a welcoming place for new editors and snide remarks like these (even if joking) do not really help; David notMD makes the same point in a direct and helping manner. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How to insert a "quick facts" table

Hi,

I want to have a quick facts table in my wikipedia article about 10Bet but I dont know how to do it!

I have added a table but it looks wrong!

Thanks Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremylast77 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What you're looking for is called an Infobox, for your draft you probably want {{Infobox company}}. rchard2scout (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Exceptions to the Primary Source Prohibition

There is a sound exceptions to the Primary Source Prohibition for current leading edge activity, but there is another area which should also have an exception. Here is a use case: X creates and article on a subject S. X uses a Very Good Secondary Source K for much of the technical information. However, K is a technological journal which pays little if any attention to minor administrative facts. For example, a secondary source K might have been selected because it is an excellent new mathematical algorithm. However, K might have included the author's report of the budget that financed the development of the algorithm of the timing of the development which the author may inadvertently erred about. As a Referee for several technical journals I have very often approved a publication that was scientifically correct without worrying about the accuracy of the dates or the budget amounts as for the purposes of our journal, mathematics, we paid little or not attention to thise minor and "insignificant" details.

So X creates a Wikipedia article there people may seek the article to determine S's historical place in the timeline of mathematics development. K however may have inadvertently been in error as to the minor things like data or funds. This can always occur and I submit that our current rules and policies make it almost impossible to fix this error. A primary document like laboratory notes or Internal Project reports or company budgets which clearly contradicts the error in the secondary source and proves the error, by our rules, may not be used and we must leave the article with the incorrect information.

Therefore I suggest that where there are primary documents that contradict factual material in an article based on secondary sources, that the primary sources be allowed to make a correction, We could have a polity that states both facts and what the evidence is for each. Frankly, it pains me as I have found a few articles that are clearly wrong and I have changed one only to have the change depreciated by an editor who was correctly applying our existing policy-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymath9636 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which prohibition you are talking about. Have you read WP:PRIMARY? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The case that OP cites (which really sounds like it's really not all that hypothetical) would be a case where a primary source (esp. A primary document like laboratory notes or Internal Project reports or company budgets) probably would be questionable. Interpretation of primary sources requires a non-primary source to verify. So, a plot summary of a book can just cite the book itself, but we'd need a non-primary source to verify that the lab notes, project reports, or company budgets in question are the correct documents, that the portion that is cited in them contradicts other sources, and that the primary documents are the correct ones. In this case, there's also the problem that I'm not sure those documents are actually published (I don't see where IBM's publication contracts with Lewis D. Eigen have been published, if they even have). That could raise some questions as to how exactly Polymath9636 had access to those documents, but even ignoring that there's the problem that I don't see how anyone without connections to IBM or their lawfirms is supposed to be able to verify that information.

@Polymath9636: How did you access IBM's contracts? How do you expect us to access those contracts to verify your claims? Without using your own research, how can you verify that:

the documents you cite are the relevant ones?
you are citing the relevant parts of the documents (rather tricky as you just cited the entire document)?
the mistake was not present in the primary source and/or corrected in the secondary?

These issues are why we favor non-primary sources. Imagine if I cited my (now expired) contract I had with China Jiliang University. How would you verify the information without contacting me? Would you believe what I said was in my contract over what's in a professionally published source? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The way I read the original request, it is when a secondary source is reliable of some part of the stuff, but wrong on other parts. Since reliability depends on context, that is absolutely not a contradiction. It probably is not correct to use (e.g.) research papers as sources for author affiliation, funding etc. since the reliable and secondary part of those (via peer review etc.) does not check that kind of thing. On the other hand, using primary sources (e.g. a research group's website) is fine for trivia such as funding sources and lab members (as long as there is no controversy about these things, e.g. a crank health website claiming a Nobel prize winner as scientific advisor). However, in any case, we need a published source, not private info. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

someone hacked my countries wikipedia

please help me get the account back im trying to take down a semi locked page from a hacker writing false information is very dangerous please help. the page is wikepedia.com/DominicanRepublic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate2020 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Kate2020, nothing had been hacked. The page Dominican Republic was using outdated information, true, but there's no need to get upset about that. rchard2scout (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Kate2020 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that your country does not have "a Wikipedia", it has a Wikipedia article about it. And as Rchard2scout stated, it has not been "hacked:. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, incorrect information can sometimes be added, either unintentionally or otherwise. If you believe information in an article is incorrect for some reason, you should post on the article's associated talk page. If you are looking at the article on a computer, click "Talk" at the top of it to access that page. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Accused of creating an attack page.

There is an edit on my talk page titled "July 2018", User_talk:Rajah#July_2018, from another user warning me that I have created an attack page. I have no idea what they are talking about. They don't say what the page is/was and my contributions list my most recent page creation as having occurred in 2013. So, I'm not sure what they are talking about and I'm kind of annoyed to be falsely accused of doing something that #1 I didn't do and #2 would never do in the first place. Can anyone here please help me understand what is going on? (I realize this is a forum for new users, but I wasn't sure to post as even though I have 1000s of edits over a 14 year span, I never much troubled myself with all the controversies like these. --Rajah (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rajah, welcome to the Teahouse. After some digging, it looks like the page was Great American Hypocrites, which you created in 2010 and which was deleted this July, shortly after that warning. I'm not an administrator, so I can't see what the content was, or whether it might have been hijacked one way or another. Perhaps you could ask the deleting admin to have a look and explain it, or perhaps a passing admin here can help. › Mortee _talk 20:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That page did not seem like an attack page to me. Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics is the title of a book by Glen Greenwald, a highly notable author. A neutral article about the book is not an attack page. Anthony Bradbury was the deleting administrator, and I hope he can explain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Yes, that was just a page on a book, but it was not an attack page. I'm not annoyed that it was deleted though, just that random editors can put the scarlet letter warnings on one's talk page with no due process at all. If it was vandalism or something like that, I would understand, but anyway just letting people know it makes a 14 year editor with ~10,000 edits not want to stick around. --Rajah (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The only content apart from references was: "Great American Hypocrites is a 2008 book by Glenn Greenwald which examines the myth-making and exploitation of cultural, gender and psychological themes by the Republican Party". I don't know why it was labelled an attack page but I would have formulated the sentence differently to make it clear that it only describes what the book says. It sounded like Wikipedia accepted the premise of the book. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A reminder that you are not required to keep all (or any) posts on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That wording could be more neutral, but it's far from an attack. Besides, the page has been a redirect for the last four years. I think the deletion must have been a mix-up; I've asked Anthony if he'll reverse it on his talk page. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been undeleted. @Rajah: As David says, you can feel free to remove the message from your talk page. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. Cheers Rajah (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Leaving WP

If a person wants to leave WP, does he have inform some admins? I have been really disappointed as a number of editors here have always tried to discourage me. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, User:Knightrises10. If someone wants to leave Wikipedia, all they need to do is stop editing. There is no need to inform an administrator. Some users do choose to use a template such as Template:Retired, to let visitors to their userspace know they have left.

However, as long as you are on board with Wikipedia's aim of creating a free well-referenced encycopedia, I would encourage you to stick around, read some advice pages, be polite and keep editing, starting with small things like copyediting. Good places to start are Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Community Portal. Also, given your userpage, might I recommend a quick skim of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, if you have not seen that already. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreyGreenWhy: I actually never would want to leave Wikipedia, but sometimes I am just disappointed. Thanks for advice though. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Nesting infobox inside each other

I am trying to add the field birth_name to Uri Avnery's infobox. Currently, it uses {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} which does not have that field. I have a few options.

1. Propose to edit to {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} to include the new field (I don't have template editing abilities) 2. Wrap the template inside another one. I tried this, but it has some styling issue, see enclosed markup and result below, with 'birth_name' being Ostermann Helmut, but there is a duplication of the article name (it says "Tea House" because I posted it here)

Infobox person within Infobox member of the Knesset

Markup

Renders as

{{Infobox member of the Knesset
 | image          = Uri Avneri 1965-11-01 (cropped).jpg
 | caption        = Avnery in 1965
 | birth_date     = {{Birth date|df=y|1923|9|10|}}
 | birth_place    = [[Beckum, Germany|Beckum]], Germany
 | death_date     = {{death date and age|df=y|2018|8|20|1923|9|10|}}
 | death_place    = [[Tel Aviv]], [[Israel]]
 | Year of Aliyah = 1933
 | Knesset(s)     = [[Israeli legislative election, 1965|6]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1969|7]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1977|9]]
 | party1         = [[Meri (political party)|Meri]]
 | partyyears1    = 1965–1974
 | party2         = [[Left Camp of Israel]]
 | partyyears2    = 1979–1981
 |module= {{infobox person
 |birth_name = Ostermann Helmut
}}}}

{{Infobox member of the Knesset | image = Uri Avneri 1965-11-01 (cropped).jpg | caption = Avnery in 1965 | birth_date = {{Birth date|df=y|1923|9|10|}} | birth_place = [[Beckum, Germany|Beckum]], Germany | death_date = {{death date and age|df=y|2018|8|20|1923|9|10|}} | death_place = [[Tel Aviv]], [[Israel]] | Year of Aliyah = 1933 | Knesset(s) = [[Israeli legislative election, 1965|6]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1969|7]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1977|9]] | party1 = [[Meri (political party)|Meri]] | partyyears1 = 1965–1974 | party2 = [[Left Camp of Israel]] | partyyears2 = 1979–1981 |module= {{infobox person |birth_name = Ostermann Helmut }}}}

Edit (possible solution) Infobox member of the Knesset within Infobox person

Markup

Renders as

  {{infobox person
   |birth_name = Ostermann Helmut
   |module= {{Infobox member of the Knesset
   |embed=yes
   | image          = Uri Avneri 1965-11-01 (cropped).jpg
   | caption        = Avnery in 1965
   | birth_date     = {{Birth date|df=y|1923|9|10|}}
   | birth_place    = [[Beckum, Germany|Beckum]], Germany
   | death_date     = {{death date and age|df=y|2018|8|20|1923|9|10|}}
   | death_place    = [[Tel Aviv]], [[Israel]]
   | Year of Aliyah = 1933
   | Knesset(s)     = [[Israeli legislative election, 1965|6]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1969|7]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1977|9]]
   | party1         = [[Meri (political party)|Meri]]
   | partyyears1    = 1965–1974
   | party2         = [[Left Camp of Israel]]
   | partyyears2    = 1979–1981 }}
  }}

Shushugah (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah, I've tried a few possibilities in my sandbox, and you're welcome to look through the history there to see my attempts. I was able eventually to make it work, but it uses |child= in {{Infobox person}}, which, per the documentation, is deprecated. This can't be the right solution. {{Infobox}} also says it's not generally meant for use in articles. Perhaps someone more expert can tell us both how to do it properly. › Mortee _talk 22:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, as you say, the right solution is to extend {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} directly. You could discuss that here or request a change using the "Submit an edit request" button you see when you try to edit it yourself. › Mortee _talk 22:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mortee for the advice and attempts! I found that embedd=yes param in conjunction with module param works in the second example, which is easiest/simplest solution for now. I edited the markup above to use it. Shushugah (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Nice job Shushugah. Perhaps move more parameters up into the {{Infobox person}} like this? That moves the birth name down. I haven't come across |embed=. Is there documentation for it somewhere? › Mortee _talk 23:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it. Unless there's something even better that another respondent can point us to, I think this has to be the right way. › Mortee _talk 23:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

See my edit here, good call with moving up overlapping params Shushugah (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me

› Mortee _talk 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent info - I recommend adding a fourth section to Help:Infobox#Adding an infobox to an article called #Nesting infoboxes, and include this info. I'll post a note on that article's talk page also, so see if people watching that page want to take this project on. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave the documentation for someone more expert because I'm not clear if |child= (equivalent to |embed=) is deprecated only on {{Infobox person}} (because it never makes sense for 'person' to be the sub-box) or in general (because any more specific infoboxes could support all the 'person' parameters directly, in principle). › Mortee _talk 11:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the best solution is to merge the infobox into {{Infobox officeholder}}, which should have all the required fields. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC).

line numbers visible?

Hi, is there a way to temporarily show line numbers at the side while editing, so I can locate a line where I have been told there is an issue? Difficult to manually try and count down 50 lines. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yororipas (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please give us some context. I see this edit of yours but I do not find where Dianaa (or anyone else) complained about a copyright issue specifically on "line 54" - the only post I see from Dianaa to you is [1].

Please tell us where it happened, because there is no such thing as "lines" in the HTML format (or wikimarkup) since text flows; what is line 50 on a computer could be line 150 on a mobile phone, for instance. So I strongly suspect you misread the post, and it is actually about reference 54 or something similar. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

page deletion

hy i want ask something any one can tell me that how much time is required for removal of deletion notify ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul rehman.malik10 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about South Korean drama television series in Pakistan, someone left a proposed deletion template. These can be removed, no question asked, at any time by anyone, but if you remove one without any reason it is likely to end up at the serious discussion and be deleted after a discussion. In that case however, I tagged it with a speedy deletion criterion, because that topic was already deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia in a previous discussion; this should take a few hours, tops, before an admin comes by and either deletes or removes the tag. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox

What is my sandbox used for? Can you please explain what I should write on my sandbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CONTRIẞUTIONS (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@CONTRIẞUTIONS: As you can see at WP:ABOUTSAND, sandboxs are for testing new code to make sure it does not break the page, drafting new material for other pages, and other things like that.

It is for working on articles, not for posting about every single day of your life. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Independent Referencce

Hello everyone,

I have had an entry turned down - please could someone give me a straightforward example of an 'independent reference'

Thank you so much

Best

Angie — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVIGD (talk • contribs) 10:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@AVIGD: Very simple - go to the front page of any reputable newspaper (for instance, The New York Times), pick any reporting story (not in the "opinion" pages though), that is an independent source for any important point of the story.

To have an entry accepted, you need a bit more than "independent" though for the sources. The requirements are outlined at WP:GNG: essentially, the source must be (1) independent of the subject (interviews with the subject, press releases from her company, etc. do not count); (2) reliable (the source has some quality editorial control: blogs from random internet persons do not count) and (3) "significant coverage", meaning it deals at length with the subject (business listings, phonebooks, short mentions of the like "company X merged with company Y" do not count). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

AVIGD: if this is about Draft:Ian Drummond, it currently not only cites no independent references, it cites no references at all (though it does include direct external links, which are not acceptable in Wikipedia articles). To learn how to cite references, please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing ebooks

Hi. I am currently editing HMS Terror (I03) but have stumbled across a problem while citing an ebook. The ebook reader doesn't show page numbers but instead displays the fraction of the book you are currently looking at (e.g. you are reading 485.7/835 on screen while the paperback book has only 256 pages). Is there a prefered/recommended way for representing page numbers in this situation? In the interim I have opted to quote the chapter/section number (e.g. <ref>Buxton 2008 Chapter 8.3</ref>). From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi From Hill To Shore, I don't think it matters too much. I've seen a lot of book citations recently (due to my work on Category:Pages with ISBN errors), and most citations don't have a page number referenced at all. Using the chapter/section number (and/or possibly the chapter title?) should be fine. rchard2scout (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Inline book citations should give page numbers wherever possible. Rchard2scout, I'd guess you're coming across these page-less books mostly in lists of consulted works separate from the inline citations. Those are meant either as general works consulted (no particular page), or for several citations to point to, which should be specifying the book numbers themselves, e.g. with {{sfn}}.^[1]

From Hill To Shore, for e-books, the best I can find in the archives of Template talk:Cite book is this discussion from 2011, which suggests you can use the location (the number you see), or the chapter and section (and perhaps paragraph, for long sections) as you have been doing.^[2]^[3] › Mortee _talk 21:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes

^ Mortee 2015, p. 42.
^ Mortee 2018, location 485.
^ Mortee 2018, chapter 8, section 2.

References

Mortee (2015). Mortee's Big Fake Book. Fake University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Mortee (2018). Mortee's Big Fake Sequel (Kindle e-book). Fake University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

That's useful, thank you. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 brooklyn shooting

i want to create this. Sofiagrama6 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Find it pretty hard to believe there was only one shooting in Brooklyn in 2018. I assume you're speaking of Brooklyn, NY, but seriously I'd find it hard to believe there was only one shooting in 2018 in Brooklyn, Michigan, much less NYC. John from Idegon (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A Google News search shows that there have been several shootings in Brooklyn recently, but none of them appear notable to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sofiagrama6, welcome to the Teahouse. I take it this is regarding Draft:2018 brooklyn shooting. To make an article, you should read WP:Your first article. It's not enough to give the title of the page, you need to fill in some of the content and add some good references before an article can be published. You've picked a difficult subject for a first article. See WP:NOTNEWS for one policy often cited in this area. This may not be the right choice. If you have questions while editing other topics, you're welcome to ask more questions here. › Mortee _talk 22:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did say that if they were trying to create a draft, they should ask for advice at the Teahouse. Were you asking someone else to create the article on a topic? As noted, you didn't give enough information to indicate what shooting, and besides Articles for Creation is for review of drafts (and I thought that maybe you had tried to enter a draft and hit the wrong button by accident), and not for requested articles. We do have a queue called Requested Articles, but it tends to have a backlog in years rather than days or weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The most complex template

Where can I find a list of the most complex templates or wiki markup used in English wikipedia? Granted, a good template is ideally simple, otherwise almost no one could edit it without breaking stuff :P Shushugah (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Since none has answered yet: actually, some templates invoke arbitrary Lua scripts, which can grow to impressive sizes. For instance, gaze upon Module:Citation/CS1, which is the backend for most citation templates. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Curious why you're looking for complicated templates in particular! One place to look might be templates invoking templates that invoke the warning {{intricate template}}. I'm not sure where to look for complications in other areas. › Mortee _talk 23:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How to cite the same reference several times with the same serial number?

I want to cite the same reference several times in a wiki page, but each time I cite it gets a new serial number, like it is [1] the first time I cite (because it is the first citation of the page) but when I cite the second time it is [4] (because it is the fourth among all citations). I just want them to have the same citation serial number but I don't know how. I am grateful for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zc110320 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zc110320, have you seen the Help:Referencing for beginners page...? I think the section #Same reference used more than once may be of special interest for you. --CiaPan (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh it is there. Thank you so much and I apologize for not reading through the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zc110320 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

:) Glad to help. Don't worry about 'not reading', there are so many guidelines, policies, rules and preferred styles on Wikipedia, that probably no one can know them all. You just need to not hesitate to ask. CiaPan (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zc110320: At risk of complicating things, but adding to what has just been said, by CiaPan it is - as you'll have found out - necessary to allocate a simple-to-remember name to references you want to reuse again and again. You can do this most easily when you use the source editor (i.e., 'Edit source' tab) because the drop-down template gives you a field (Ref name) to type one in. Unfortunately, at present, the Visual Editor ('Edit' tab) still doesn't do this (though a fix is in train, I believe). Instead, it can only allocate a sequential Ref name number like :1 :2 :3 :4 etc to new references. But what it does have is a really helpful option in its Cite tool to 'reuse' a citation. So what I sometimes do is to ensure I use the source editor when adding references I'm likely to want to re-use, giving them my own 'Ref name' to help me remember which is which. I then use the Visual Editor not only for automatically generating further references from ISBN numbers, urls to newspapers etc, but to take advantage of this 're-use' citation facility. Hope this make some sense and doesn't muddy the water! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate your advice. Feel the impulse to try out different ways! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zc110320 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

movie casting

heyy guys,

im doing a movie and added my name in casting of a movie, varma. this is my first movie and hence there is no talk about me in google. one of the editors just keeps editing and deleting my name off and in spite of me telling him that he can counter check with the directors office and that im doing the movie, hes trying to make my life difficult. what is the procedure in stopping that editor in creating a nuisance? the editor is Kailash29792.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rraj6 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rraj6: We do not "counter check with the director's office" because that would be original research. A core tenet of Wikipedia is that the information that's in there is verifiable, meaning, in publicly-available sources (of sufficient quality, but the problem here is "publicly available"). Kailash29792 is not trying to make [your] life difficult (please assume good faith of other editors), but quite appropriately challenging unsourced information. If you can provide a published source (it needs not be online) crediting you with that role, that will allow your text to stick.

As a side note, please see WP:MINOR before marking any other edit as "minor". Anything that changes the meaning of the Wikipedia text (in particular adding information) is not minor. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

help please

i want to add new articles to wikipedia but dont know how. all i get is article wizard and drafts. help please????--Sofiagrama6 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Sofiagrama6. The best advice is at WP:Your first article, I think. For some of the core guidelines, see WP:N and WP:V, for help with referencing see WP:Referencing for beginners. Those, and links from them, should help. I'll post a standard welcome to your talk page that includes other links you may find useful. › Mortee _talk 23:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sofiagrama6. Your enthusiasm to contribute here is to be commended. But every new article needs to be about a notable subject, and to be supported by one or more references (citations) which support every statement made. Creating a new encyclopaedia page is one of the hardest tasks to achieve here. Most sensible editors begin my making small improvements (edits) and gradually learn about what is and is not acceptable. News stories generally don't merit articles, unless they've been covered in depth by multiple media outlets. The three word page you've drafted falls very short of a worthwhile article at the moment. You will definitely need to work on it. My impression is that this news story doesn't merit an article here. Do have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure to get a sense of what's involved in contributing to the world's greatest online encyclopaedia (and collect 15 badges of achievement along the way, too). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

TBI

I have a condition that won't allow me to participate in certain programs. It's my memory, its too full. My cup runneth over. Brain traumatized. My healing is on its way.Thanks.

Sincerely,Christine Leticia Layson (DeHart) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Believe7428 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Believe7428. Welcome to our Teahouse. We have many editors here with 'conditions' that some might consider unusual. But they still make fantastic editors. This doesn't mean that they can edit in a way that breaches our policies or guidelines. I simply hope you will feel able to contribute here in a way that does fit in with your current condition. Do listen to the advice or feedback other editors might give you. This is important, as failing to edit in accordance with Wikipedia rules can lead to editors being blocked. And that would be a shame, wouldn't it? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit war-ish

I'm having an edit conflict bordering on an edit war (not yet at 3RR) with a user regarding something on list of fictional countries. How do I approach this situation? Do I take this to their talk page? The article's talk page? A page reserved for resolving edit wars? The Verified Cactus 100% 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The article's talk page is best. Maproom (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:ANEW is the proper forum to report edit warring to, but it should be a last resort. You should first attempt discussion on the article talk page, as Maproom suggests. You can also request page protection at WP:RPP. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, having the page be protected is one of the usual results at WP:ANEW. There are basically five possible actions when a report is made at ANEW: (1) nothing, if there isn't an edit war after all; (2) reported party blocked; (3) reporting party blocked; (4) both editors blocked; (5) page protected (and editors told to discuss). So, before reporting edit-warring to ANEW, and before reporting anything to WP:ANI, read the boomerang essay, because your own conduct will also be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Unicode character ꓐ

When I tried to create an account with the user name CONTRIꓐUTIONS, I recieved the following message: "The username "CONTRIꓐUTIONS" is not allowed to prevent confusing or spoofed usernames: Contains unassigned character "ꓐ" (U+A4D0). Please choose another username." This message is misleading. First of all, Unicode character U+AD40 is not a reserved code point, and the message says that U+AD40 is a reserved code point. Can you please explain the message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CONTRIẞUTIONS (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@CONTRIẞUTIONS: I don't know about the unicode, but judging from User talk:Contributions, the user name CONTRIꓐUTIONS probably would not have been appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. This is a case where one cannot tell by looking at a screen what Unicode character is being represented, because a regular upper-case Roman B and a regular upper-case Beta look the same, but do not have the same Unicode representation. Also, what I am seeing above looks more like a large lower-case Beta. Anyway, the name is enough like a reserved word that that is why it is being flagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There are 38 Greek letters that can be used as symbols in mathematics and the sciences, because there are 24 Greek letters, and each of the 24 lower-case Greek letters is recognizable, but only 14 of the upper-case Greek letters look different than a Roman letter. You can't tell an alpha from an A, or a beta from a B. You can tell a gamma from a G and a delta from a D. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Schenecker double homicide" assessment

Hello,

How can I ask for this articles, Schenecker double homicide good article assessment be reviewed? Please share your thoughts as I would like to have the assessment to be lowered to a C-cLass article. Any tips from fellow editors that have experienced this type of request would be appreciated. Thank you, Vwanweb (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

The procedure to follow when you think a GA article should no longer carry that assessment is at good article reassessment. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please. Not only is that not a good article, I'm not 100% convinced it's even a notable subject. John from Idegon (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

publishing of page

i am unable to figure out how and when will the page, created by me, become public. i have been clicking on publish changes, but the page is yet to become public and come up in search engines— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasthars (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aasthars To submit it for review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it (see WP:Articles for creation). However it will not be accepted unless you add sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How to

How do I get to read info for WP:CXT? ) Extended conformed editor on english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingsgo (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Allthingsgo and welcome to the Teahouse.

For the Extended Confirmed user right, please see WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. You still need more edits to achieve it.. Other than the very few pages with extended-confirmed protection, there's very little besides status value associated with this user right.

You've been around for a while, but there's something odd about your account since it does not display the "autoconfirmed user" right in either of the tools I used. You may want to ask an admin to look into that and receive the "confirmed" user status. See WP:CONFIRM.

But if you're able to move pages and perform other activities that require autoconfirmed status, it may just be a glitch in the reporting tools and not something you need to do anything about. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Featured Articles

Hello

If there is a point in the future when nearly all Wikipedia articles are featured, what happens then?

Rebestalic (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rebestalic and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wouldn't that be an exciting event? Could it happen in our lifetime? I won't say "never", but we seem to be heading in a different direction.

Note that even Featured Articles are still subject to revision and improvements, so, for one, there would still be that work to do.

One way to get to that state, however, is to delete substandard articles rather than continuing to improve them, and I think that would be the wrong way to go.

As things stand, though, new articles about notable subjects get added to the encyclopedia at a rate considerably in excess of the rate at which articles reach FA status, and as long as that remains true, the goal of all articles being FA will be receding rather than approaching. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The editors at the time would decide. Wikipedia:Featured articles currently says: "Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". If most articles started to become featured then I guess either the requirements would be increased or a better article class would be introduced. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

[FOOTNOTEMortee201542-1] Mortee 2015, p. 42.

[FOOTNOTEMortee2018location_485-2] Mortee 2018, location 485.

[FOOTNOTEMortee2018chapter_8,_section_2-3] Mortee 2018, chapter 8, section 2.

[1]

[2]

[3]