Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 976

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 970 ← Archive 974 Archive 975 Archive 976 Archive 977 Archive 978 → Archive 980

Can you help me understand what “citations need to be fixed up” means for this article in Draft:The Prairie School

  Helped
Can you help me understand what “citations need to be fixed up” means for this article in Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Prairie_School The citations are more extensive than other similar private high schools in the area, examples include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Catherine's_High_School_(Racine,_Wisconsin) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_School_of_Milwaukee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette_University_High_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookfield_Academy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Savior_Holy_Angels_High_School Thank you for any information to help point me in the right direction. Can you help me understand what “citations need to be fixed up” means for this article in Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Prairie_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gannicus73 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gannicus73, the reviewer's message pointed you to WP:CITE, did you read that page? The citation page explains how to format references properly. The ones in your draft are just a lot of URLs with no additional details. Compare the "references" section in your draft to the similar sections in the other articles that you link to above. Do you see the difference? Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Gannicus73: I went in and tweaked your citations to include the details mentioned above and in WP:CITE (and a few other things--headings, redlinks, etc.). Your draft should be ready to resubmit. Good luck! Orvilletalk 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gannicus73: As far as the other articles you list, unfortunately, out of millions of articles, it's usually easy to find examples that need work in one way or another; this is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and doesn't justify doing the same thing in other articles. The ones I looked at already have templates at the top of them that identify areas, like citations, in which they currently fall short so editors (like you  ) can find and fix them eventually.
Also, for the future, please try to make the "Subject/headline" of a talk page section concise and without links or other markup in it (e.g. just "The Prairie School" would have been fine here, with a link to Draft:The Prairie School in the body). You should sign your posts to talk pages by adding ~~~~ (four tildes) after it. When adding links to other Wikipedia articles, you can just use [[Article name]] (e.g. Brookfield Academy) instead of pasting the full URL. Thanks! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding new pages.

I been traveling and making documentaries, in doing so I have stopped by some amazing games that I feel need a page. However, I can't seem to make articles/pages. for review. I amde one in the sandbox and now it seams to just sit there. My question is Can I make different Pages, such as one on SkyRock and have them sit in a queue for review?

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Keator (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kevin Keator: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that a subject will only merit an article if it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If there is not coverage of these games, they would not merit articles at this time.
I also see in your sandbox that you wrote about yourself. Though not forbidden, this is highly discouraged, please see WP:AUTO, the policy on autobiographical articles. Your draft does not seem to have independent reliable sources to support its content. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. To be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources have said about you. Most people cannot do this, though it is technically possible. If you truly feel you can do that, you should use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review. You should also read Your First Article. Once submitted, there is no timeframe, as drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(Addendum) @Kevin Keator: I've added a box at the top allowing you to submit your sandbox for review. (Please note that the backlog is currently about 4 months, so this can take a while). In future you can create this box by placing {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}} at the top of the source code (but please copy it as it appears when viewing this page, or its probably not working as intended). Jannik Schwaß (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jannik Schwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Keator (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources on how to created numbered refs. David notMD (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What kind of personal information is allowed?

Hello. Just to be clear, I am not planning to post any personal information anytime soon; I'm just curious. Some time ago, when I was under 18, I posted some information about myself, including my full name, on my userpage. Not surprisingly, the edits were suppressed by Keilana to protect me, which I appreciate. However, I noticed that many Wikipedians post personal information about themselves on their userpage, and some even post their pictures. I was just curious why my edits were suppressed while other equally or more sensitive information were allowed. Is it because I was under 18 at that time? If so, how does an Oversight determine if someone is under 18 (assuming that they do not put their birth year on their username like me)? For example, now that I'm 18, can I post which college I will attend or photos of myself at Wikimania? Thank you! William2001(talk) 05:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi William2001. I'm not an Oversighter, but I think that those who are only know as much about you as you choose to reveal. There's no age requirement per se that needs to be met when you register for a post and they can't tell your age from you IP; so, perhaps you posted something, even unintentionally, which gave you away your age. All any Wikipedian has to go by is what you post on Wikipedia, or perhaps what others post about you. Posting the personal information of others, however, is almost always a going to be a problem per WP:OUTING, but I don't think there's a way to stop you from posting about yourself. If you post too much stuff about yourself (which is really not related to Wikipedia) or appear to be just doing so to promote yourself or some cause, your userpage might be deleted one of the reasons given in WP:UP#NOT or your post might be WP:REVDEL per WP:SPAM, but you should be fine if you just stick to some basic information. Oversight generally only steps in when there's a pretty serious violation of some policy like WP:BLP or where the information is so problematic that it might actually lead to some real world problems. You can find out more at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, William2001. Editors can choose to disclose personal information if they wish but that refers to well-informed adults. There are benefits to editing anonymously, and benefits to editing completely openly, as I do. But new editors should think through the implications of openness. I have received moderately credible death threats because of my editing, and very young family members were also threatened once. I am self-employed and 67 years old and tough. Are you prepared for that kind of harassment? Make your decisions carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@William2001: I will add my $0.02 to encourage you not to post any personal information. In my (very personal) opinion, there simply is no upside - this is not social media, and most people here only care about the edits you make. On the other hand, the downsides are numerous and possibly serious - see WP:IRL for more details, but the basic idea is that if (or rather when) you ever do something very stupid on-wiki, it can leak out to the rest of your life fairly easily. (The "no upside" argument is somewhat diminished if you go to Wikimania and similar "real-life" gatherings, in which case you might want to keep in touch with other "flesh" members of the community.) TigraanClick here to contact me 09:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tigraan: Thanks for the advice. Don't worry; I am not going to post any personal information here. In fact, I wrote "Just to be clear, I am not planning to post any personal information anytime soon..." as the second sentence of my question. But again, thanks for looking out for me anyways. Happy editing. William2001(talk) 00:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Working in my user page Sandbox

  Helped
May I please have some help? If I begin working in the sandbox of my user page, will that be looked at/edited by anyone else or only when it is published? Will I be able to ask for help on an article that is still in that sandbox? I am still learning. Thank you --DJDavis42 (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @DJDavis42: Once you're ready to have others look at your article, we usually move it to draft. Would you like to do that now? As a draft, other editors can (and usually will) edit it as they come across it. We can also add a submit for review button to the top, so that once you and any editors helping you believe it's ready, it can be submitted for review by editors even more experienced at evaluating articles for inclusion in Wikipedia. Those reviewers will either publish it, or provide more feedback on what the article still needs. Orvilletalk 00:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Orville. Thank you for your guidance. I am not yet ready to have others look at the article, though I have drafted it in my email. I am still trying to figure out if there is a template that I may use for citing references and organizing an article. I do appreciate your help. DJDavis42 (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi again @DJDavis42: Here are some useful resources (feel free to copy/past this into your talk page so you'll have it handy for later):
  • Since you haven't started yet, I recommend using the article creation wizard at Your First Article to get started. The WP:Article wizard there is a great step-by-step approach to getting started.
  • This tutorial (WP:Tutorial/Formatting) is very helpful for overall formatting guidance.
  • The manual of style (WP:MOS), provides subject specific-guidance on article formats (in the blue box on the right)
  • WP:CITE goes into quite a bit of detail regarding citing sources.
    • Note: I've found that if the sources are available online, using the cite option at the top of the article, selecting automatic, and pasting the URL into the field usually generates a well-formatted citation (and saves you quite a bit of work).

Happy editing! Orvilletalk 01:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much User:Orville That was quite helpful! DJDavis42 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Creating and publishing a pre-created article

Hello great house! I have a 4 page article about my high school that is properly titled, formatted with embedded hyperlinks, images, tables, indentations and references, and saved as both a Microsoft Word and a PDF file. Please note that I have searched Wikipedia and the internet and have found no published article about my high school, hence the reason I was chosen by members of my high school alumni to create the informational article. How do I submit this article for review and publication? I am afraid that I will not have time to review and edit 10 random articles on Wikipedia prior to publishing my article but I'd like to add that, the article has been reviewed and approved for online publication by executive members of my high school alumni. Please help. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emman369 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Emman369: Here's the easiest way to get your article started:
  1. Please disclose your conflict of interest (that you attend the school you're writing about). See WP:COI.
  2. Use the articles for creation process to get started. (Your first article will also help you out a lot.)
  3. Save your word document as a text file.
  4. Once you start the draft using AFC above, you can cut and paste the contents of your text file into the draft.
  5. Follow-through by formatting everything to meet Wikipedia standards (inline citations/references, tables, wikilinks, etc.)--we'll worry about the images later, that can be a little more complicated.
  6. Submit your draft for review.

If you need help with any of the above, just ask here or at the Articles for Creation Helpdesk, (or hit me up on my talk page--in my signature) Happy editing! Orvilletalk 00:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Emman369. It sounds like you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Please take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and finally Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. After reading through these pages, please feel free to post any question you might have about them here at the Teahouse. You seem short-pressed for time, but you should familiarize yourself with these pages because it will help you avoid problems down the road.
Basically, it makes no difference to what the members of your high school alumni association want or what they've approved. An article about your high school will only be accepted if it complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and neither you nor the alumni association will have any final editorial control over such an article. In other words, any such Wikipedia article would be written about the school, not for the school. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Emman369. It seems that you misunderstand the requirements needed to become autoconfirmed. There is no "random article" requirement and the ten edits required could be made to your high school draft, not necessarily to ten separate articles. Your question above was the first of your ten edits. Under the circumstances, I recommend that you use the Articles for creation process, instead of attempting to add the article yourself. The review you mentioned by members of the alumni association is meaningless on Wikipedia. The only reviews that matter are those conducted by experienced Wikipedia editors. Please be aware that Wikipedia does not allow group accounts. Your account is for you and you alone as an individual. If any of the other alumni want input here on Wikipedia, then those people must register their own accounts and speak for themselves Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Emman369, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. We're here to help. First piece of help is this. We have a rather weird way of signing messages...at the end of your message you type four tildes (~~~~). That triggers the Wikimedia software to add your username, a link to your talk page and a timestamp. Second, and Orville touched on this above, you can't copy from either a Word file or a PDF file directly into Wikimedia software sites like Wikipedia. There are invisible characters in both that we can't see but the software does. So before transferring your work to a draft, you'll need to save it in a format like simple word processors (such as Microsoft Notepad) use, which is .txt.
All the things the others mentioned above certainly apply. I'll be glad to help you one on one. All you need to do is drop me a note on my talk page. Remember a link to that will be with my name at the end of the message. I'll need the name and location of the school to get us started. I'm looking forward to it, and trust me, by letting me help you, you are helping me more than I can say. John from Idegon (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, ^this. I'm glad you popped in, John. Orvilletalk 03:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ganeshism - New page notability

We would like to add a page called Ganeshism on Wikipedia.

Ganeshism is a distinctive art practice based on spiritual search, a system, a philosophy, an artistic movement (like Cubism, Realism, or even non artistic movements such as Darwinism and intellectualism). Unwilling to take 'ownership' of the work, the artist, Mahen Chanmugam, has lovingly shaped Ganeshism into a movement, with a purpose to communicate, through art, the symbolic character which gives the deep inner meanings to his many forms.

For over a quarter century, the art that is Ganeshism, has been a distinct practice, a patient study of Ganesha's iconography and symbolism. It has revolved around an ancient Vedic philosophy of self realization, expressed through an art form that is rich in symbolism. One that has far reaching cosmic significance.

Unfortunately, today, religion is often misunderstood. Most deities have been shorn of their philosophical significance and in most cases, reduced to mere superstition. Ganeshism, as an art form and movement, attempts to create an inward discussion, a debate, to instigate thought, to question and to meditate on the deep truths represented by the symbols. It aims to dispel the singular concept of the 'favour granting god' and focus instead, on the deity as a mirror to the soul, and on the search of the God within which is also present everywhere.

As the movement has been started some time ago, we have external links and articles for reference.

Could you please tell us if this is a notable subject for Wikipedia before we add the article?

Thanks a lot, Rachel Rachelchanmugam (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rachelchanmugam. The question of whether or not the topic "Ganeshism" is notable and therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article depends entirely on the depth and quality of the coverage of the topic by reliable sources that are completely independent of Chanmugam and his philosophy. Has this artistic school been described in books by respected art historians? Have major art museums put on special exhibits about Ganeshism? Have major art journals published articles about it?
Please be aware that your description above of Ganeshism is highly promotional and non-neutral. This style of writing is unacceptable for an encylopedia article. Review our policy on conflict of interest editing, and follow it. You should also read about the Neutral point of view and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

My article got declined

Hello

My article got declined and I am a first time ditor in wikipedia.Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishorwriter (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kishorwriter Welcome to Teahouse. I believe this is the article you were referring to - User:Kishorwriter/sandbox. The reviewer has left you a note in the draft article and kindly read it. You need to provide inline citation - see referencing, for info and instructions as content claimed needs to support by independent, reliable published for verification such as sources from newspapers. Secondly, pls remove all the external links except the first one on the list. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

move my article

Hi, I wrote a new biography article. my account is old enough and I had more than 10 edits but when I moved it to mainspace it was still in my sandbox. So I tried to fix it and I think I made a mistake. I try to move it again to userspace and change the title, and I chose the name of the article as the user title. Now I cant move it any more. would you please helpe me? this is my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ali_Radman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabnamkalir (talk • contribs) 08:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I moved it to draft. It's at Draft:Ali Radman now. Probably better idea to submit it for review than publish it yourself, if it's your first article. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 08:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I have tagged the main page that was created during your attemps for speedy deletion. You might get a message but you don't need to do anything. Just submit the draft and someone will check and move it to mainspace if it is good enough. Good luck! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 09:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, May I ask how long does it take to publish if I request for move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabnamkalir (talk • contribs) 09:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And something else. Because I made a mistake in changing the user name to the name which is in fact the name of the article, now I saw this message that there is an article with this name (because I have tried to move it to live space before.) but this is the same page that I made. I asked now for review and request to move it to mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabnamkalir (talk • contribs) 09:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I moved your page to draft because I didn't want to move a page to mainspace without knowing for sure if it belongs there. It may take weeks for the article to get reviewed and published. I have tagged both the main article and userpage redirects that were left by your attempts, for speedy deletion and that happens faster than article review. So, I wouldn't worry about it. Perhaps someone else could review your article and move it to mainspace and cancel your submission, but that's not me. And, usually, not many editors here will help out that way because I don't think that's a proper way to do things here. This is also not the place to make such a request. Generally, everyone will advise that you be patient and wait for 2-3 months. In the meantime, keep improving the article to make sure it is not declined when it finally gets reviewed. I suggest you start by reading these guidelines carefully and seeing if your article has problems related to that. Consult WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:BLP for guidance. You can also read similar biographies that are already published to get a sense of what's acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Hope this helps! P.S. if you end your comments with four tildes (like ~~~~), it will get automatically signed so everyone can know who wrote the message. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 09:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this is the better way for you anyway because if the article is directly moved to mainspace and if it has problems and it gets deleted there, it gets very very hard to get it up again. However, if it is declined as a draft, you can ask everyone what went wrong and improve the article and try again. Perhaps, that's why this is how things are done here.  Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 09:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I spent a lot of time to know how to make a page and I enjoyed it a lot, I tried to do my best according to your standards, but maybe still there are a lot to know about wikipedia. Ok, I will be waiting... and thanks--Shabnamkalir (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)--

Questions about List of power stations in Vietnam

Dear everyone,

Recently I have contributed my data about Coal power stations in Vietnam by using Visual Editor to List of power stations in Vietnam

Right now I have plans to upload data for other power stations (Hydropower, Gas) but I have some questions that I don't know how to deal with it for a better-contributed wiki page:

1. I have some notes for Coal data, I put it on the top of the table (You can see it directly when clicking the link). Should I put all these notes to the bottom of the page, next to References or? And if I put it to the bottom, how can I do that?

2. Coal data which I have contributed seems like it's too large, and for me, it should not be called List of power stations (because Coal data has units, not only power stations). Should I make another page called List of coal-fired power plants in Vietnam and link it to the page List of power stations in Vietnam? Or should I remain the page?? Or which name should I call?

Can anyone help me with my trouble?

Thank you in advance

--Tống Minh Quân (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tống Minh Quân: I have two remarks. The first one sort-of answers your second question. I would expect the "list of power stations in Vietnam" to show only operational stations, or at least only those who operate, have operated, or are almost certain to operate in the near future. The information you added is very valuable, but it should probably be split to a different article (List of coal-fired power plants in Vietnam would do, I guess?). I would suggest to use the articles for creation process to submit that new article.
The second remark is to be careful with the sourcing to endcoal.org. That is a website advocating against the use of coal power. While the data seems credible, I am not sure it is easy to write a neutral Wikipedia article using a highly partisan source. Using it to track newspaper clips etc. that you then use as a source for plant openings/closures is perfectly fine though.
Finally, about your first question: I would put a reference for each plant. How is a matter of taste. The current layout with one column "source" looks better to me than repeating the same reference a couple of times for each column ("capacity", "status" etc.). For the technical details of how to create references, see our manual page and come back with more precise questions if you still are not sure. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tigraan: Thank you for your recommendation. I have more precise questions that you can maybe help me:

1. The source endcoal.org for me is not advocating against the use of coal power. Their purpose is to minimize the impact of coal-fired thermal power on the environment. Oh wait out of topic. The question I wanna ask is: When I use endcoal.org for citation my notes about distinguishing between pre-permit, permitted, cancelled.... How should I use citation for it? Right now all these notes are cited with [4] and I think I will use it in the column "status" so how can I cite it properly, cleanly and also I can note those "permit" with more details? For example: If I use [4] for all the "pre-permit", "cancelled".... in column "status", How can I explain in more details the difference between them?

2. If I wanna do a new page called List of coal-fired power plants in Vietnam, how can I make the page "list of power stations in Vietnam" into a category page and put my new page to that category? For example like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Power_stations_in_Vietnam

@Tống Minh Quân: Completely tangential to your actual queries, I notice that in your initial query above, your first use of power has the Vietnamese character ơ rather than the English character o – I thought at first there was a speck of dirt on my screen! It may be that few readers would notice the difference, which is not at all obvious in many typefaces (I happen to be an ex-proofreader), and I'm sure that it was inadvertent, but I imagine that such accidental substitutions could lead to difficult-to-diagnose anomalies in links, etc., if repeated. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @2.122.177.55: Thank you for your comment. I didn't notice that, though it wouldn't make it hard or any difference for everyone to understand my question. I have fixed it.

I think my Wikipedia article is notable, do you?

Hello, call me Horkak, I wanted to write an article on the United States redistricting following the 2010 Census. It is certainly a well covered topic in political science, and there is a similar wikipedia page 2022 United States redistricting. I've done several edits to wikipedia pages, and think this is a big important topic to cover. I'm considering three titles: "The united States redistricting following the 2010 census", "2012 United States redistricting", and "Redistricting in the United States following the 2010 census". Some content is covered in the articles covering the 2010 United States Census, United States congressional apportionment, and redistricting but none go as in depth as I was hoping for. I think this is a good idea, do you agree? which of my chosen titles do you think is best, or do you think something else would be better? Any help is appreciated, thanks! Horkak (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Horkak, I personally like "2012 United States redistricting". Interstellarity T 🌟 14:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Horkak. It sounds as if it is a suitable topic, particularly if you have scholarly references. I would advise not worrying about the title until the article is ready to be published in main space: just create a draft under any of the names. Either you can move it to a different title later, or when you submit it for review, the reviewing editor who accepts it will move it to a suitable name. (I'm assuming that you will create it first as a draft: you're allowed to create an article directly in mainspace, but unless you're very sure you can get it solid enough on the first try, I don't advise it). Have you read your first article? --ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Drafting etiquette: Contributing to someone's else draft

What's the etiquette when it comes to contributing to someone's else drafts? I recently came across a promising draft that last saw an edition 2 months ago. It has been rejected once already, and the creator didn't quite followed the reviewer guidance, opting for deleting the part that needed work instead of adjusting it. He then resubmitted the draft, which has been awaiting review since then.

Articles about drafts seem to vaguely imply editions are welcome, but there's nothing concrete. I took upon myself to recreate the deleted part accordingly to the guidance, also updating and expanding the draft contents. But now I think about it I wonder if I didn't commit any faux pas. Should I have waited for the draft get either published or rejected and deleted before contributing or recreating it? — Radnyr (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Radnyr. When in doubt be bold, and take steps you feel will help improve the encyclopedia without needing to feel like you have to ask permission. If you like, you can always leave a note on the original author's talk page inviting them to help you improve the draft, or to raise any comments or concerns with you if they have them. GMGtalk 14:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Draft is as much of a public property as the mainspace article. You can edit it and make it better to make sureit gets accepted when it gets reviewed. If the other editor (principal contributor) disagrees, you can hash it out at the talk page. The other editor will not be able to impose their will and kick you out of it (making your work in vain) unilaterally, if that's what you are afraid of. The history of the page always has all versions of the page in record.
The WP:DRAFT says-- An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft.  Good luck!Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Improving it and ensuring it gets accepted is pretty much what prompted me to contribute to the draft. Thanks for the guidance, GMG and Usedtobecool! — Radnyr (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

One man show

Hi all, every time I edit the formula 1 race results somebody changes it. My comments are fair and accurate but it seems like truth isn’t always top priority at wiki. Is there a solution? Are you guys as frustrated as I am? It seems that I could say Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon as long as I keep deleting any changes my false comments would remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc02864 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc02864, welcome to the Teahouse. This post is the first saved edit by your account and we have many pages with Formula One results so I don't know what you refer to. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Truth is only valuable if it is verifiable. See WP:Verifiability. What that means is, when you want to add updates like results of a sporting event, you have to cite a source for that update. Without a source, there is no way to tell if you are making good edits or just vandalising the page, since most vandals also change small details and numbers. My advice would be to make your update with a source cited. Then you have a legitimate case against anyone who reverts it.
Also, if you are editing from a different account, you might want to see WP:SOCK. It is against rules to use more than one account to push a viewpoint/edit into the same page/discussion. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Question!

How do I create a page other than my user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CbarberFNC (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@CbarberFNC:Hello. Simply typing the name of the new page into the search bar, and clicking on the red link will get you to the new page creation area. Creating new articles can be a bit overwhelming for new users. I suggest getting some experience editing Wikipedia first. You can read Wikipedia:Your first article for more information. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Need some help to rename an article.

Hello, I've created a draft article for an artist Michael de Courcy but now realize that there is a conflicting article in the main space with the same name Michael de Courcy (different person). Can someone help me to rename the draft article to Draft:Michael de Courcy (artist). Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown:   Done --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Naming roses

I am working on three rose cultivar drafts. I checked the rose cultivar category and found that most rose varieties have the name format Rosa 'XXX'. I plan to create article names following that format and create redirects with the common name of XXX rose (which I think most people will search on). When I created my first draft, the first word Rosa was not italicized.

How do I create an article name with a combination of an italicized first name and a second name surrounded single quotation marks? I hope that makes sense MauraWen (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @MauraWen: While it is only possible to create page titles in normal text, the template {{DISPLAYTITLE}} enables you to alter the display of the title. This works as long as the text (not the formatting) remains the same. For example, you can render Rosa XXX as Rosa XXX in the title using {{DISPLAYTITLE|''Rosa'' XXX}} This is the generic solution, but I'm not sure if {{Speciesbox}} or any other templates specific to species articles automatically adjust the formatting. ComplexRational (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@MauraWen: As with most things, it's usually a good idea to look at examples of existing articles and copy them. In this case, Rosa 'Camp David' shows usage of {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Rosa'' 'Camp David'}}, {{Infobox cultivar}}, {{'}}, [[Category:Rose cultivars|Camp David]], {{Commons|Rosa 'Camp David'}}, {{Rose}}, {{Rosa-stub}}. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I looked at an example and thought I copied it correctly. It did not work. Could you or anyone else fix this or tell me how to fix the problem. The article has now been created. The title of the article is Rosa Rock & Roll thnx MauraWen (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@MauraWen: Sure thing. First, I assume you meant to create Rosa 'Rock & Roll' (with single quotes around 'Rock & Roll') like the other pages at Category:Rose cultivars, so I'll go ahead and move it from Rosa Rock & Roll, which will remain as a redirect. I'll look at the rest after. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@AlanM1:Yes. single quotes like the other roses. I am not sure what I did wrong. I will be creating more rose articles later this week, hopefully I can get the article titles right on my own. Can we create two redirects?. I think most people will search for Rock & Roll Rose when looking for info on the rose. Thanks MauraWen (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@MauraWen: Any number of redirects can be created. I have a couple questions based on the existing article names and contents, though, since roses are not my area of experience.
Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants has the answers. Perhaps Plantdrew or Peter coxhead can weigh in. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I was planning on using single quotes, but I am no rose expert, just following the majority of rose article titles. I will let better heads decide. If I were choosing I would just call it Rock & Roll rose because that is how I think of rose names. MauraWen (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Rock & Roll" is (according to the article; I will assume that the article is correct) a trade designation/selling name/trademark. The formal cultivar name is Rosa 'WEKgobnez' (Rose 'WEKgobnez' is also acceptable as a formal cultivar name).
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) indicates a preference for formal cultivar names as article titles, and notes "There is currently no consensus as to how to represent trade designations in Wikipedia". While I believe trade designations of plants COULD be appropriate titles on Wikipedia, these terms are trademarks, and Wikipedia doesn't usually have articles title that genericize a trademark (Viagra is a redirect to sildenafil, Kleenex is an article about that specific brand of facial tissues, and Bayer hasn't resisted the genericization of the trademark Heroin for obvious reason)
While the plant naming guidelines suggest using formal cultivar names, Wikipedia isn't consistent (and of all genera with ornamental cultivar articles, roses are the least consistent). Articles with trade designation titles are formatted in various ways, and some articles that are apparently following the single quote convention for formal cultivar names actually have a trade designation between the single quotes. The underlying problem is that it may take a significant amount of research to determine whether the name usually associated with a particular human-selected line of plants is a cultivar name or a trade designation.
Plant breeders can patent new varieties for a limited amount of time, but they can gain further intellectual property rights through trademarks which do not expire. It is therefore in the interest of breeders to create non-intuitive code names ('WEKgobnez') as the formal names of cultivars (and to use those names when registering a patent), and to create a far more memorable trademark in hopes that buyers will continue to seek the plant by the trademark name after the patent expires. Pharmaceutical companies have similar incentives in naming (Viagra/sildenafil), and these incentives weren't always in place for plant cultivars. There's a good overview of the issues with trade designations vs. cultivar names here if anybody is interested in reading further.
In summary, Rosa 'WEKgobnez' is suggested by the title conventions for plants. A title with the phrase "Rock & Roll" is arguably more recognizable and memorable, but there isn't a consensus about how such a title should be formatted when it doesn't require disambiguation, let alone when it does require disambiguation. And "Rock & Roll" does have intellectual property implications that Wikipedia usually avoids in titles. Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
As Plantdrew has explained, there's an important difference between a cultivar name, which is a unique name for a cultivar, and a "selling name" or "trade description" – very often a plant will have different trade descriptions in different countries, e.g. translated into the local language. Thus Rosa 'KORbin' is the definitive cultivar name for a rose known as Rosa Iceberg in English and Rosa Schneewittchen in German. In running text, there is an agreement to use {{tdes}}, for example ''Rosa'' {{tdes|Rock & Roll}} which produces "Rosa Rock & Roll". The default formatting by {{tdes}} follows the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), using a different font to mark out a selling name. It can be used to create plain text (e.g. by {{tdes|Rock & Roll|plain}}, which creates "Rock & Roll", but does clarify to editors that it's not a cultivar name). The ICNCP use of a different font does, however, look odd to many editors when used in an article title, and, again as Plantdrew says, there's the issue of trademarking if a trade designation is used in an article title. The ICNCP forbids the use of trademarks as cultivar names, so these must always be available for free use. In summary, there's a complex trade-off between following the ICNCP, maintaining recognizability, and respecting intellectual property rights. It's a difficult issue, which perhaps needs wider discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Susan Luery

[1]Susan Luery Artist/sculptor was born in Baltimore, Maryland, and attended the Maryland Institute College of Art. Her gift for sculpting was refined in Carrara, Italy. Susan's early work delved into romantic and mythological subjects and was soon recognized by private collectors. Her dramatic "Promethean Radiation" was presented to Prince Charles and Princess Diana on the occasion of their wedding in 1981. She has been sculpting everything from sports legends to ballerinas ever since. Her visually arresting figurative sculptures can be found in private, public and museum collections throughout the world. Today Susan is best known for such monumental works as "Babe's Dream", the 16-foot sculpture honoring George Herman "Babe" Ruth standing in front of Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland and considered to be one of the top ten monumental sports sculptures in the United States. "George Washington-Visionary" her monumental sculpture located at the historic site of Fort Cumberland is one of her other numerous public pieces included in the Smithsonian Museum Inventory of American Painting and Sculpture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanLuery (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@SusanLuery: This is the teahouse, where users are able to ask questions about Wikipedia. The place to request new articles is at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession. You can create the article yourself once you become an autoconfirmed user, however, please note Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ~~~~

Correct labelling

Hello,

My recent edit of the page entitled "truck simulator" was rejected. I explained the reasons for my edit to the Wiki editor who rejected the proposed change, but he / she responded that they did not understand what I was talking about.

The situation is as follows. If you type "car simulator" into Wiki, you will be directed to the "driving simulator" page that describes a wide range and variety of types of simulators for purposes of driver training and entertainment. However, if you type "truck simulator" into Wiki, you are directed exclusively to a page that describes truck simulator games for entertainment only.

The words car and truck are generic terms. The edit I proposed, that was rejected, was to inform Wiki readers that truck simulators for driver training also exist and to direct interested readers to the "driving simulator" page.

This is the first time that one of my proposed text edits to a wiki page has been rejected.

Please advise me on how to proceed.

--Pierrot2007 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pierrot2007, rather than put that text in to Truck Simulator as you did, perhaps we need a disambiguation page for "truck simulator" that has links to both the video game article and to Driving simulator, that way readers can choose which one they're interested in. I'm not familiar with the guidelines for disambiguation pages, perhaps another editor is and can chime in. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I can always link Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I have added a hatnote, which I think is the right thing to do in this situation. Eman235/talk 22:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bot creation

How does a user create a bot? Is this available to non-sysops, and does it require programming knowledge? --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: Hello. I suggest that you read WP:BOT and WP:CREATEBOT. Programming knowledge should be held; if not, why don't you try Wikipedia:Bot requests or using WP:AWB. If you create one, all you need to do is to get it approved at WP:BRFA. Thanks. William2001(talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

article deletion

i recently published an article that was deleted because it slightly reselmbled and article written about that person..that person paid me to submit his wiki page...the article was very different...how can i get it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosofinvention (talk • contribs) 12:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Brosofinvention. It appears unlikely that the article was very different. If it were, User:Jimfbleak would not have deleted it as a copyright violation. The immediate way forward here is for you to carefully review Wikipedia's guidance on conflicts of interest, and take care to abide by them. My personal recommendation is that you do not attempt to write articles on Wikipedia for pay, and do not imply to others that you can successfully do so. More often than not in my experience, trying to do so mostly wastes your own time as well as that of others, as such articles are highly likely to be deleted. GMGtalk 13:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Brosofinvention: If you want to read up on paid editing, WP:PAID, which is really a subset of WP:COI that GreenMeansGo linked, is the place to go. Thanks. William2001(talk) 22:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

*/ Polyphenol /* Editing was deleted even with proper citation sources

Hello, I was editing Polyphenol page yesterday and was using proper citation sources for everything I put and now I see it is all deleted, Why?

I followed the rules. This is discouraging to see.

CanadianUsr19 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC) CanadianUsr19

@CanadianUsr19: Your sources were deemed inadequate for the statements. The user that removed the edits requested that you read Identifying reliable sources. He\she also pointed out formatting and syntax errors, and suggested reading Footnotes: using a source more than once. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 23:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Zefr also recommended you that you discuss the changes you want to make on the Talk page. That's the right place to ask. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleaning up references in a complex article

  Helped
hi,

I found this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium on a list of articles needing copyedit, and I thought I would try to sort it out. I believe I've improved it, but the original article had separated primary articles from popular press (which I don't know how to do) and then subsequent editors, including me, added a third set of references using the "cite" function. Could someone please explain to me how to deal with this situation? I've poked around for instructions but haven't found anything obvious. Many thanks. Logophile59 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Logophile59: The citations are grouped into a and b groups. In source editing you can see where each reference is named, then assigned to one of the two groups (for instance <ref name="kwok" group="b" />. You'll just need to go into source editing and add group="a" or group="b" to the reference tags. Group a is for the primary sources and Group b is for the popular press sources. Orvilletalk 03:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Orville:Thanks! I'll work on it some more. Learning slowly... Logophile59 (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Logophile59: By the way, if you like copyediting, you should check out the Guild of Copy Editors (WP:GOCE); we're always looking for more editors willing to help (that may even be where you saw this article listed). There are occasional weekly blitzes and monthly drives (for a bit of friendly competition) as well. Orvilletalk 03:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Orville:Thanks, yes I had noticed the Guild and marked it down as interesting. I feel I need a bit more slow-motion practice first, but I'll get there. I appreciate the suggestion.
Incidentally, is this also where I should come for advice on whether to remove the "multiple issues" tags on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium page, or should I (gulp!) use my own judgment?Logophile59 (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Be bold!   Orvilletalk 03:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear @Orville:, thanks again for the pointer. I've addressed (I think) most of the issues on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium. However the table under "Other organisms with small genomes" has several links that go nowhere: only #2, 6 and 9 connect to something useful. Can you help me sort this out as well? Very much appreciate your help, thank you. Logophile59 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Logophile59: The reference lists look great. I've fixed the links in the table (the website changed the URLs of where everything was stored). Thank you for copy editing the article! Orvilletalk 02:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Orville: Thank you so much!

How to write about a dead person and get submitted

Hello,

I wrote my first page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Davey_G._Johnson) it is about a dead writer and his contributions.

It was rejected because "Wikipedia is not a memorial obituary database" I'd like to make it better and some actionable feedback would be welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNIT411 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @UNIT411: An obituary (like the ones you've cited) are helpful, but you'll need to find independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject of the article (far beyond the circumstances of their death) to demonstrate their notability. Orvilletalk 03:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, UNIT411. In its current form, this is pretty much an article about his death, with a little bit about his parents and education. There is only one sentence about his journalistic career. That is not how biographies should be written. A biography should describe the person's whole life, and if the person is a professional such as a journalist, then a description of their career should comprise the core of the content. As a specific example, mentioning the specific model of motorcycle he was riding immediately before he died is not an encyclopedic detail. He drowned. He was not killed in a motorcycle accident. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on notability

Hello!

My name is Napat, and I'm new to the Wikipedia editing scene. I read the page on notability, and I was wondering if writing about a professor at The University of Texas at Austin would be considered as notable. His research areas include:

  • Electrosurgery
  • Tissue fusion
  • Thermally-induced tissue damage and cell death
  • Thermographic imaging
  • Industrial applications of microwave and radio frequency power

The main motivation for this is due to my own research lab, and our interest in his work. We are not collaborators, just simply aiming to spread knowledge to these new fields of medical science with this professor as one of the main drivers of these research areas.

Thank you for your help!

Warm regards, Napat Dawkrajai — Preceding unsigned comment added by NapatDawkrajai (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

NapatDawkrajai, notability is a function of how much has been written about the subject in independent, reliable sources. If such sources are available, then the subject is notable (more details at WP:Notability). Additionally, a professor could also meet subject-specific notability guidelines through WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO––if they have won notable awards, or have an h-index that demonstrates that they have made significant contributions to their field (for most fields, this means an h-index of at least 20), then they likely meet these subject specific notability guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@NapatDawkrajai: You might also have a look at WP:PROMO – Wikipedia is explicitly not here to promote people, ideas, "new fields of medical science", etc. An article written with that purpose will almost certainly face difficulty in being accepted by other editors. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a Teahouse for in other languages or can I discuss an article in Italian here?

RossK 08:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)

Hello, Ross kramerov. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, and has different practices and facilities. Not all have something corresponding to the Teahouse, but all, I think, have some sort of Help desk. I suggest you start at it:Aiuto:Sportello informazioni.. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Planning to gamify Wiki…who to talk to?

I have a gamification-playification platform and want to gamify Wiki. Is there any other program that you know of to do so? I also want to speak to someone about this project? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C900:3860:75E9:9BD4:2B2E:3853 (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I don't quite understand what it is you are wanting to do, but I think it is about a different kind of user interface for Wikipedia (which, by the way, is one of thousands and thousands of wikis). If so, then the Village pump is probably the best place to discuss it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

COMPUTER SCIENCE

I want to know have to edit photo and APP in other to benefit from it.please l want to know how to used editing APP.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.38.66 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. It's hard to understand what you're asking, but I think you're asking about how to edit a photo in an app (I'm not sure which app you mean). If that's your question, then I'm afraid this is not the right place for it: this page is about assistance with editing Wikipedia. But the Computing section of the Reference Desk might be able to help you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_976&oldid=905009133"