Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 298

Archive 295

Archive 296

Archive 297

Archive 298

Archive 299

Archive 300

→

Archive 305

City government document from 1976

I emailed the Boston Redevelopment Authority and asked for a copy of a document they published in 1976 (C.B.D. C395, "Boston's Adult Entertainment District"). A nice man sent me a PDF file. I wrote back asking if I should consider it a public-domain document, but I haven't heard back. There's a map in the document that I think would be a useful addition to the "Combat Zone, Boston" article. It's a zoning map, so it should be public information; and I've seen it reproduced in a book, if that means anything. Any thoughts on this? --Rosekelleher (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Alternatively, there's another document that IS available online, and it also includes a map of the area (the image is just not quite as clear). So I'm thinking if it's a government document that's publicly available, I should be able to use the zoning map in the Wikipedia article about that neighborhood, right? --Rosekelleher (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While most such documents produced by the Federal government are public domain, state law varies as to the copyright status of works produced by state governments. I'll hope over to the media copyright questions page and ask one of the experts there to stop by and reply.--ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ukexpat, I appreciate that. (I forgot there was a special place for copyright questions, sorry.) After all that, I just got an email back from the guy at BRA, and he wrote, "The document is public, so it can be used as long as it is cited properly." I'd still like to hear from the expert, though, in case there's anything else I need to know. --Rosekelleher (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, public could just mean "available to the public", it may not mean "public domain" for copyright purposes. Anyway, let's wait for the MCQ expertise.--ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• As it was published in 1976, it needs a copyright notice. If it was published with a copyright notice, then it is copyrighted. If it was published without a copyright notice, then it is in the public domain in the United States per {{PD-US-no notice}}. You therefore need to verify if it carried a copyright notice when it was published in 1976. A copyright notice consists of the sign © (or the word "copyright" or a common abbreviation thereof), the year of publication and the name of the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The full document is available here in various formats and I can't see any copyright notice anywhere, so Stefan appears to be correct, but I don't see anything that confirms it was published in 1976 which is necessary for use of that tag. The only date mentioned is receipt of the document in Novemebr 1974 but no publicaton date. I would like to know where did the date of 1976 came from? ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, ww2censor. I mentioned two different documents, above:

• "Boston's Adult Entertainment District," published in 1976, and not available online as far as I can tell. That's the document I read about in a book, requested from the BRA, and received by e-mail in PDF form.
• "Text amendment no. 38," the 1974 document you're talking about, which is available online.

In light of Stefan2's comment, and your observation that there's no copyright notice on the document, I'm going to screen-capture and upload the zoning map from the 1974 document. It's not as crisp and clear as the map in the other document, but come to think of it, it is more historically significant, because 1974 was the year that the BRA officially created an "adult entertainment district" in Boston, and the document you looked at is where they defined it. Thanks very much, all, for your help! I'm always amazed at how helpful WP volunteers are. --Rosekelleher (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Having trouble with sources.

I've made an edit over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Targett_%28footballer%29#International_career but the formatting in the references section isn't working as intended. Help appreciated. Dinotramp (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done It just needed an extra closing brace } at the end (it had one, but needed two to match the two at the start).--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As an one extra point, rather than giving a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Targett_%28footballer%29#International_career, we prefer to use a wikilink like Matt Targett (footballer)#International career (as these are rather more readable). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability issue & Advertisement

More than a year ago, company's page had a notability issue and an issue that it is written like an advertisment. Meanwhile, there have been many changes and I think that wiki page doesn't have any issue anymore. Should I ask from someone to review it again? If yes, how?

Thanks a lot in advance. 2.84.151.105 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you provide a wikilink here, the chances are that someone will look at it for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's great. The wikipage I am talking about is SourceLair. 1xristos2(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@1xristos2.: Hi 1xristos2. It's not that the language is still so promotional, but that all it says is two positive sentences about the topic and then provides a lists of features ("look at all the features we have!"). An article does not need to be written with tons of buzz language to still come off as promotional. This is not what a truly neutral third party would have written for this topic. Regarding the sources there has been little change in result. Every citation is used to support the list of features. The article has almost no content in the body, and what's there is unsourced. Meanwhile, of the seven sources used, five are sourced to sourceLair's blog. The other three are not obviously reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of SourceLair (i.e., what is needed to establish notability) and again, they're just cited for existence of features. The Geeks3d source, for example, looks like some random post from some person and quotes what is obviously an advertisement for the site. It's hard to pin down what it is exactly, but nothing about it would ever give anyone the idea it was an independent, secondary, high quality source that exercises editorial discretion and has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. All this is to say, this article needs lots of work, if it should remain at all, and I think all of the maintenance tags are still applicable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links for userpage

Hi, everyone. This may be a noob question, but I've made a userpage for my username on both the English and German sites and can't find how to link them up! I go onto Wikidata but of course this says do not create an item for userpages. I'm confused on how to add the language links on the left-hand side without this. Any help would be much appreciated! Dionysius1990 (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dionysius1990. Though this won't add your links to the left, you can always crosslink between the two user pages by using the URL in this fashion:

Here's my user page on English Wikipedia.

Someone else may have a more elegant solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dionysius1990! Here's the extension to Cullen328's answer which will do what you want: You can add [[<language code>:User:Dionysius1990]] anywhere on your user page (where <language code> is the ISO 639-1 code for the language in question), and it won't appear in the normal page but it will appear in the Language sidebar. So adding [[de:User:Dionysius1990]] will add the link to the German Wikipedia in the Languages sidebar as you requested (and it will translate "User" to "Benutzer" for you as well). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Orange Suede Sofa. Your solution is much more elegant and responsive to the original question than mine. I never claimed to be a brilliant coder. I am just a plodder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's simply the way we used to create interlanguage links before WikiData, glad to see it still works. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Orange Suede Sofa, that's exactly what I was looking for. Dionysius1990 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Guide to Wikipedia editing guides

It would be nice if there were a well-publicized way of simply looking for editing policies. For example, a minor edit I made, based on the Chicago Manual of Style, was reverted with the reason being that it isn't Wikipedia's manual of style. I have no idea where to find what the other editor is referring to. Couldn't we have some-thing like a search function for these things? Kdammers (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kdammers. It sounds as if you are looking for WP:manual of style. In general pages like that are in the Wikipedia: space (or the Help: space), so if you start your search with WP: you may find what you are looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You. In my years of editing here, no one has ever told me this. It is not obvious. Let's put the notification of using 'W:"' some-where where it is very easily seen. Kdammers (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you meant "WP:" GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Hemispheric- Systematic bias

Hey, how do I deal with Wikipedia's systematic bias?Frogger48 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frogger48. There are lots of answers one might give, some more practical than others; but it depends what you mean by "deal with". The ideal answer would be "enrol a lot more editors from other cultures to work on it", but that might not be very practical. My main question about your question is whether you are asking about improving Wikipedia, or about some work of your own where you want to use Wikipedia but perceive that it has a bias that you want to compensate for. If the former, that is a huge question that many people have discussed: I think you'll find plenty of discussion at WP:The Village pump. If the latter, you'll want to consult other sources (which might include other language versions of Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Frogger48. We can all work in a number of ways on systemic bias. I've spent a lot of time working on WP:New pages patrol and WP:Articles for creation copy-editing articles that show promise from non-western countries. Problematic articles come from all corners of the globe, but in the last few days I've worked on Indian film articles, filmographies and articles about Nigerian storytellers. Dealing with systemic bias ultimately means being prepared to roll up your sleeves and muck in trying to help things survive their first few minutes on Wikipedia. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you have in mind but Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias may be helpful. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A silly question

What is someone who is not a teahouse host, but has come in as a guest and refuses to go away because not everyone has enough milk or sugar? Because I think I’m one of whatever that is. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello "82". I think that such an editor would learn a lot by listening to the rest of the conversations at the other tables. That user can do small menial tasks (like I do here) that are equally important in a working Teahouse, besides contemplating and discussing important matters. And can I please have some lemon with my tea? Two slices please, w.carter-Talk 23:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we establish a wine tasting room as well as a teahouse? (And not one of those snooty yuppie wine tastings where you spit the wine out) Problem is my answers would drone on and on even longer than they already do so probably not a great idea. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

When not editing Wikipedia, I like to visit Napa Valley winery tasting rooms with my wife, especially if art is on display. Almost nobody spits out wine around here, MadScientistX11, except judges at competitions who have to taste hundreds in a day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall where I read it, but those who visit the Teahouse were divided into hosts, guests and parasites. I come here and read and if a question didn't get an answer, or sometimes if it hasn't been answered yet and I feel I can, I attempt to give an answer or tell where the answer might be found. I would say I fall in the third group.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Included/excluded groups (taxobox)

When trying to make a few tweaks regarding the taxonomy in a taxobox on the Polychaeta page, I noticed that there were two parameters I had never come across before, included and excluded groups. Judging by the apparent meaning, I can conclude what their purposes were, but I just can't figure out why it is necessary to add them (or not). Can't I just add a list of child taxa and leave out the "excluded groups" part? It doesn't seem to have an explanation on the taxobox template page either. Help would be greatly appreciated. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen this question but this is one of those I would not have known the answer to (see above section, or below when it is archived). But it looked familiar because it was answered here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Add list from 'Tip of the day, August 25' to Teahouse?

Greetings, at Wikipedia:Tip of the day/August 25 I added Teahouse to the list of Help resources (it was missing). Could this list somehow be incorporated at Teahouse? I've noticed various off topic postings here & thought this tip's shortlist might be helpful. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

JoeHebda hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Since no one has answered I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Teahouse.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential Violation of User Talk Page?

I don't know if a user using their talk page solely for social purposes would be a violation of the policy. Would it be? Thanks again, Teahouse! ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 00:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi HackedBotato, welcome back! The relevant guideline is WP:OWNTALK: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." While we can drop friendly, sociable notes to each other, the bulk of the conversation needs to be focused on Wikipedia matters. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! How would I deal with a user potentially using their userpage this way? Is there a specific template? Thanks! ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 02:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello HackedBotato. I recommend dealing with the editor in a friendly way, assuming that they are unfamiliar with the guideline. Welcome them, encourage them, and explain things gently. Link to the guideline, including a quote as NeilN did above. A personalized approach is sometimes better than a template. I think this may be such a case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Religion and Science

Hi. According to many educational orgs and Universities, science and religion do not oppose or contradict each other. What is Wikipedia have to say about religion and science? Frogger48 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi there, @Frogger48: I haven't read it myself, but Relationship between religion and science is an article on the subject. The article covers a variety of perspectives and religions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frogger48: It depends greatly on context as well as interpretation. For instance, YECs (Young Earth creationists) hold a strict interpretation of the new testament and believe the earth is about 6,000-10,000 years old, which is obviously in direct conflict with science. You can't even begin in the biological sciences without accepting evolution, its fundamental underpinning, and the pile of consistent scientific evidence for it so high you must shut out all your senses to deny it. Yet, last I heard, about 40% of Americans deny it for religious ideological reasons. Additional examples one could give are legion. On the other hand, those who cotton to a looser, metaphorical interpretation, may accept the age of the Earth, or evolution, while still being adherents of a new testament form of Christianity. Context is key as to Wikipedia articles on this as well. In the context of an article on a religion, we essentially report what the religion holds, or its believers believe, without taking a stance on the truth of the religion or the existence of God, and science doesn't even enter the picture. On the other hand, our article on Age of the Earth should and does report the scientific view as fact. The view from religion does not belong there, except possibly as a mere mention, though we do have a separate article on the religious view at Dating creation. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

so Could the same idea, be applied to the Pro-Life Pro-Choice debate as well as religious conserns on vaccines, GMOs and stem cell research as well? Frogger48 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Frogger48. I think this thread is straying from the purpose of the Teahouse, which is asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. That being said, my view is that religion and science operate in different spheres. Fundamentalist religions may often conflict with science while more tolerant religions may fully accept science. Poetry, beauty, parable, myth, justice, morality and tradition are not subjects of study by "hard science", but religion deals with such things. These are disputes (or nuances) pertaining to world views, which can, in some cases, be reconciled. The abortion debate is a matter of public policy, with two fundamentally irreconcilable views in conflict. The other three issues you mention may not be quite as irreconcilable, but also represent public policy debates between camps with very different views of specific issues. Recent public comments by Bill Nye on GMOs show that surprises are abundant in this life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I just want to know the truth. about everything, and I think that Wiki already does a great job in doing this. Frogger48 (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest you try Wikipedia’s Humanities or Science reference desks? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frogger48: Just one last thought. Wikipedia is a catalogue not really of 'truth' but of human understandings about the world. That encompasses things which are accepted as scientific 'facts' (for example all the articles on observable animal species are basically factual), but it also documents human opinion, experiences, history and other areas where it's much more difficult to determine which things are 'true' and which are 'false' except by way of reliable sources discussing the experiences. I am a social scientist and former legal scholar and so during my studies dealt more with trying to derive general rules from a mass of people's documented opinions and experiences, rather than measure how far it is to the nearest planet or carbon-date a human skeleton. 'Documented opinion' is as much Wikipedia's purview as 'truth'. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 11:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Can I merge the articles I made in Talk and Sandbox?

Hello! Can I merge the articles I made in Talk and Sandbox? How shall I do it? I already submitted for review the one I made at Sandbox, but I was urged to save and submit the same article I made at Talk. Appreciate you help and thanks so much.

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC welcome to the teahouse. To answer your question the way to integrate a file is to copy the wp:wikicode from one file into the other. The problem is that you used your main user page: User:Sr._Ma._Lourdes_Casas,_SPC as a draft article. That isn't what your user page is for. Your user page is to introduce yourself and have relevant info for other Wikipedians about your editing intertests, skills, etc. Here is my user page for example: User:MadScientistX11 Mine is pretty vanilla, some people have a lot more detail about themselves, pages they've edited, projects they belong to, etc. But the point is that page is not a place to create draft articles. That is what your wp:sandbox is for. So you should delete or copy/paste what is currently in your user page into your sandbox or some other file. However, there is a much more significant issue I think you should be aware of. You seem to be trying to create an article for the Sisters of St. Paul. If you look at the details in response to your submission you can see that there already is such an article on Wikipedia: Sisters_of_Charity_of_St._Paul So your draft article will almost certainly be rejected. There is no need for two articles on the same topic and in fact having two such articles can be very confusing to users of the encyclopedia. My advise is first to clean up your user page and then take any information that isn't in the current article and that is appropriate for Wikipedia and add that to the current article. However, before you do that last step I encourage you to read up more on things like Wikipedia:Objective Sources and wp:neutral point of view Your current draft reads too much like a pamphlet praising the sisters rather than as an encyclopedia article. I'm sure the sisters do excellent work and are very praiseworthy but the goal of Wikipedia is to be neutral and objective on all topics not to take a wp:promotional tone. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your answer. I will do as what you have suggested. But is there a way for me to change the title Sisters of Charity of St. Paul to Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres which the correct name of the congregation.

I appreciate your very nicely put explanation.

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a list of Draft pages?

If you create an article using the Article Wizard, when you have finished creating it, does it go automatically into 'Draft' status, awaiting approval? If it does, is it possible to see the list of all Draft Articles awaiting Approval and if so where and how? Sebh007 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the foot of your Draft:The National Open Art Competition, for example, you will see links to a number of categories, including Category:Pending AfC submissions as well as some by age. While you are waiting for the draft to be reviewed you may want to improve it, and bring it further into line with the Manual of Style, by such things as removing external links from the body text, and removing links from section headings, also expanding bare urls. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for that. Really helpful. Happy (no, make that keen!) to improve. Will try to follow your suggestions. Thanks again.Sebh007 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sebh007: It does not happen automatically. It relies on code like {{AFC submission|...}} with certain parameters in the source of the page . Not all drafts at Special:Contributions/Sebh007 have been submitted for review. For example, Draft:NOAC Prize for Best Work has a green submission button but nothing will probably happen if you don't use that button. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

how to resize table

hello! may I ask how to resize table and put image on it? thanks. Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC: Welcome to the Teahouse. Is this about the article draft you have on your userpage? I've read over your draft and there are a few more important issues I need to bring to your attention:

• You appear to be an employee of the institution writing an article about it. This is considered to be a conflict of interest, and is generally discouraged because it is difficult to write about your own institution in a neutral manner appropriate for an encyclopedia. That said, you can continue working on the article, but understand that it will receive more scrutiny because of your affiliation.
• The use of tables in the draft to separate sections is not appropriate; we generally use headers followed by plain text like so:

===Origins===

The Congregation of the Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres(SPC) was...

• You should not copy material from the institution's website and paste it into Wikipedia because 1) the owner of the text need to provide permission, and 2) the language is very promotional and not appropriate for the encyclopedia. It might be best to start writing from scratch using another article, like Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul as an example.

Please let me know if I can help you navigate through any of these matters. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your answer and advice. I am in charge of the institutions website. There is an existing article in wikipedia written about our congregation whose title and information are not correct, that is why, I tried to write a new one. But if I can just edit this old existing article so much the better. Thanks again for your reply.

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to change the title or correct it.

Hello! Thanks again for the patience and kindness to answer my question. May I ask if it is possible to edit the title of an article already published in Wikipedia? Appreciate so much your help and warm welcome.

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. On your user talk page I gave you a link to WP:Moving. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC First, sorry I missed your follow up question to your initial query below. I just want to add to the good info that David Biddulph gave above. I assume this is about the article Sisters_of_Charity_of_St._Paul If it is before you attempt to move it I think you should discuss it on the article's wp:talk page which is here: Talk:Sisters_of_Charity_of_St._Paul Talk pages are where Wikipedia editors discuss issues that might be controversial. Since I think you are a fairly new editor and renaming an article might be something other editors have an opinion on I think its a good idea to ask for other opinions there before you attempt to rename the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC: One more idea, rather than do the move directly yourself I would suggest you try using the request a move process instead: Wikipedia:Requested_moves Moving pages can be tricky, you need to make sure things like existing links, redirects, etc. all continue to work properly. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to add Simplified Chinese article?

I want to add a Simplified Chinese translation of an article (The Lord's Prayer) but it defaults to Traditional Chinese.

Can somebody help?

Goldlionpal (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Goldlionpal. Not sure what you mean - could you explain what exactly you are trying to do because the way it reads at the moment is that you are trying to upload a Chinese article to English Wikipedia, which won't get through as we only accept articles in English (any article would be sent for translation, but content which is already there in English would be deleted as a duplicate). Do you mean you are trying to link The Lord's Prayer to the Chinese wikipedia, but they use traditional characters rather than simplified characters? LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that is what you're trying to do. This is the English Wikipedia, and all articles submitted here should be in English. We cannot accept articles in any other language - apologies for that, but other languages have their own version of Wikipedia, so articles in other languages should be uploaded to those Wikipedias rather than this one here. I'll see if I can find a link to the Chinese Wikipedia using simplified characters so you can add it there, and leave it on your talk page. Bear in mind, depending how large or how diverse that version of Wikipedia is, that they might already have the article you want to add. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese Wikipedia is here: 汉语.--ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The simplified Chinese article on The Lord's Prayer is here: 主禱文. When browsing a Wikipedia you can find links to the corresponding articles in other languages in the left sidebar. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

I know it is difficult for English speakers to understand but I will try to explain.

Taiwan and Hong Kong use Traditional Chinese.

Singapore and China use Simplified Chinese.

A simple one to one conversion between Simplified and Traditional characters would not make it understandable in another country. Even between Taiwan and Hong Kong, the languages are different.

A metaphor is that you have Pidgin English, Simple English, and Old English. An Old English Wikipedia article cannot be understood by a person literate in Pidgin English, even though they use the same character set.

In conclusion, I suggest forking the Chinese Wikipedia to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Simplified Chinese Wikipedias. Of course this does not have to be done overnight. Volunteers would simply make new contributions by themselves. You just have to allow them to do so.

Goldlionpal (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

edit rejected Is that it?

I made an edit that was rejected. Should I summit an article to present the scientific case for no twin paradox? I would rather talk the issue out and resolve it with the Dr Greg or his people. What do you recommend? Article was "Proper Time" example on twin paradox. Donald Lem (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Donald Lem (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Donald Lem You did the right thing by posting a question to Dr Greg on his talk page. Keep in mind that we are all volunteers here so it can often take some time for people to get back to Wikipedia and reply to things on their talk page, Dr. Greg seems to always reply to questions on his talk page so it will probably just take some time. Another thing you can do is to post the issue on the talk page of the article itself. Each article has its own wp:talk page where editors discuss disagreements. However, if I'm understanding you it sounds like you have an alternative interpretation of the Twin Paradox that is different than the standard one. If that is the case it is what Wikipedia considers wp:original research and this is not the place for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to capture what already exists in good wp:references If you have an alternative interpretation of the Twin Paradox -- to be honest I'm skeptical that it is valid but then again most new good ideas are subject to skepticism -- but in any case this isn't the place for it. The place for a new interpretation of the Twin Paradox would be a physics journal. But not for Wikipedia until it is published in good references. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to get editors to help write a wiki?

Hi - I've never written an article before (I'm just about finished with my first one). It's an article for an American multi-platinum songwriter and recording artist. I have read through the guidelines and have a pretty good idea of the content that needs to be included (and excluded) from the article to meet the guidelines.

As I said I'm just about finished with the content of article and so I was wondering if it's possible to call out for help and request editors to help in two ways:

1) feedback on the content to ensure it looks kosher for wiki guidelines and what might be missing or needs to be removed

and

2) to actually compose the article in the wiki editor to make the formatting be appropriate (i'm an extreme novice with that)

(Drick002 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drick002, welcome to the Teahouse! If you're talking about User:Drick002/draft article on keith james the first thing that jumps out is that it has no citations to reliable sources. Each fact or assertion in a biography needs to be verifiable and so needs a citation to a published source independent of the subject. We also need these references to show the subject meets our notability requirements. If you need help adding these sources please see Help:Referencing for beginners. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the draft article is a cut and paste of this webpage and because it has a clear copyright notice at the bottom, your draft page will most likely to be deleted because it is a copyright violation, also see WP:COPYVIO. Article must be written in your own words and not simply copies of something someone else wrote. And as mentioned above must be referenecs by reliable third party sources. I have looked around and don't see any to prove this person is notable enough for an article of their own. See WP:Notability (music). ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Programming Help!

I Want to make a "open-source" page for programming well people can help me program on here if i need help with the code within my project, is there any way i can do this? //ShadowVault {<a href=""https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shadowvault>Talk</a>} (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Shadowvault welcome to the teahouse. It sounds like you want to use Wikipedia to set up a resource for some open source development you want to do. If that is what you want to do then Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Wikipedis is not a general resource for hosting projects or web pages. However, there are ways to do what you want. It is very common for open source projects to use the basic Wikicode infrastructure to set up a Wiki to store information about the project. Keep in mind when I say "a Wiki" that is not the same as Wikipedia. It's a site that uses the same technology as Wikipedia uses but is a separate site from the encyclopedia. The first thing I would suggest you look at is this: How To Become a MeidaWiki Hacker Also this: Media Wiki Developer Hub --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Shadowvault, One more thing, you are probably familiar with this site already but just in case you are new to open source this is another great place to start: http://sourceforge.net/ That site isn't related to Wikipedia but it has some of the best tools that open source developers, including those who work on Wikipedia use. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Be a host

Welcome, All hosts. I really get annoyed because I couldn't be a host everytime I tryna make a profile told me page fully protected so I can't edit and make my profile to teahouse host page I know they do so Cruz of the vandalism to important page like this although they told me thanks to be a host but the question.. When can I be a host? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagemaru2022 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kagemaru2022. Hosts are experienced editors who have a good knowledge about most matters on the Wikipedia. When you have gained such knowledge you may apply for becoming a host. It usually takes at least 1000 edits and several months or a year, but most hosts are well beyond that. Keep editing, reading about the Wikipedia policy and add to the encyclopedia. In time you may become a host. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kagemaru2022: However you can still create a Teahouse profile as a guest. It'd be great if you can introduce yourself to Teahouse before trying to be a host. You can create a guest profile here. If you have any questions regarding Teahouse or Wikipedia, feel free to ask on my talk page. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to comply with the rules and not risk deletion.

The wikipedia page,Daddy Dewdrop has been up for years and in trying to set the record straight I ran into a series of infractions and all I want to do is make it right. I need help.Daddydewdrop (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You should follow the advice when you asked this question on the Help Desk (Wikipedia:Help_desk#Daddy_Dewdrop), and read the conflict-of-interest guidelines at WP:COI. RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to add a picture to a new article

Hi, I am WelshWonderWoman, and I'm trying to create an article which is awaiting review at the moment but I am unsure how to add a photograph to it as this is all very new to me. I also wonder if there was any experienced editors who might like to help guide me through the initial editing process as I could use a little advice sometimes. Thank you WelshWonderWoman (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WelshWonderWoman, hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I moved your question to the top of the page for better visibility.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer one of your questions, you are looking for Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. It took me a while to find this because I was looking in the wrong place. I am going to look for the answer to your primary question now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I knew I had seen this. A similar question about photos was answered here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also found this standard answer:

1. To add an image, the image first has to be uploaded to Wikipedia's servers, and then added to an article. See Wikipedia:Upload to upload the image; you have to be very careful with copyright when uploading an image (free use images are preferred, and other images can only be used in very specific circumstances). Once you've done this, you have to add the image to an article; see Help:Image for full instructions.

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Checking translations

Hi, me again! Is it permitted to paste my article drafts into an external site (i.e. Lang-8) to have people proofread my translations? In the event that nothing is changed, then of course the text would be identical on both sites, so I wasn't sure how that is looked upon. Thanks in advance. Dionysius1990 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Dionysius. On a quick look at at lang8, I see "© 2014 Lang-8, Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom of every page. It seems to me therefore that once material has been posted on that site, Lang-8 have claimed copyright, so it may not then be used in Wikipedia. My interpretation may be wrong, but I would be wary of it. But why not just post it in a user sandbox in Wikipedia (in the target language Wikipedia, I presume)? --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine, hi. I simply wondered because it's the site I generally use for proofreading my language work in other contexts, but asking fellow Wikipedians is a perfectly good alternative and the one I will use. Thank you. :) Dionysius1990 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine and Dionysius I'm no lawyer and copyright can be tricky but the logic that Colin used above just doesn't make sense to me. You can't claim copyright on any arbitrary bit of text just because it is entered into your web site. If you could then the people at Lang-8 could start copy pasting new novels into their site and then turn around and sue the authors for violating their copyright. I know that is a ridiculous scenario but -- unless I'm misunderstanding something which is quite possible -- that seems like the logical conclusion to Colin's interpretation. I think "All rights reserved" in this case applies to things like the technology they use to do translation (you could get access to the code or re-engineer it), the text on the site that describes Lang-8 itself, etc. but not the various documents submitted for help in translating. If that isn't the case I can't see how they would expect any business to ever use their site. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine and Dionysius I did some more digging on that site and found the following:

Copyright for data (information such as entries, corrected entries, comments to corrections, native language, languages learning) on the service is with either the user or the copyright holder for the data.

That seems pretty clear to me that as I thought Lang-8 does NOT claim copyright over material entered for translation. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you get more eyes on a discussion?

A discussion was started on a core policy page (since moved to a subpage), it’s got an RFC, we posted a link at WP:Village pump (policy), provisional changes have been made to some articles… yet there is very little involvement from more than a few editors. What else could be done to get more editors involved? Or do we just call it “no consensus” and forget it? Or push changes through and see whether there’s resistance? Or should I be asking this somewhere else? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor 174. When I look at the subpage you linked to, I see extensive debate and discussion. If there is no consensus for a change, then the status quo should remain. All you can get here are opinions by experienced editors, not a resolution. We discuss editing processes here at the Teahouse, in a friendly fashion, but we don't resolve outside disputes. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn’t looking for a resolution here, just for a way to get broader input. Any suggestions? Or is there a more appropriate place to ask that kind of advice? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You report that the issue has been discussed three places, and now the Teahouse is the fourth. I suggest that you read WP:FORUMSHOP, part of our consensus policy, which says "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as 'asking the other parent'.)" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What three places? The discussion is in a single place. I mentioned pointing to the discussion at WP:VPP; did you misinterpret that? I am not trying to solicit input here. Please read the question (here) more carefully before assuming bad faith. Thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello 174.141.182.82. In your post you keep referring to "we". I also saw on your talk page that you prefer to edit under an anonymous IP rather than getting an account. You say: "And I have my reasons for continuing to edit anonymously, but I haven’t slept so I forget what they are." Might those reasons be that you in fact is/are a group of people editing under this single IP? w.carter-Talk 12:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So I guess I'm being a forum shopping enabler here but I couldn't help myself and I took a look at the proposal and I think it is a terrible idea, a classic case of adding a feature that we don't really need and will almost certainly cause confusion and errors. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant the people trying to have that discussion, of which I am one. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not want an answer like, “Sure, I’ll join that discussion.” I want an answer like, “If you post this template to that appropriate venue, then that will increase visibility of a discussion about improving the encyclopedia.” Please answer the question I posted here to ask rather than jumping to your own conclusions. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem with forum shopping: you may still not get the answer you want. And I hate to break it to you but the nature of Wikipedia is that anyone can join in on any discussion. And I think there is something inherently contradictory about asking for other people to give their point of view and then saying you don't want us "jumping to your own conclusions". Everything I say here is my own conclusion. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of my last post was that this wasn’t forum shopping. This is the only place I have asked for advice on giving more visibility to a discussion. I had included a link (now removed) to that discussion because in the past, when I’ve tried to ask for general advice, I was explicitly asked for details. So now you know why I usually leave those details out. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't see why you don't provide details at all. Definitely not from this example. Unless it is because they may get in the way of you getting the answer you wanted to get in the first place. To me that is a very good reason for including details, because when I ask a question I realize that I may not be going in the right direction and if that is the case I want to know it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I asked about how to get more interest in a discussion; but because I included a link to it, I was misinterpreted as forum shopping. And the actual question I asked remains unanswered. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

what are the criteria required to create an article in wikipedia?

what are the criteria required to create an article in wikipedia? srini (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Srinivasprabhu933 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The information you want is found at Wikipedia:Your first article, but newcomers are discouraged from actually creating articles. The best thing to do is edit articles and become familiar with our many guidelines and policies. You can request an article but that takes a lot of time. We are all volunteers and there is lots to do.

If you are determined to try creating an article, use the article wizard. That way you can make mistakes without having anyone delete your work (in most cases) and you will get helpful advice on how to improve your work.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello srini. Further to what Vchimpanzee has said, someone left a note on your talk page with links to important policies and help pages and reading those will probably give you a good idea of what is required for an article on Wikipedia to be able to take shape. Try using Articles for Creation to get a review of your work when you have prepared a draft. Otherwise, I agree with V that the best way to get a feel for the project is to just edit for a while. Look up articles you are interested in and find a convenient WikiProject to join. Then it will be a shorter step from general editing to creating your own articles - once you know what we need and how to write a good one, you're almost there. Good luck, and I hope you find your feet soon! LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 23:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Help me change a published article into a draft status

Earlier today, I tried to recreate an article that was deleted a year. After working on the article for a while, I then tried to save the article as a draft, however the article saved as a published article instead. How can I change the article to a draft so I can work on it before it is deleted? Graceking123 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume it is Canon (rapper)? I will move it for you. Hope that helps. It is now at Draft:Canon (rapper). John from Idegon (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you Graceking123 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What is a primary source?

The essay, "What Wikipedia is Not" defines primary (original) research as "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion."

This seems contradictory to what other Wikipedia guidelines say about not to citing primary sources, for example, an original research article published in a peer reviewed journal. These guidelines state you should only cite secondary sources like review articles, book chapters, etc.

Which guideline is correct? J.R. Council (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi James Council, welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is not straightforward. I'm sure other editors will have their own views but here's mine: We can cite papers published in reputable journals in most cases but we should attribute any conclusions reached to the author. For example, Black_hole#Golden_age cites papers and names the authors. An exception to this are medical articles where systematic reviews are strongly preferred. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, James Council. I don't think there is actually an inconsistency: WP:PRIMARY says "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Have you found another policy which says something different?

Having said that, I think there is a bit of a problem with the essay you quote, because while such a primary source may be cited, it will not contribute to notability, and the author of the source needs to be very careful about citing their own work. --ColinFine (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@James Council: Hey J.R. Both are correct. I believe you are conflating original research, which can also be called "primary research" with matters regarding primary sources. The key is understanding how they differ. The most important distinction to draw is here versus there – original research can't be done here, but we can use original research published externally, if it otherwise meets our requirements for sourcing. Confusing matter is that original research can easily be engaged in through use of primary sources, rather than others, but they're quite different things.

When we talk about original (or primary) research we are referring to someone either: 1) writing material here of their own conception that there are no previously published sources to verify ("my own new theory!"), or 2) writing material here and citing reliable sources (of any stripe including primary or secondary or others), but making an argument by synthesizing the reliable sources to say something none say directly ("source A says X, and source B says Y, therefore, Z" (Z being something not in either external source used, or anywhere).

Primary sources are external – out in the world sources that are reporting directly, rather than in some way secondarily. A birth certificate is a primary source—it reports directly about the date of birth and other matters. An interview with a person who reports their own birthdate is another type of direct reporting, primary source. A newspaper article, or (non-autobiography) book on the other hand, in which the authors mention the person's date of birth (and are not quoting the person), is a secondary source for the birthdate.

So, what the What Wikipedia is not policy is talking about is that you can't engage in original research here, but if what you wanted to say gets published externally (and reliably), then that might be used here.

Separate and apart from these distinctions, we also have certain policies and guidelines on how sources may be used. But that covers different territory. For example, primary sources are generally useless to establish notability, because the basis of notability speaks to the world taking note of a topic, which primary sources don't establish. We also caution people to be careful in their use of primary sources because they can often be used to engage in original research by taking one fact and another and coming to an interpretation, analyses or synthesis that is not in the source, but this does not at all mean that using external primary sources is in any way equivalent to engaging in original research itself. I hope this helps. It can be a bit slippery until you become very familiar and see the policies/guidelines applied. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: as usual that was very clear. This issue came up with me a little while ago. I came across a tech article, actually I documented the issue on that article's talk page: Talk:Web_Ontology_Language#All_the_Non_Primary_Source_Tags that had tags for primary sources which IMO weren't really justified. It seems to me that when you have an article on some technology standard (say HTML) and you want to say something like "the design goal of HTML is to provide a standard for hypertext" that referencing the W3C current standard documentation is a reasonable thing to do even though it is a primary source. I was just wondering if in general you agree? (Note: in this case its a moot point since I found non-primary sources anyway but just wondering what you think on the issue in general since it may come up again on tech articles) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)