Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 313

Archive 310

Archive 311

Archive 312

Archive 313

Archive 314

Archive 315

→

Archive 320

How to add terms and images to "List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names" page

Hi there,

I have three pages worth of Latin and Greek scientific words with their English, botanical meaning from an advanced botany course. Many of these are not yet entered into your page titled "List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names". I could enter them myself, but don't know how to. The format is confusing.

I could also take a quality picture of the three pages and enter the pictures as reference; then someone who knows how to enter these names/meanings on your page could do so. But I don't know how to edit in a picture.

Can you please advise me on these two issues? It'd be a shame for these words and their meanings to not be entered for public benefit simply because I don't know how to edit the page.

Thanks so much! Josephine Serovich (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What to do when a citation does not support a claim?

I am currently editing the Economy of Madagascar article. One of the issues I've encountered is that though the article includes reliable sources, the article makes claims that are not supported by the sources. Some inline citations actually contradict the claims made. Should I simply remove these inline citations and add {{fact}}, or is there another template I should use? Denny1213 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Denny1213: Hey Denny, thanks for your question. The best thing you can do is try to find sources for the claim, and failing that, remove the claim entirely from the article as it cannot be verified. You can bring this up on the talk page if the removal seems controversial (like if you are removing a lot of content). If you can't do that (e.g. because you don't have time, or don't have access to sources that might be useful), another template like Template:Failed verification might work better if the source is still generally usable in the article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@I_JethroBT: Thank you. The Failed Verification template was what I needed. Denny1213 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Want to nominate Christian terrorism article for deletion

It goes to a previous deletion request the reason is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Bang66666666 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bang66666666. OR and SYNTH are not valid reasons for deleting an article. If the subject is notable according to Wikipedia's definition, it can have an article. If you can improve the content please feel free to do so or discuss issues on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been nominated before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian terrorism for the overwhelmingly clear keep decision. Arjayay (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep the article! It is definitely a valid topic, with a long history, and needs to be included.

Carol76.77.20.158 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: With respect Neil, that is incorrect. Original research (including WP:SYNTH) is absolutely a valid basis for deletion, as are a host of policies other than notability, including verifiability, multiple provisions of What Wikipedia is not, BLP concerns, etc., as well as sui generis deletion discussions on grounds that cannot be pigeonholed. A demonstration of notability tells us a topic may warrant a stand-alone article, but it does not tell us the particular article we have can remain. However, @Bang66666666: my disagreement about whether original research is a valid ground for a deletion discussion, is by no means an endorsement that this particular article should be deleted under that policy. Especially with original research, you would need to carefully compose a deletion discussion rationale that explains with particularity how the article as a whole is original research and engages in synthesis. In other words, a deletion debate started with just the assertion that it is, and not exactly why, would be very likely to fail and waste the community's time, especially given the prior discussion, even if it was not focused on that issue. In any event, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for the forum through which any such deletion discussion would take place. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Yes, you are correct. If the article is entirely composed of original research and synthesis it may be deleted even if the topic is notable. In this case, I don't think the IP has actually read the article and sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted, but it'd be nice if someone else could put it up at AfD, I would be considered having a bias because I'm a Christian. :/ Nomination anyone? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: And your delete rationale is...? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Because of violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't think you're going to get very far with that. You might try using the talk page to outline your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One misunderstanding I had was I thought you said "The article is entirely composed of original research and synthesis...", not "If the article is entirely composed of original research and synthesis..." (I know, I know, learn to read, idiot.), well, I'm going to retreat back into my dark corner now... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: Hey, better than me taking four edits for the above post. Use Show preview, idiot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I do this reversion right?

An IP user deleted a chunk of text from Polyandry:

Islam also prohibits polyandry for free women, but the Quran states that men are allowed to marry already married women if they own them.<ref>For example, Quran Surah Nisa’ Chapter 4, verses 22-24, gives the list of women whom a man cannot marry and forbids men to marry married women "except those your right hands possess".</ref>

with the summary

Not a valid interpretation of the cited verse

I reverted the deletion, summarizing as

The edit summary given is not sufficient. Anyone can say "not a valid interpretation". If you want to maintain this, put an explanation on the Talk page and link the summary to it.

Did I do it OK? --Thnidu (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thnidu. Religious scriptures such as the Bible, the Quran and the Book of Mormon are primary sources subject to interpretation. That interpretation should be by contemporary academic experts not by Wikipedia editors. So my recommendation is to cite one or more recognized experts discussing this passage in the context of polyandry, rather than citing the passage itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture captions

Hello!!!!!! Do full stops belong in picture captions? I add alot of pictures to articles and therefore–about 99% of the time–a caption is also needed. I have been using full stops nearly all the time. However, I do see some picture captions that don't have one. So some clarification is needed. –DangerousJXD (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DangerousJXD! Our Manual of Style covers this in the captions topic. In short, captions that are simple sentence fragements (like "Christian McBride playing the bass at Yoshi's") do not require full stops. If there is at least one complete sentence in the caption, then full stops are used in all sentences in the caption. Other examples are given in the Manual of Style. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

COIs in AFD?

The infobox template on Articles for Deletion helpfully tells us that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive.

What should I do if I suspect that the editor moving for deletion has a conflict of interest in doing so? (Are editors allowed to do so despite COI?) 76.64.13.4 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @76.64.13.4:, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse! To answer your question, if you have concerns about a user who may or may not have a conflict of interest, the place to bring the issue up is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Hope that helps! --Jayron32 02:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the good advice above, it is very common for editors with various types of conflict of interest to comment at Articles for Deletion debates. Please be aware that these debates are not votes, and the closing administrator in a contested debate is obligated to ignore any recommendation that is not grounded in policies, guidelines and precedent. Please also be aware that if you accuse an editor of an undisclosed conflict of interest, you will be expected to furnish persuasive evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

CSD

As per WP:CSD can you give the simplest explanation of what it is? TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tealover, have you taken a look at the giant CSD page yet? CSD are a list of Criteria for Speedy Deletion of articles and files. It can be a little bit daunting to read the whole page, but the G and A series are pretty straight forward when you read their titles. However just saying "Per CSD" when explaining why you/someone propose to delete a file isn't exactly valid. Hope this helps! Ryan shell (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: To add to Ryan shell's response, Wikipedia's deletion process has generally three main avenues: deletion discussions, proposed deletion, and speedy deletion. WP:CSD describes that third avenue of "speedy deletion" and lists the circumstances in which an article may be speedily deleted on sight by an administrator. This is generally reserved for very specific cases such as blatant copyright violations, vandalism, and hoaxes. If the page is an article about a real person, individual animal, organization, web content or organized event, and it does not explain why the subject is important, then the article can also be speedily deleted. As Ryan shell said, the list is long, but if you are interested in becoming involved in the deletion process, I definitely would read through it so you understand what kinds of pages satisfy the criteria for speedy deletion. If you need further help, feel free to post a follow-up question and I or another Teahouse host will be happy to clarify. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mz7: if an article doesn't meet the necessary criteria for a speedy deletion, for it to be deleted does a discussion have to take place before it is deleted? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 06:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Yes, if an article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, but still deserves to be deleted for another valid reason for deletion under the deletion policy, then it should be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I will say that by far the most common deletion discussion concern is lack of notability. Wikipedia articles generally require significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the topic (see WP:42 for more information)—if an article cannot provide that then it may be deemed non-notable for Wikipedia and deleted. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Punishment page

Hey, I would like to know if there is any information published by reputable sources that provide criticism of punishment and point toward a reward-based system of discipline to add within the page on "Punishment". That would really help me. I apologize for my earlier questions. Please forgive me. Thank you, a lot.. Frogger48 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frogger48, the Teahouse is for asking questions about how to edit Wikipedia. A large part of the problem with your earlier questions is that they were not about how to edit Wikipedia. Do you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia? —teb728 t c 10:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Frogger48, you might find more help in answering your question by going to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. As teb728 rightly points out, the Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia, not general discussion. Also, read Wikipedia:Do your own homework...if you want someone to help find information for you, it's best to find your own collaborator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you, Once again, I am very sorry about the earlier questions. I just was hoping to make sure everyone was welcome here. Frogger48 (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be clear to you and everyone else, Frogger48, that any editor who asks (or answers) good faith questions about the procedures for editing Wikipedia is welcome here. We discuss policies, guidelines, coding and editing norms. But the Teahouse is not a place for more generalized opinion blogging about Wikipedia's core principles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I understand now. Sorry if I upset you earlier here Cullen. Frogger48 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong revert

I just noticed that there has been a reverted edit on Sophie Hunter's page because of the grounds it was made by a sock. The edit was not made by a sock but by Lady Lotus and Mr. Granger, who are definitely not socks (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_Hunter&diff=648489387&oldid=648177364). It should be restored. It is also a necessary parameter on Hunter's page as she does have notable family members who have their own Wiki pages. I hope it gets restored immediately. Thanks!80.110.85.149 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Note to other Teahouse hosts: I checked User:Ponyo's talk page and another anonymous user made the same complaint above to Ponyo not half an hour before this Teahouse question was asked (see this section). Ponyo stated that while a sock puppet did not directly make the edits, the reverted edits were made on behalf of a sock puppet. As a result, I do not believe any response to this is necessary at this time. —Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP is most likely a sock. They have an obsession with Benedict Cumberbatch and anyone associated with him. They continue to try and redo this infobox edit over and over again. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Submission for Review

Hello there! I have been told that each time my article gets declined Wikipedia gives it a lower quality/value score- something along those lines- which makes it difficult to get the article approved with each submission thereafter. Is this true? My article has been declined twice. Even after making suggested changes, I am a little reluctant now to submit it again for review. I would love to submit a quality article and truly appreciate the feedback given after a review. Please do help!

-Eager editor Teamyoddhas (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Teamyoddhas thanks for your question. That is not correct, each time you submit your article is judged on its merits. Before re-submitting please address the issues raised last time it was declined. The article requires more reliable sources. Also your username appears to be a violation of our username policy. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teamyoddhas. There is no numerical scoring of drafts, and each submission is evaluated fresh. However, it should be expected that a reviewer looking at a third submission will want to be sure that the issues raised by the first two reviewers have been adequately addressed, and will wonder a bit why one revision was not enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify quite simply, a reviewer sees nothing but the article, a list of past submissions and a accept and decline buttons. Also, though not officially mentioned, most reviewers will be more likes to accept and article that includes a WP:INFOBOX and consistent inline citations. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are definitely not required for acceptance. Inline citations are not absolutely required except in a few instances such as controversial material about living people; however, they do make the evaluation of specific claims in the draft much easier, so that reviewers can more easily be convinced of the accuracy of the submission and notability of the subject.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

v v(s) vs

What abbr. should be used for versus v or vs ?

• aGastya ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. On Wikipedia we try to not use abbreviations unless they are part of the official name (ie a proper noun). I would suggest just writing versus unless it is a court case in which case I believe 'vs' is standard. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not in England & Wales, EoRdE6: always 'v', read out as 'and'. See Donoghue v Stevenson, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, to take two prominent examples. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

in sports, Country A ( ) Country B.

In this case? EoRdE6

• aGastya ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Is it about a specific sport? For many things we follow the practice of the field we write about, or there may be an established system in Wikipedia articles about the sport. Whether to use an abbreviation at all can also depend on the place in an article, for example prose or a results table. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Using past examples, it seems v is the way to go. For example: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Being specific: it was Cricket World Cup and Brazil Germany example clarifies the doubt.

thank you both!

• aGastya ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

v does appear to be the most common in cricket but for example List of Test cricket series against Sri Lanka uses vs, and everything in Category:Boxing fights says vs so be careful about generalizing between fields. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter so, the page to Sri Lankan link(you provided) should be fixed?

• aGastya ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It may depend on what is more common in Sri Lanka. I haven't examined it. For international articles like the World Cup, v seems to be it. The best place to discuss cricket-specific things is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find articles/projects that need help?

I recall when I first made my account it linked me to a random page that needed some help, in that case it was about an indian movie I felt I would do little justice. In hindsight it was silly of me to skip that opportunity so quickly! Regardless of such, as much as I like responding to RFCs I can more than likely help elsewhere as well! Any pointers for doing so would be much appreciated, and thank you! Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Rotund but Reasonable... great to hear you would love to help. The Wikipedia:Community portal lists tasks that you can help with. Articles of the most pressing importance can be found at Wikipedia:Backlog. The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects and they all have a variety of tasks to get done. -- Moxy (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like the feature described at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. It's only shown automatically to new accounts but others can see it by adding ?gettingStartedReturn=true to a url, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history?gettingStartedReturn=true. Another way to see possible articles to edit is clicking "Community portal" under "Interaction" in the left pane. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Citations

Hi folks

A question about citations please. Should citations be to links external to Wikipedia or can you cite a Wiki page?

Thanks,

RonRamblin' Ronnie (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ramblin' Ronnie and welcome to the teahouse

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any information, you always need a verifiable source, but you should use appropriate internal links (Wikilinks) to integrate the article into the encyclopedia - Arjayay (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ramblin' Ronnie. You may find some useful and relevant references at another related Wikipedia article. If you read them, then you can use them in the first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you folksRamblin' Ronnie (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Necro (rapper)

Is there a cover conspiracy on all mainstream media platforms such as this? Why is anti semitism reported on here but Semite supremacism is banned from being exposed? Necro is an anti white rapper and when I expose this I get attacked by the moderator saying I'm vandalizing. Listen to necro rap songs "white slavery" and "sweet dreamz". People are slandering as antisemitic for simply asking why jews can call us their slaves and other racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathory420 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Bathory420, as I explained on your page, such information needs to be put in the proper place in the article, as well as well cited using verifiable sources. Please review the links in question that I posted to your talk page - or feel free to ask specific questions.

Hi Teahouse folks. The article in question is Necro (rapper) and the changes can be seen in the edit history. If you can help Bathory420 out, please review the edit history as well as Bathory420's talk page (for this ongoing issue) so perhaps you can advise on how Bathory should proceed.

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, what page could I indefinitely edit?

Hello, I'm David Tallman and I want to know where and what I can edit. David Tallman (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@David Tallman: Welcome to the Teahouse. Since this is a wiki, you're allowed to edit any page. The only exception is those pages which are protected. They're typically marked by a padlock icon in the upper-right corner. Fortunately, such protected pages are few and far between. Feel free to be bold and dive right in. If you make a mistake, someone will probably correct it pretty quickly. --Jakob (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jakob: Thanks for your kind help, I will probably come back to ask questions If I ever make another mistake. If I ever make any incongruous edits please confront me and leave a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tallman (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@David Tallman: I interpreted the question this way. Another question answered here may be helpful to you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tables in .pdf'd articles

When I use the book creator, I notice that tables are missing from the .pdf version. Does this always happen? Is it intentional? Is there a way to avoid it? If not, is this on a buglist someplace? Thanks! YBG (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

YBG hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The people who would know the answer to this are likely to be found at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! YBG (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the correct orphan criteria?

Hi. I recently marked some pages as orphan pages because by my understanding, they did not meet the criteria. The two pages in question only linked from userpages, and notice boards. The two pages did however link to each other, which is defined as a walled garden on Wikipedia:Orphan. Additionally, because no article linked to other main articles, it is defined as an isolated article.

The two articles are List of Nigerian human rights activists and Festus Keyamo.

A user by the name of Wikicology posted on my talk page saying that they did not met the criteria for orphan articles. I replied with my reasons for marking them. He replied by stating it is recommended only to place orphan tags on articles with zero incoming links, and told me to follow that recommendation in the futre. Based on the Wikipedia definition, the articles did meet the criteria to be an orphan. However Wikicology says otherwise. What is the correct criteria for the orphan tag? Austin131 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:Orphan the tag is only to be placed on artices with zero incoming links. Even though the articles are orphans due to "walled garden", you should not put the orphan tag on them. See Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria RudolfRed (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Austin131: The policy page is pretty clearly internally inconsistent and needs revising to address this issue. You can't expressly define an article with links through a walled garden as qualifying as an orphan and at the same time provide in the criteria that an article can't be marked as such, unless it has zero incoming links but for these certain exceptions, and then not place walled garden among those exceptions or at least address that apparent discrepancy in some manner. I suppose the policy page could be saying, by creative interpretation to avoid a logical absurdity, "we define an orphan as X, but only allow you to mark it as such, because Y", but anytime you need to tie yourself up in loops postulating what a policy page could mean, that appears inconsistent by a plain reading, that policy page needs clarification. I'll go post to its talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've posted to Wikipedia talk:Orphan#Inconsistency in criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't racism allowed to be exposed on here against white people?

I keep editing Necro the rapper's page to include his racist songs that are terrorist attacks towards white people. I noticed if you question anything pertaining to Semites we are regarded as antisemite. In order to prove Wikipedia isn't apart of a Zionist conspiracy why can't I post anything against white racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathory420 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Bathory420 and welcome to the Teahouse, your edit was removed because it added inflammatory and unsorced content, all content must be cited to third-party published reliable sources Hope that helps. Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Further, Bathory420,the teahouse is not the place to discuss either policies or the content of articles. Policy may be discussed at the village pump or a particular policy's talk page. Article contents may be discussed at the article's talk page. Teahouse is for how to help, not why discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bathory420. You need to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to expose what you personally see as injustices in the world, except to the extent that those concerns are described in reliable sources. Pro-zionist and anti-zionist editors have both gotten in trouble here, to the extent that they have violated our policies and guidelines. But both can edit here, as long as they place neutrality and other core policies first. Wikipedia at its best reflects both (or all) sides of the story, summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say. The best Wikipedia editors can accurately summarize an opinion they disagree with, without any sign of their disagreement creeping into their summaries. Those capable of such writing are our very best editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Creating a page

Sir,

i need to create a page for hotel but thats not a promotion again, i just now created a article which was deleted under speedy deletion criteria which had some promotion content.

please guide me the best way to improve. Theverda.vhpl (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Theverda.vhpl, welcome to the Teahouse. From your username and the fact you say you "need" to create the article, I bet that you work for the The Verda Villa. If so, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is practically impossible for someone in such a position to write an non-promotional article. Sorry —teb728 t c 09:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Theverda.vhpl. Wikipedia does not have "pages for" anything - it has articles about subjects, articles that should be based almost entirely on what reliable published sources, unconnected with the subject, have said about it. This might seem like nitpicking, but if you are thinking about a "page for a hotel", it immediately sounds as if you are here to make the subject known - in other words to promote it. If people have written articles about the hotel (not blogs, not tripadvisor reviews, not directories or listings, but extended writing about it, published in reliable sources such as major newspapers), then there can be an article, but it should not say anything about the hotel (and especially not any kind of evaluative wording) that has not appeared in these published sources. Please see your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How can I put references more professionally?

Hello there!

Could I be told how to put references more "precise" and "professional"? At the moment I usually put references like this <ref>{{cite web|url=INTERNET LINK/E-BOOK|Title=|accessdate=27 January 2015}}</ref> but as I understood there are ways to put it more detailed and professional. Could I perhaps get a guide or a link that explains me how to do so?

Thanks in advance!! Orangesaft (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Using {{cite web}} is the method which many (perhaps most) of us prefer. There is a variety of options available, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, but in general if you are adding extra references to an existing article it is preferred that you stick to the citation style already in use in that article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Orangesaft, welcome to the Teahouse. Your example placed this page in some cite error categories so I have deactivated the code. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Your example starts {{cite web|...}} That means it uses Template:Cite web which has a lot of parameters documented there. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Orangesaft. To add to David's answer, the really cool thing about using {{cite web}} is that there is a semi-automated way to do it built into the standard Edit toolbar. See Help:Referencing_for_beginners for details, and it even has a short video showing you exactly how to do it. Happy referencing!--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is a book a good idea is to use Template:Cite book, also available in the editing toolbar. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the helpful responses, I appreciate it :) Orangesaft (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What qualifies a musician as notable enough for an article?

I am interested in writing my first Wikipedia article about a musician. I need a little help with clarifying what makes one "notable" enough to qualify. Having been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media is what I'm not clear about. What type of newspaper articles are considered "reputable"? Does it have to be a large city newspaper or can it be from any local town news? How many articles need to have been published? Technically multiple is 2, but I would imagine there probably need to be more. Please tell me how many there need to be. Thank you so much for your help, Stacy Sgiacoma (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Stacy. There are two ways that a musician can be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. One is to meet the special music criteria (see WP:NMUSIC), and the other is to meet the general criteria that you are talking about with multiple write-ups in published sources such as newspapers, magazines or books. There is no set number of articles; it's a matter of judgement, because it depends on how extensive the coverage is in each one and what type of publication. Mainly we need to see lots of information in publications which have an editor who checks the facts - so personal blogs, forums, social media and personal websites don't count. Newspapers or magazines which have a large circulation are generally given more weight than small ones, provided they don't have a reputation for disguising press releases and paid advertising as news. Articles in local newspapers are good too, as long as there is extensive coverage in several different papers, not just a line or two, and not just the same one writer in one small paper who happens to be a fan. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

translation of Greek wikipedia article into french

Hello, I would like to translate the greek wikipedia article called 'Βασίλης Ραφαηλίδης' to French. How is that possible? I have already the translation on paper but I do not know how to upload it. Could you tell me? Thank you.Mariteta (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We can't really speak for the French Wikipedia, Mariteta, but the advice for translating into English is at WP:Translation, and you might find the French version fr:Projet:Traduction helpful. If you are asking a technical question about how to edit a page that doesn't yet exist, see WP:How to create a page (no French version as far as I can see, but the process should be similar). --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Need help on my article before I resubmit

Hello everyone, I'm Deloris and I created my first article on Wikipedia. However, it was turned down, but I don't give up. It has been rewritten from a neutral standpoint and I was wondering if someone might take a look just to lend their experience pointers before it resubmit. It would really be appreciated. Here's the link to my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sounds_of_Imani

Thanks

Deloris

SOIJaySey795 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deloris. Welcome to the Teahouse. I left some notes on your talk page about some concerns I have with the article, and your need to declare any connections you have with the group, but to address the immediate question, the rewrite seems to be fairly neutral in content. Other than paying attention to the image issue - making sure you really want to release those images under a free licence - I don't have a problem with it. After giving the image situation some thought, I suggest you resubmit it and see what other AFC reviewers think. I know some people can be a lot stricter than I am. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 15:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)§

Thank you for your response LouiseS1979. There is no relation to the group just that I am an A & R person and I feel that the duo is a good one to write about.

Appreciate your response. Thanks

SOIJaySey795 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No problems, Deloris. I'd still be very careful to avoid an appearance of a connection, in that case, and make doubly sure you have the right to release those images on a free licence (you have gone through the OTRS system but the question of the licensing remains given what CC-BY-SA entails as regards reuse rights). LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 18:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

who adds the notes that distinguish pages on two people with the same name?

I am working on a page that just got accepted. It is for a bass player named Andy McKee. There is another musician, a guitarist, with the same name (and also a submarine captain!). Do I write redirect information into the guitarist's page and the bassist's page, or does that happen at some other level of editing?

Also, I was notified that my page had been accepted and given Starter status but the page for the bass player still does not come up when you google "Andy McKee." You get some links about the bassist but only the guitar player's Wikipedia page.Alfhild-anthro (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Alfhild-anthro. The page about your bass player seems to be in the index now. There is often a short delay between acceptance and the next update of the master index.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there are now four people with the name Andrew McKee in the encyclopedia, I've made a disambiguation page, Andrew McKee (disambiguation).—Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne Delong -- Thanks for jumping in here to give me the final boost I needed. Hope your bluegrass project goes great!Alfhild-anthro (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

need someone to write article about ladies day spa!

i am a new business owner related to ladies day spa/ beauty saloon in Karachi, Pakistan. I would be very glad if some one can help me out in creating an article regarding that, however i somehow managed to create the page but am stuck in writing the article, can any one please help me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mariam_azfar/Maria%27s_Beauty_Parlor Mariam azfar (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mariam azfar, and welcome to the Teahouse. I hate to say this (and this is absolutely nothing personal), but we're not a site that exists to advertise new businesses. We're an encyclopaedia that needs to have significant reliable sources (for example, that the subject has been covered in national newspapers - this requires your salon to have been discussed in editorial sections rather than just that you had an advert in the paper or had a short press release published on the launch of your business - scholarly publications and so on) to justify the creation of a new article. It's unlikely that your new business has received enough coverage in those reliable sources, or even meets the criteria for coverage of notable companies. It would be unfair of anyone to help you with the article only to see it deleted when it makes it to mainspace. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 21:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Three questions on a newly created article

Thanks for this possibility to raise my questions.

I have sent for review the draft Swedish Doctors for Human Rights [1]. It is a complete new text and I worked hard in sourcing the criteria to be assessed (32 references, mainly secondary sources). I wonder if I could get some feedback while it is possible to improve the article ¬– before the review takes place. I would greatly appreciate if you would have any opinion, or suggestion. I've sent this petition to

Also, as reference, I have random these other articles in Wikipedia listed in the same category “International Human Rights Organizations” and I could see that a) many HR-organizations start by highlighting the name of the founder – I wonder if that is really necessary or just advisable; b) Arguments for the organizations’ notability are not mentioned in most of the articles; c) there was only one organization listed in the category “International Human Rights Organizations” which has a focus on health-issues, "Physicians For Human Rights" (I cited it also as source), based in the U.S. but apparently with no links to EU or Scandinavian countries.

Lastly, I wonder is it would be possible for an administrator or approved user to move the draft to main space after their own checking up, or if the review means that there is a special peer-review committee assessing the new articles?

These are the examples of articles mentioned above:

International Coalition to End Torture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancing_Human_Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Human_Values

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_International

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Defenders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derechos_Human_Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Rights] (this the only article I found in the sample, which it is tagged “This article relies too much on references to primary sources."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Human_Rights_Defence

I have sent this petition for help to other forum in Wikipedia, but no reply so far. Even If I get any, I still would like to have your opinion.

Thanks & brgds

Hrdap

Hrdap (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hrdap. In answer to your questions: a) There's no requirement here, but listing the organization's founder in a prominent place does make a lot of sense. b) All articles should convey the article's notability. That doesn't mean they need to contain a line reading "organization x is notable because...", but readers should come away with a sense of why the article merits mention in an encyclopedia. c) I'm not sure I take your meaning. Are you saying that an organization that operates exclusively in the United States should not be in the category "international human rights organizations"? Grateful if you can please clarify. Keihatsu ^talk 20:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

On another note, would you mind if I made a few edits to improve the language in your draft? I'll let another qualified editor decide whether to move it to article space, but I might be able to help in the mean time. Keihatsu ^talk 20:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

– Reply to Keihatsu Keihatsu

@Keihatsu: I thank you for the clarifications. On item a) I will see how to include the organization's founder in the introductory para; on b) OK, I understand. It is possible to infer the importance/notability criteria (as in some of the organizations I listed) from their stated aims and achievements. Regarding c) I clarify: Physicians For Human Rights is a very important organization, and they do have cooperation with doctors in other countries too. Further, many of their themes refer to international events. The fact that they have their main quarters in the USA of course does not exclude from the listing in International Human Rights organizations. At the contrary, as I understand, it is the international activities of an organization (based on any country) and/or their treatment of international HR events what qualifies them for being listed in that category. What I should have clarified, is that among the international issues in the work of SWEDHR there are some specific HR-medical related events from Sweden, not covered by other HR organizations (e.g. the campaign about Dr Swedish doctor Fikru Maru, been imprisoned in Ethiopia without trial for 21 months. An issue that also has international relevance).

I also thank you in advance for any edit you would do in my draft (language or otherwise). I did send the text to a colleague in the US for proofreading, but after I posted that version I have made profusely editing, so I guess clarity has suffered again because of that.

Brgds./ Hrdap

Hrdap (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Hrdap and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a lot of things that needs to be addressed before your article can be considered for the main space, formatting, general fixes, disambiguation, reference clean up etc. Since it is about a Swedish subject and many of the references are in Swedish, I assume that you are too. If you want to, I can have a go at fixing the most urgent things before taking the article to the next step in the process. I am Swedish too and reasonable experienced in fixing up articles here.

As for "I have sent this petition for help to other forum", please don't do that. We prefer to have discussion about an article contained in one place, and this is the right forum for discussing how to edit articles. Let's get back to the who and how of the eventual approval of the article when we have fixed it up somewhat, shall we. Unless some other editor here would like to add to the conversation. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

–Reply to W.carter

Yes, please, would you do a fixing of the most urgent items in the draft? Väldigt tacksam!

Brgds./ hrdap

Hrdap (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient inline citations comment.

Hi I'm relatively new to this. Someone made some changes and them commented that a page I started has "insufficient inline citations". I believe I fixed the problem. Is there a way to take off their comment? Could someone check to see if I correctly fixed the problem? The title is "Clumsy Thief game". Thanks!Art Stevens (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Art Stevens, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the page Clumsy Thief, I note that it has references, but no inline references. To create an inline reference, simply include the supporting reference inside a <ref>...</ref> tag directly after the piece of material it is supposed to support, and add a {{reflist}} template in the references section. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Art Stevens. You can find more details on what G S Palmer mentioned at Help:Referencing for beginners. And if you're new to Wikipedia you might also find it helpful to bookmark the Cheatsheet.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a million! I believe it's perfect now. Is there a way to delete the citation problem comment or should I just wait till someone from Wiki deletes it after correction the is noted?Art Stevens (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

At the top of the page, it will say "{{more footnotes|date=...}}", and deleting this will delete the inline citations comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

language.wiki

Doubt: are the pages created (for example XYZ); is "other language" page of XYZ a mere translation of English page into it? and is it necessary to provide reference in that "other language" or ref in English page okay? And is that and requirement for XYZ to be fulfilled before creating it in any "other language"? aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 04:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Acagastya. We have articles translated from other language Wikipedias into English Wikipedia, and here on this project, we want to ensure that those translations are accurate. Some editors translate articles from English Wikipedia to other language Wikipedias too, and it is up to those projects to ensure that the content complies with their policies and guidelines. As for references, here on English Wikipedia, we allow references in any language. But if references in English are readily available, they are preferred. The basic principle is that each Wikipedia project sets its own policies. They tend to be similar though not identical. Check in with the Wikipedia for any given language for their translation policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Languages write their own articles and decide their own policies. Some articles are translated. Some articles were originally translated but have since diverted with different editors in different languages. Some articles were never translations. Languages have different rules for references and you should examine the rules of the language you translate to. The English Wikipedia allows references in any language but prefers English. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Foreign language Wikipedia's cannot be used as references in the English Wikipedia but should be credited as the source of a translation to English. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For case of en to hi...the hindi page can have english reference or not @Cullen328

aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 05:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That is determined by the rules of the Hindi Wikipedia. I don't know Hindi and don't know their rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't read Hindi at all and would not even try to work with machine translations. Though I am nowhere near fluent, I have enough familiarity with Spanish, French and German to read sources in those languages with the aid of Google Translate. But I am very cautious when I do so. Check with Hindi Wikipedia for their specific policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of 3RR needed

This question concerns the article Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University of Dhaka. It has a number of issues: in particular here it is written like an advertisement and it contains no notable references (only their own Web site and FaceBook). Details are on the Talk page. My problem is that I placed those tags on the article, and an anonymous IP user removed them without comment. I replaced them, and they were removed by a different but similar IP address. This happened a third time, again with a slightly different IP address. I suspect they are just different computers within that school, probably the same person. But it makes it impossible to engage; I have left messages on each IP's Talk page, without effect. They are ignoring the article's Talk page. So I put those tags back for a third time, and now I'm concerned that I might have broken the three-revert rule. Can somebody advise whether that is likely to be a problem? Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Gronk Oz. I suggest that you discuss your concerns with SwapnilSayanSaha, the new editor who created the article a few days ago. And be careful not to edit war. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen - I will give that a shot. I have been trying to discuss the issues to avoid edit warring, but with it being a different IP every time this has not worked. Hopefully your suggestion will prove more constructive.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, Cullen328 - the article has since been deleted by other users. I will use this experience to learn the value of patience - and I will do it RIGHT NOW! (That was my little joke, sorry.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dual nationals

The subject of a BLP has always lived in Italy, but is also a French citizen, because her father was one. Can or should I refer to her as "a franco-italian artist"? I checked Wikipedia:Nationality which says "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident", but that seems to imply there can be only one such country. ubiquity (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello ubiquity and welcome to the Teahouse. While we do not have a "Franco-Italian" (or French-Italian) there are a lot of other combinations here, I came across the Norwegian-American yesterday and have seen the German Guatemalan before. So I would say that a dual nationality is ok. Best, w.carter-Talk 12:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ubiquity. I would say, Be guided by the sources. If the sources all refer to her as French, say French; if they all say Italian, say Italian. If they say Franco-Italian, or they are mixed, then say Franco-Italian. If none of the sources mention her nationality, then it shouldn't be in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Have I violated the OR rule?

I took a graph with permission from the creator and placed it with explanation in the Vaccine controversies article. The data in the graph came from the census bureau. Another user has threatened that I would be blocked if I republish the same work. I have been warned by another user who began an 'edit war' that I was the one that would be blocked if I continue to undo his undoing of my work.

Also, this user uses many fallacious and insulting arguments in talk.Dcrsmama (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dcrsmama, and welcome to the Teahouse. Having read what Jytdog has written on your talk page, they have taken the time to explain what's wrong with your work. The edit warring is seeking to re-insert something which someone else has reverted. If you post something, and then it gets removed, always take it to a discussion first before re-inserting it, and make your case for its insertion. As Jytdog points out, consensus - agreement between editors, or general opinion on a topic - is how Wikipedia works.

Given the sensitivity of the subject, the article will be under scrutiny from people. The graph - you say you have the creator's permission to use it, but you uploaded it as public domain (did you have their permission to release it under a licence that allows anyone to do anything they like with it?) and while I know very little about the subject and can't directly see why it's OR, I do trust AndyTheGrump's opinion on this, as he's a fairly experienced user.

As Jytdog notes, you perhaps need to relax and tackle this in a non-combative frame of mind. Go back to Jytdog and Andy, and ask them why they have a problem with your edits. Take on board what they say and try to work with them if you still feel your graph is important to the article (although you will need to make sure you have permission from the creator to release it under a PD licence; on its own it seems to show a correlation between declining mortality from childhood diseases and vaccination, which is probably fair enough, although it also appeared to duplicate another graph already in the article, the one showing a sharp decline in rubella when universal vaccination was introduced, so it may not even be necessary to illustrate that link).

The situation is salvageable (although I doubt you will get the graph into the article; Wakefield has largely been discredited by mainstream science and there may be a real issue with full-term mortality of infants in the US but I doubt it is causally linked to vaccination) but try to work on less contentious issues and in a less unilateral fashion. Make sure you can support any edits you make with clear arguments as to why they should be included. Otherwise, you will get into trouble. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Pocket Dictionary

Hello Friends and Respected Guides Myself Arihant Brahmane (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC), I want to ask that can a legally published pocket dictionary with no copyright issues can be used a citation in articles and Which template shall be used for it? I am asking this because Our Wikipedia favours secondary sources which are almost understood by everyone Arihant Brahmane (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arihant Brahmane. My concern is that a pocket dictionary is by its nature an abridged and condensed source, so is unlikely to be the best source. I would prefer a respected full length dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary, if citing a dictionary is needed. Use the citation template for books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for your input LouiseS1979, and for helping to improve the article.