Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 182

Archive 175

←

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

Archive 183

Archive 184

Archive 185

New article

I want to start an article on British seasonal vegetables. I wanted to start eating vegetables that were in season now and that were British (reduce air miles of food etc.) and in the supermarket lots of veg have a British flag on. Also supermarket magazines often list what is in season now in this country. Now I now lots of these veg aren't native to the UK but they can be grown here. I came on Wikipedia to get a list/text explaining about it but I was surprised to not find anything. The closest I could find was Hungry gap. I don't know if I am looking in the right place but if this doesn't exist I think it would be a great article. I am not sure what to call it though and I would have to do a lot of research beforehand. What do you think on the name of the article and do you think it is a sufficient topic? Novalia (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Novalia. This could be either a list article or a category. Currently, we have List of culinary vegetables, and we have two country-specific vegetable categories, for Japan and Vietnam. Take a look at those, and plan accordingly. My main concern would be whether "British vegetables" are sufficiently differentiated as a topic from vegetables commonly eaten throughout Europe and North America. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Novalia: to expand on what Cullen said, you could create a list of vegetables which have existing articles in Wikipedia, or you could put a selection of existing articles into a category. But in principle, you should not put any vegetable into that list of category unless the corresponding article specifically said (with references) that the vegetable could be grown in Britain. (Or I suppose you could include a reference for that fact in the list itself, if you made one). What you should not do is put a vegetable in the list or category just because you happen to know it can be grown here: that would be original research, and is forbidden in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That is the problem, knowing what to add. Lots of vegetables can probably be grown throughout Europe, but bananas are always imported. I found this https://eatseasonably.co.uk/pdfs/Calendar_A3.pdf which is basically what think it should say, in diagram format Novalia (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy paste

Hi, I noticed that the plot summaries at The Musketeers (2014 TV series) were directly copied from this Facebook statement by the BBC. Is this allowed, and generally done in TV series? Thanks, Matty.007 17:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Matty! Directly copying and pasting text from other websites is considered a copyright violation and is against Wikipedia policy, and in some cases, it may even be against the law. Unless the website specifically says content is free to use, one should assume all content on other websites is copyrighted. Thanks for pointing this out. I've gone ahead and removed the infringing text. Whenever you spot something that is a clear copy-paste, you should always take it out and note it at the talk page. Thanks again! Mz7 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Mz7, I used that table as a basis for List of The Musketeers episodes, but can't remove the copyvio as I am mobile editing. Please can someone remove the plot summaries there and I'll have a look later. Thanks, Matty.007 06:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I talked with the editor who added the content in question. The plot summary was added to Wikipedia before it was added to the Facebook page, indicating that the Facebook page actually copied us. So it's not a copyright violation. One editor notes that that Facebook page actually isn't the official Facebook page for the show, just a fan page. Thanks for pointing it out anyway. Mz7 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Mz7. I later found that it was copied from the BBC direct. See here where I sourced them, at least 2 were identical to the BBC releases. Thanks, Matty.007 20:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Type of References for an Article about an Industry

I am planning a generic article about ceiling tiles and am wondering about references. Many of the documents about ceiling tiles are written by companies in the industry, so it will be difficult to find "impartial" sources. For example "The Gypsum Construction Handbook" (http://www.usg.com/content/usgcom/en_CA_east/resource-center/gypsum-construction-handbook.html) by CGC, the Canadian arm of USG, is a widely recognized industry resource. I'm wondering--if I quote a variety of companies, with no preference given to any single one, will it be OK to use company web sites for references?

Thank you for your help,

Onehorsetown61 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Onehorsetown61. I recommend that you look for sources in books about construction materials, such as Building and Finishing Walls and Ceilings: Drywall, Paneling, Ceiling Tile, Wall Covering, Trim Moldings, Texturing, or the Handbook of Facility Assessment or Architectural Acoustics. Articles by professional staff writers in trade publications, or websites of established trade associations may also be of use. Limited use of specific pages on manufacturer's websites may be acceptable, as long as these pages are offering a generic overview of the topic as opposed to brand promotion. Your strategy of citing several competing companies will help alleviate promotional concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking for the author of an article

How does one know the 1. original or initial author of an article. 2. author of the sections within an article, especially for an article that has been created for about five, six years ago and has undergo several edits. Thanks Emekadavid (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emekadavid. To find out about past editors in a given article, go to the article, and click the history tab at the top of the page. That is the revision history of the article. Once there, you can see who edited what, and when...all the way back to the beginning if you go back far enough. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

For articles with large histories, identifying who added what particular text can be done manually (e.g., by going back by halves) but it's a pain the the ass. We have some automated tools to help. See Wikipedia:Tools#Finding the responsible user. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Tools seems adequate. History can be a pain in the ass especially if the article is long. Tools, especially when searching for the writer of a specific word or phrase in a section, is much better. Thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you can simply click at the page information on the left side of the screen. -Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you set an infobox website link to open in a separate window?

Infoboxes normally have provision to add the subject's website address. Is it possible to 'force' the website to open in a separate window (or offer that option) so as to preserve the Wikipedia page for viewing without having to use the 'Back' button? Thanks in advance for any comments/assistance. Melbourne3163 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Melbourne3163, and welcome to the Teahouse! What I do is right click on a link, and 'open in new tab' or 'open in new window'. Thanks, Matty.007 21:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets you can enable "Open external links in a new tab/window". It affects all external links but only for your own account. A link cannot be set to open in a new tab/window for others. Most browsers have an option to do it with a right-click or Ctrl/Shift + left-click (Ctrl/Shift may vary between new window/tab). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the replies, both most helpful. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does an honest content contribution get deleted in wikipedia ?

I find wikipedia to be undemocratic115.241.137.149 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Can you be more specific? What contribution are you talking about? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! We encourage you to be bold in your edits, and don't take it personally if your edits are deleted. Wikipedia is a community of many editors, each with a different opinion on what content should and shouldn't be included. So if your edits are undone, it's only because another editor doesn't think what you added should be in the encyclopedia. The step now is to discuss the change on the article's talk page to try to gain a consensus. This is what Wikipedia is all about: decision-making by consensus. As Vanjagenije said above, do you think you could provide which edit specifically to which article you are concerned about? Thank you! Mz7 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It will be self-defeatist to use that word, "undemocratic." The editors on WP are volunteers. Always remember that. Ask rather: "Why was a deletion of an honest content suggested?" Look for areas to improve on the article if you believe it to be "honest" (ambiguous!) and work on those areas. Ask the editor and see things from his/her viewpoint because they have better experience on WP. Personally, I find learning the lay of the hand on WP especially as to templates and many copy-editing nuances quite tasking, although a useful experience. Emekadavid (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, a democracy is one of the things that Wikipedia is explicitly stated not to be. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I add a logo?

I created an article for Lorenz Educational Press. I would like to add the company's logo to the infobox at the top of the page. How can I do this? Juleis23 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Juleis23. In general, logos are copyrighted, so their use is covered by our policies and guidelines about non-free content. Please read WP:LOGOS for specific information about how to upload a logo and add it to an article about a company or organization. In brief, the logo should be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), under a rationale explaining that it is to identify the organization, and will be used only in that specific article. It should also be a lower resolution version. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's the help or guide for uploading images to WP and not Wikimedia? I thought all images were meant to be uploaded to Wikimedia? Emekadavid (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emekadavid. This is a very important point: Wikimedia Commons is ONLY for hosting freely licensed images which can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose, with no restrictions except proper attribution.

Other non-free copyrighted images, including logos, movie posters, book covers, album covers, TV and video game screenshots, and so on; can be used only under much more restricted terms. Their use is normally restricted to a single article, they must be accompanied by a rationale explaining why the use is appropriate and will not infringe on the copyright holder's rights, and they must be low resolution. These files must be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, not to Wikimedia Commons.The tool bar on the left side of every Wikipedia page has an "upload file" link. That brings up a step-by-step wizard that will walk you through the process. Study the links I provided above first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Seen it. Thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding new content to an existing wiki page?

I have just started to learn some of the vernacular of Wikipedia. I used a well known bible verse to add to previously missing form of kingdom. I need to add this missing key form of the word kingdom for correctness and appropriateness the page lacked. Do they just remove verifiable new material because I am new and learning this?Idiotsavantmoron (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody removed your edit to Kingship and kingdom of God. Having seen your question, I have removed your signature from that edit, because signatures are for talk pages, not for articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I add a course code?

How do I join a "course"? I've got a course code given to me by a professor but I can't find the "add a course" button anywhere.Mkat987 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mkat987. If the "course code" you mention is a wikilink, then going to that link should explain everything. Please provide the code here, and someone should be able to assist you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you see the course at Special:Courses? If so then click the course name and then the "Enroll" tab at top. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it. The code I was given is: VanPsy-PC 1157-01223-000-emo

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkat987 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find a course at Wikipedia with a name resembling VanPsy. Which institution and field is it at? Are you sure the course should be registered at the English Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

How does one get notified when new courses are added? I can see that the list is not quite long. Emekadavid (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have posted an appeal for assistance at the WP:Education noticeboard, hopefully someone who knows how to help the OP will respond soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The only place where that code is mentioned is at User:Laskeyhk. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I figured it out! I didn't realize that my class was starting a course under the APS Wikipedia Initiative. I had to create a separate login, but I got in. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkat987 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Opeining and Closing Credits?

I am wondering if opening and closing credits are reliable sources? My opinion, is that it is not reliable at all. However, Wikipedia does not work with opinions. Therefore, is there somewhere I can find my answer? Thanks.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@SoapFan12: Hey SoapFan12. They are in general reliable sources though of course they are primary sources. You say it is your opinion they are not. What do you base that upon? A television show or movie's statement of who did what is generally highly controlled and accurate recitation of bare facts, and there is no synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation needed to extract them. On the other hand, you have not stated whether this relates to a specific matter. Knowing the specifics is always crucial to see whether there are special circumstances involved that diverge from the general rule. For example, if you wanted to cite who did the lighting on some show during some episode, credits would appear reliable and are probably the only source for that information. If, on the other hand, you are trying to use the credits to source that the spelling of a fictional character's name was changed because in an early episode it was spelled one way that is slightly different than in later episodes when it is given as some actor's role, we are in very different [interpretive] territory. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Sorry, I agree my question was not specific enough. I meant if it they are reliable when stating if an actor is on contract or recurring. For example, we were having a discussion at Talk:List of The Bold and the Beautiful cast members, since a user remove an actor from the cast list stating that this actor has left the show since he stop appearing in the opening and closing credits without have a secondary source (internet etc...). If a situation like this ever happens again, I would want to know what to do. Thanks. Cheers,  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@SoapFan12: Ah, the specifics. This is not so straightforward as to cast removal but appears to be blatant original research as to moving someone to recurring. It's not just reading into what some source affirmatively states but does not actually conclude, but speculation based on based on what the source does not state to reach a conclusion; negative evidence. We can imagine scenarios where a person stops appearing but is not recurring to highlight why such interpretation is and should be forbidden. On the other hand, as to removing someone from the cast because they are not appearing and not listed, that's different. Taking that to a logical absurdity gives me pause. Some character stops appearing on a soap and they no longer appear in the credits but no source affirmatively states they are no longer on the cast. Do we remove them from the show the next week because they are not listed (and don't appear)? Probably not. But let's go down the road. Two years go by and they are not on the cast and not listed in the credits but there is no affirmative source; what then? Okay, its been eight years... nine... ten... twenty. Probably in reality this situation will not come up often but it seems absurd to continue to list an actor as part of the cast of a show because they once were and no third party source ever noted that they left. That seems to be one of the arguments being made at the talk page. Partly this seems to be the problem with the format and/or criteria of the list itself. By the way, have you noticed that the second sentence of the lead is nonsensical? ("who have deceased:")--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much! This answer all my questions! I finally understand! Thanks again!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

need to remove hyperlink which is taking to wrong page

when editing,while adding a manadal in district,the mandal name is alreadey created,but its taking me to wrong page,when clicking on it... ex:Varni ,but if i click on varni its taking me Warni,which is wrong name.please suggest me how to edit this. regards,Will Talk2 (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Will Talk2: Hey Will Talk2. In the example you raised, Varni redirects to Warini. To edit the redirect at Varni – either to point it to a new location or turn it into something else – there are a few ways to access it but I think the easiest is: when you land on Warini, after attempting to go to it through Varni, you will see at the top left of the page just below its title "(Redirected from Varni)"; click on that blue link to Varni and you will be on the redirect page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions show you are referring to a link in Nizamabad district#Mandals. You are right the link went to the wrong place before. We don't have an article about Varni in Nizamabad so I have changed it [1] to a red link to Varni, Nizamabad where an article might be created. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sending Talk Notifications from one Talk Page

When I ask a question or make a comment on a user's talk page, on replying, that user has to come to my talk page to make the reply. I don't think this is how it should be. Whenever the user makes a reply on the first talk page, I should get notified of it even if it is not on my talk page. I have thought the latter scenario was how the WP programmers want WP to work until today, when an editor replied from his talk page and I was notified of the reply. How do I make it possible that I do not have to go to a user's talk page to make a reply when he has made a comment on my talk page. I think this should have been set by default on all user pages, especially the talk pages. Thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course the user doesn't need to come to your talk page to reply. He can reply on his own talk page where you made the original comment, and if you stick with the option to watchlist pages that you've edited, you'll see that his talk page has been edited. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's voluntary whether to reply on your own talk page or the other user's. You can state your preference with {{UserTalkReplyhere}}, {{Usertalkback}} or another template listed there. When you reply on your talk page, you can use {{Reply to}} to automatically notify the other user. You can also just link their user page directly as a user did for you in [2]. If they don't do that then you have to watch their talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a calendar on WP?

Is there a calendar/schedule app, template, etc on WP? It would be helpful to help keep sense of what one wants done. Thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no such feature. Some users edit their user page to keep track of things, but the edits will be visible to everybody. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Expounding on what PrimeHunter said, To-do lists might be useful. You can create a subpage of your userpage to keep track of things. {{To do}} is a general-use template you can place on your userpage; so are post-it notes: {{Post-it small}}, {{Post-it medium}}, and {{Post-it large}}. You edit a subpage of your userpage, and it shows up on them. Probably not what you had in mind, but that's what we have so far. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

how to submit the computer software on this website?

I would like to brand our company as well as some well-known software products added to your website, but I do not know how to do it, it seems an add on is deleted, please help me, thank you very much！Lycool1991 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lycool1991, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise software products. For a program to have its own article it must be covered by independent third-party reliable sources like a magazine or newspaper (an in-depth review is one example of such coverage). The article itself should also be written in an encyclopedic and not promotional tone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have another theory. What if Lycool wants to use the MediaWiki software?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee Lycool1991's contributions (deleted and otherwise) do not indicate that to be the case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I sort of figured my theory was the less likely one.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Request "Notability" Evaluation

Would someone please look at the article in my sandbox and give me an assessment as to whether or not it passes the notability requirement? I still have a lot of work to do, such as adding info re the specific products, but there's no point if the article fails notability. If you think it fails, then please advise how I can enhance the article to meet notability.

Thanks, Oneroomschool (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I will leave others to give their views on notability, but far from adding more info re the specific products I believe that you should remove the whole "Products" section as it looks like a product catalogue and much too promotional for an encyclopedia. - David Biddulph (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest notabilty so far, it reads like an advert and it's stuffed full of commercial links. Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As others have mentioned above, the article is too promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising. All encyclopedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Their purpose is to inform the reader about the subject, not to convince them that the subject is special by inserting ambiguous descriptions such as "low cost, low maintenance, easy to install, decorative". My recommendation is to rewrite the entire article using a neutral tone. If you work for the company or have a commercial interest in it, you may have a conflict of interest, and you may find it extremely difficult to write from a neutral point of view. If that is the case, leave it to another editor to write the article. If the subject of the article is truly notable and of significant public interest, some editor will eventually create an article about it one of these days. These are just my initial thoughts after skimming through the article. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A few more suggestions: remove every section below the "History" section. (This includes the Products, Awards, Philosophy, Customer Service Emphasis, Green philosophy, Patents, and Certifications.) They are superfluous and unnecessary for the encyclopedia. Get rid of peacock words such as "innovative". As for notability, the subject's attention from the New York Times looks promising, but the majority of the sources look like product descriptions at the Home Depot or something. Remove those. References need to be from reliable and reputable sources. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I received a Getting Started link in an email from wikipedia about getting started that no longer works

my welcome email has a link to a special page that no longer exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GettingStarted this helped me edit things. Why does it no longer appear? I just used it the other day. Castechtraining (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Castechtraining, and welcome to the Teahouse! You could be meaning anything here, or in the box at the bottom (clickk 'Expand' and have a look). Thanks, Matty.007 19:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What it lead to was a tutorial which showed articles that needed editing and allowed you to make an edit and then advance to the next article. It was a sort of "Getting started Welcome back site user" page. Wish I could insert a screen capture of it I took the other day. Castechtraining (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also this explains it better: It was the "edit suggestions" tutorial/tour discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GettingStarted

It no longer works for me. Why? Castechtraining (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not 100% sure what you're looking for, but Steven (WMF) might (sorry for the ping). Thanks, Matty.007 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Castechtraining. Sorry about that. This happened because we just launched a new version of the GettingStarted suggestions that new contributors receive, part of which involved removing the special page. Instead, we just send users back to the page they were reading before they signed up, and we show them how to edit that. If you have the previous notification in your inbox, it will link to a page that no longer exists on Wikipedia. If you are still interested in helping out with pages that need simple fixes, this link we give you a new random page every time. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how the feature worked but under "Interaction" in the left pane there is a link to Wikipedia:Community portal which shows some articles you can help improve. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful! The feature had what I believe is a guided tour extension that had "call-outs" showing you what to do. You could click a blue "NEXT" button on the call-out and move on to edit, then you could click on a call-out which would take you to the next article. The extension probably employed the link you gave me.

Thank you, that link is useful. The "tour" feature was nice, though. Too bad it's gone. Castechtraining (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Steven, would it be possible to change the old Special page that no longer exists into a redirect to the new page or configuration for this. I'm sure there are other people that have this link someplace. Perhaps create a new Special page at that location explaining what happened and offering some new alternatives? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's possible but not entirely desirable. The issue is that we'd have to hard code the redirect in, since Special pages are not editable. So that's more or less permanent code to redirect a Special page perpetually that, in a few weeks/months, no one will be linked to. We've stopped sending notifications which link to Special:GettingStarted as of late last week, so no more people will be directed to the Special page. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Which release date should I use?

I have recently edited Summertime Sadness and added several release dates to the release history. Since I was unsure about the record label according to my source (iTunes), I went to international Amazon websites to see if they would help. When I did, I found they had a different release date then the iTunes source (31 July 2013 instead of 23 July).iTunes Italy: (https://itunes.apple.com/it/album/summertime-sadness-lana-del/id674105345?i=674106241&l=en&ign-mpt=uo%3D2); iTunes France:(https://itunes.apple.com/fr/album/summertime-sadness-lana-del/id674105345); Amazon Italy:(http://www.amazon.it/Summertime-Sadness-Cedric-Gervais-Remix/dp/B00EA0TH32/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391913725&sr=8-1&keywords=summertime+sadness); Amazon France:(http://www.amazon.fr/Summertime-Sadness-Cedric-Gervais-Remix/dp/B00E9VVTVU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391913770&sr=8-1&keywords=summertime+sadness)

After some research, I found Amazon and iTunes sometimes have different release dates.

Should I just use the earliest release date?

Thank you, Moonchïld9 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Moonchïld9, and welcome. I think that both iTunes and Amazon are not reliable sources. You should find some reliable source for the release date (see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to find another source when I have a chance. Moonchïld9 (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ultimate Unification Theory - the unification of science & spirituality/mysticism as new entry

At the Fifth International Conference on Thinking - July 1992, I presented my paper entitled The Ultimate Unification Theory wherein I endeavored to unify Relativity Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Psychology and Spirituality/Mysticism. I am thinking of putting the topic as a new entry in Wikipedia, but I need some help since I don't know how.111.220.209.227 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That sounds very much like it would be original research which is welcome in other places but not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of entries on knowledge topics that are already known to the world. An encyclopedia, by its very nature – the type of reference work it is – is not the place to present new ideas and novel theories. To put it in perspective, if it was 1905 and some guy named Einstein wanted to contribute his new and brilliant theory on "special relativity", this would be the wrong place for that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

When I search Google Books for "Ultimate Unification Theory", I get a hit from a popular book called String Theories for Dummies which mentions those three words only as a possible future outcome of string theory, a book called Taiwanese Identity in the 21st Century applying those words to Chinese unification, and then it is straight downhill into fringe sources from there. We need coverage in high quality, independent scientific sources in order to justify such an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to include link to the original paper. Here it is http://www.bpramana.org/metascience/UUT.pdf Thanks111.220.235.196 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is grape varity Blanc du Bois not acceptable?

There are many articles on grape varieties, I posted one on Blanc du Bois (not listed before).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Blanc_du_Bois&action=edit&redlink=1

I would like to know why this would be rejected.24.108.58.1 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The draft was deleted as a test page. Just because a draft was deleted does not mean that an article on the topic will be "rejected" if written and referenced properly. We have many articles on grape varieties, and List of grape varieties may be of interest to you. As for Blanc du Bois, a variety developed in Florida for Gulf Coast environments, some good sources are available. This article from the San Francisco Wine School discusses the variety. It mentions that an authoritative book called Wine Grapes, by Robinson, Harding and Vouillamoz, discusses the variety. You need to base your article on reliable sources, and if you follow the advice given at your first article, I think that your article will be accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to add the problem was that having crated the page, you didn't actually enter any content before asking for the submission to be reiewed so it was declined as a blank submission and subsequently deleted. If you start again don't press the submit button until there is something to be reviewed. Nthep (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, you created a blank page. If your intention was to request an article on the subject without writing it yourself then please use Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit an article or rewrite ?

An article "Wapping" has so many errors and misstatements that it appears to me to be impossible to edit, so what is the norm here ? and where to start ? I also note that the opening description "Wapping (/ˈwɒpɪŋ/ WOP-ing) is a district in East London, England, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It is situated between the north bank of the River Thames and the ancient thoroughfare simply called The Highway." has no edit tag even though it clearly needs editing . Wasozed (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wasozed, welcome to the teahouse. If you click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page, this will allow you to edit the entire article (including the opening description, which we often call the lead or lede).

It's fine to be bold. If you think a paragraph or section is completely unsalvageable drivel, then go right ahead and remove it, but do include an edit summary saying why you are doing so. Or replace it with something more meaningful or accurate or better sourced.

However, if someone disagrees with your bold editing, they are able to change it back again. That's when you should have a discussion with them about what material is appropriate in the article. Normally such discussions happen on the article's talk page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Third attempt to respond.

Thanks for the clarification Arthur. I seems to me that a new article is required but that could cause other problems. I will need to think about that. The main bugbear to my eyes is that the lead is picked up by google and then becomes gospel to some folk Wasozed (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why my page is going to Speedy deletion?

I write one page for a company like indcel.com. All information is right eventhough that is going to Speedy deletion please help me to create this page please ThanksAmitthakur.br (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No-one is doubting the truth of the information that you have written. The rationale for the deletion is a question of "notability".

There are millions of companies in the world. Wikipedia does not aim to be a directory of all of them. To decide which ones Wikipedia will have articles about and which it won't, we have written "notability" criteria which you can find WP:NCORP. Every day there are probably about a hundred or so article submissions about small-to-medium sized companies, presumably made by their employees as part of their online strategies. Unless the articles show evidence that the notability guidelines are met, these articles are deleted. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

... and they are particularly likely to be deleted if there are no references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have the same question, there are numerous pages, but why some pages going to speedy deletion (Dipg20 (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

A page would be expected to be speedily deleted if it meets any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

by mistake created page with a wrong heading

by mistake have created few pages with incorrect name and want to remove them .now have three pages with some what similar namesSandeepsinghdns (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the teahouse. Put {{db-self}} at the top of each page, and they should then get deleted fairly quickly. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It would actually appear that the pages have been deleted already so there shouldn't be anything to worry about :) Samwalton9 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor and non-minor edits to same article - submit separately?

I sometimes make both content edits and minor edits (grammar, spelling) to the same article. Though I am careful about sourcing, justifying edits, etc., it seems content edits would be more likely to be reversed. If a content edit is just undone, the minor edits would be lost as well. So, what is standard Wikipedia practice? Should I submit minor and non-minor edits in separate revisions? On a related note, is there a preference to submit edits to separate sections of an article as separate revisions?

Thanks! Xxiggy (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! There aren't any rules or standard Wikipedia practice about anything you've described. It's honestly up to you how you want to make edits. Some editors like to make all of their adjustments in one go across many sections; some editors like to fix each section one by one. If you have reason to believe that your major content edit will be reverted, then it's up to you whether you want to separate the minor adjustments or not. It may be more likely that if you separate minor and major edits, only the controversial major edits will be undone. Remember, your edits aren't really "lost"; they are still viewable if you go the the page history by clicking the "View history" button right at the top next to the edit button. I hope this helps; if you are still unclear, feel free to put a reply below and I'll be happy to help. --Mz7 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable online book review sources?

Hi! I'm writing an article on a book. What are some reliable online sources for book reviews? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bananasoldier, the best sources for book reviews are major mainstream newspapers and literary magazines. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Using WP.UNDUE

Does an individual have to have any qualifications in an article area to use WP.UNDUE for a eliminating a portion of an article.

Borderlands1920Borderlands1920 (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Ariconte (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Removing content is a part of editing. There are no "qualifications" for citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines as reasons for removing content. Wikipedia is also a huge community of editors, each with a different over what should and shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia. Do not take it personally if an editor has undid your additions, as it only indicates that the editor doesn't think what you added is in the interest of the encyclopedia. Talk with the editor to see if they can clarify why they removed your addition. This is the Wikipedia cycle: edit, undo, discuss. Mz7 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add to the previous answers: While topic specific knowledge is very useful, a deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is far more important. Absolutely no topic-specific knowledge is required to make such judgments, and I would trust the judgement of a highly-experienced generalist editor over a knowledgeable topic-specific editor about 98% of the time. Please note that I did not say 100%. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In his response WiliamJE asks: What is more significant about Urban? And he seems to have a problem with the reference to Arlington.

We both agree that the MOH is significant!

However in LTC Urban's case his service record extends further to where he is recognized at Arlington as the most highly decorated combat infantry officer of World War II. The problem that WilliamJE appears to have with the mentioning of Arlington lies in an apparent lack of understanding of the significance Arlington plays in the recognition of those who are buried on its sacred grounds.

WilliamJE's crack "Border is WP:SPA with possible WP:COL" is perhaps typical of his lack of depth in analysis and effort at obfuscation through an impolite comment. He seems not to understand that this is Border's first article- so the use of WP:SPA is accurate in one sense but is a typically flawed generalization. Now one shouldn't one ask the question why did the "experienced" WilliamJE move the discussion in this direction as opposed to a more positive direction? To be helpful or to mask his own ignorance of the subject matter on LTC Matt Urban?

With regard to the comment WP;COI- this is offensive. Given WilliamJE's soft analysis this is not a surprising coping mechanism. On the contrary I happen to have very deep concern for NPOV and respect for Wikipedia which is why I have engaged in this discussion in the first instance. Further it appears that it is WilliamJE who has an issue with a NPOV and COI perhaps in an effort to cover shortcomings.

Now I would return to the point that WilliamJE has no apparent knowledge of LTC Matt Urban and Arlington National Cemetery. However this does not appear to stop him from making childish revisions without apparently fully understanding the topic at hand.

It seems as though WilliamJE has a problem with being asked to justify his approach for using WP:UNDUE. Perhaps not surprising given that his explanation was "It is plainly obvious this trivial matter is given more weight by being put in the article's introduction. What is more signifiant about Urban? The answer is obvious as is why I said UNDUE."

Clearly this statement more than any other reflects an inability to understand why it was important to include at least some of the the "deleted" information in the first section. It also demonstrates an inability to clearly articulate a sound factual explanation. WilliamJE could you please discourse on your quoted remark from the previous paragraph in a way which demonstrates a knowledge of LTC Matt Urban and his background. This is not rocket science!

In some ways this exchange illustrates a serious challenge within Wikipedia of editors who "know the rules" but apparently lack the skill to understand topic well enough to properly apply the rules.

I appreciate Mz7 's suggestion about carrying the discussion to WilliamJE's User:Talk page I tried that earlier but he deleted an earlier comment saying he had posted his response on Teahouse. He clearly should have suggested that his user:talk page is the correct venue but he did not. Is this not a WP:COIon WilliamJE's part?

Perhaps it is time for WilliamJE to retire, for the good of Wikipedia. Sadly, that may be hoping for too much.

In closing it should be noted that the comments of the other editors in this discussion were very helpful and introduce the opportunity for appropriate modifications to the article in the best traditions of Wikipedia. I hope to avail myself of some of their expertise as we move forward.

Borderlands1920 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Questionable revisions by WillamJE

I have been working on an article on Matt Urban. I have just run into the problem where an individual going by the name WilliamJE is making revisions using the comment WP.UNDUE. In my examination of WP.UNDUE I am not able to determine on what basis WilliamJE is able to make this statement.

I am not aware of any demonstrated expertise by this individual regarding Matt Urban or Arlington National Cemetery.

I have noticed that he/she make an incredibly large number of revisions to many articles on Wikipedia. This really brings into serious question the justification for this individual to make modifications on Wikipedia based on serious thought.

How can this issue be handled in a correct manner through Wikipedia.

Thank you Borderlands1920Borderlands1920 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Borderlands1920: Hi Borderlands1920. I agree with User:WilliamJE's removal of that content and think it was not only not questionable, but clearly correct under our policies. It is original research on all fours to highlight something that did not happen (e.g., someone not appearing on some list, place, honor – here, being not identified of Arlington's Notable Graves List), and then interpreting that negative evidence to reach a conclusion that no reliable third party source has reached. Doing so is not in keeping with our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view ("NPOV"), since it inserts your opinion of a slight against this person that is not a significant view that has been published by any reliable sources on this topic.

WP:UNDUE, which WilliamJE referred to a few times, as you said above, is a subsection of the NPOV policy and is also relevant. Even if some matter is reflected in reliable sources, we only include material about it in proportion to the prominence of that viewpoint in those published reliable sources. In the edits to the article thus far I have seen no evidence that any source has touched on the matter directly, but even if one had, the treatment and amount of words dedicated to it (which seems fairly peripheral to the subject's biography) would have to reflect that, if any mention was warranted.

As you can see, the touchstone of all of these polices is sources, sources, sources, and ones directly verifying the material included – not through our own synthesis, analysis or interpretation. Also highly relevant here is the verifiability policy's subsection known as WP:BURDEN. The burden is on anyone seeking to keep some material in an article, when it is questioned, to provide a reliable source for (that is, one directly supporting) the addition, using an inline citation. Until that source is provided, the content must not be returned. Note that finding a reliable source and citing it does not mean an addition must be kept – it still must be NPOV and not provide undue weight for a peripheral matter and so on, but in the absence of citing such a source there is a line in the sand that the content stay out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

To add to Fuhghettaboutit's response and to answer your initial question, if you disagree with a particular editor about something he or she has done, the first step is usually to ask them about it civilly on their user talk page. That way, they can explain their reasoning in more detail. The dispute resolution page details the general procedure for addressing disputes with another editor. From what I can tell, the information you have added emphasises how the subject has not appeared on a particular list. I'm not sure why it's necessary to include this information; it's rather random and seems like your trying to support a certain opinion, which is why I think WilliamJE reverted your edits. Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Border is a WP:SPA with possible WP:COI issues. The only thing he or she has worked on besides the Urban article is this[3] which gives me the impression the editor has an agenda....William 02:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you FuhgheaboutitBorderlands1920 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC) for your comments!

My concern is that WilliamJEBorderlands1920 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC) is making deletions without having expertise! It appears to me that anyone can make the judgement of WP.UNDUE without stating there objection in detail which is what WilliamJE has done.

To Mz7Borderlands1920 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your comment. Please go to WilliamJEBorderlands1920 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC) web page and unless I am mistaken it is not open to talking about an issue, With all do respect this individual is making a significant number of revisions to a number of sites. Intellectually it does not seem appropriate to make so many revisions without some proper thought.

I would be delighted if WilliamJEBorderlands1920 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC) would engage in some sort of dialogue. However after reviewing his site that strikes me a naive at best.

You've judged me after reviewing my site, whatever that is. If it was my User page, and you actually read it, it would be clear I put emphasis on articles being based on WP:RS. There's multiple sections on my USER page on just that.Borderlands1920Borderlands1920 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You should try reading my user page plus WP:RS and WP:COI. This editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Are you or are you here just to push a viewpoint?...William 02:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever has been done at Arlington regarding Urban is totally unreferenced. It needs a WP:RS. Why did I say UNDUE? It is plainly obvious this trivial matter is given more weight by being put in the article's introduction. Urban won the MOH but more was written about Arlington in the introduction. What's more significant about Urban? The answer is obvious as is why I said UNDUE.

This is my last post for tonight. Good night....William 02:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Border: William's talk page is a little hidden as it isn't linked to from his signature. You can find it at User talk:WilliamJE or by clicking the "Talk" button at the top of the page next to "User page". I suggest we take this discussion there. This is the Wikipedia Teahouse, where we are supposed to be helping editors with general problems about editing Wikipedia. This is not a dispute resolution forum. Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see remarks in section "Using WP:Undue" as it also applies to this section.

Borderlands1920 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

How do we best represent a husband & wife writing team publishing under the husband's name?

I was looking for citations for the Clements Ripley article when I came across what seems to be a reliable citation (see Talk:Clements Ripley#Clements Ripley = partnership between Clem & Katherine Ball Ripley for citation URL) that indicated that Clements and Katharine Ball Ripley were writing partners who were advised in 1932 to publish only under the husbands name as publishers generally do not want more than one authors name on fiction pieces.

I am trying to determine how to best represent this, for example:

• Move the article to Clements and Katharine Ball Ripley & create redirects to it for Clements Ripley & Katharine Ball Ripley
• Feature Katharine Ball Ripley heavily in the Clements Ripley & redirect Katharine Ball Ripley to it

Issues: if the article becomes Clements and Katharine Ball Ripley, well, how does one do a Template:Infobox for that? I have not seen any good infoboxes yet for partnerships or collaboration.

Any suggestions? Mahalo!, Peaceray (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Peaceray. You have raised what I think is one of the most evocative and challenging questions here at the Teahouse in a long time, in my opinion. You have provided evidence that at least some of the works attributed to Clements Ripley should instead be attributed to Clements and Katharine Ball Ripley instead. I do not have the time to examine the sources in detail right now. But if modern scholarship shows that these works (or some of these works) are the products of a collaboration rather than the works of a single individual, then we must be sure that our coverage of those works reflects the authorship accurately. So, did the husband have notable works before the wife made substantive contributions? If so, they should be attributed to him. Any works reliably attributed to both by modern scholarship should be attributed to both here on Wikipedia. And if she authored any notable works on her own, those should be attributed solely to her. I hope that this helps, and please feel to ask followup questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, here is some of the relevant text & the citation:

"Clements and Katharine Ball Ripley Papers, 1909-1996". http://library.sc.edu. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. 1998. Retrieved 2014-02-14. As early as 1932 the matter of an official collaborative agreement between Clem and Kattie as writers had been discussed with their New York agent, David B. Hampton. As indicated in a letter from Hampton to Clem, 26 May 1932, such an agreement would mandate the use of both their names on marketed manuscripts, and would entitle Kattie to one-third of the proceeds from all material they wrote together. Hampton advised against any such arrangement, insisting that publishers had a natural prejudice against marketing manuscripts under two names-'The two of you have built up the name of Clements Ripley and it is as much of an asset as a piece of real estate or a bond.' {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)

Apparently they both published independent of each other before this, then subsequently collaborated & published under his name, making her true contribution undiscernable.

Peaceray (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that you have answered you own question, then, Peaceray. Cite works before 1932 to each as individuals. Cite the later works jointly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Citiing multiple pages of the same source?

Hello, I've already asked this at the help desk, but I now think it's more a question for the teahouse. What is the quickest/most efficient way to cite multiple pages of the same source in separate locations? I'd prefer to be able to do so with VisualEditor. Thanks in advance. - Thennicke (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! I personally like using {{rp|page(s)}}. This makes the reference look like this:^[1]:12 in which case the citation refers to page 12. This way you do not need to add the page number in the main citation. Note, however, that this does not go inside the reference, but rather after it. (I hope that's clear; I'm not too familiar with VisualEditor. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I found that adding template:rp as a transclusion, directly after the cite template works fine, even in VisualEditor. One last question: when using said template, it renders with a superscript colon then page number, as you described, next to the inline citation. However, this is contrary to every article I can recall reading; these articles seem to use a superscript a, b, c etc. in the actual references box, directly in front of the source. (E.g. the first reference on Tasmanian devil). How is this achieved, are they even different methods or is it rendering as such because I'm editing in userspace, and finally, are both methods acceptable? Once again, thanks for the help. - Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Thennicke: I've seen some discussion in the past at featured article nominations that {{rp}} is not preferred but it's also been used in featured articles and fairly recently (see discussion at this FAC, oh and here too). It was actually created by a now retired user in response to my whining at Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms/Archive 3#The page number problem and was intended not as a general alternative to shortened footnotes (the common method for citing various pages of a single work, and what is used at Tasmanian devil) but for works where you are going to be citing a huge number of different pages from one work, so a system like {{sfn}} would result in a seemingly absurd number of separate entries in the references area. I personally think we should try to use {{rp}}, rather than shortened footnotes, only in those cases where there is that problem of quite large numbers of pages. But the fact that it is being used in some featured articles and they are being promoted is a good indication that there is no general notion that they are unacceptable even in our best content. We accept a lot of flexibility in what referencing system is to be used, mostly just asking for consistency (i.e., try not to mix and match too much). See WP:CITEVAR. Best Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think that's all I need to know before I go off and edit Australian Alps :) Thanks for the info, it's pointed me to the right places. (and thank you to both of you for being kind; I am fairly new and it's encouraging) - Thennicke (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)