Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 341

Archive 335

←

Archive 339

Archive 340

Archive 341

Archive 342

Archive 343

→

Archive 345

Editor Review

Can I get some editors to look over my changers to the Boeing Everett Factory? This is my first Major edit and I want someone to look over and tell me how I did.--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 21:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, you might want to add a reference to the statement, "The Boeing 777 is a wide-body airliner designed to fill the size gap between the 747 and 767. In order to have the space to build the 777, Boeing spent nearly 1.5Billion dollars on expanding the Factory, doubling it's size. Production began on the 777 in 1993" though. Nice Job Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And I got the part about the growth of the building form the Boeing 777, I don't have a reference...--AM (Talk to me!) 21:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

So take their reference . They use <ref>{{Harvnb|Norris|Wagner|1999|p=133}}</ref> as their source, so I would say you can use it too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Winner 42. Totally agree with EoRdE6 that you should use the source from there if it verifies the content. Just dropped by to note you would have to use the underlying source from the sources section, not the shortened citation code above, and add in the page number from the shortened citation. So, the citation would rather be

<ref>{{Cite book |last1= Norris |first1= Guy |last2= Wagner |first2= Mark |year= 1999 |title= Modern Boeing Jetliners |location= Minneapolis, Minnesota |publisher=Zenith Imprint |isbn= 0-7603-0717-2|page= 133}}<ref>

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Winner 42. You can use the source discussed above, as long as you actually read the original source and verify that it actually says what the other article says. It is not acceptable to copy a source from one article to another without reading enough of it to verify in your own mind that it verifies the content in question. You do not need to read an entire book but you should certainly read the relevant pages in context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think you are mistaken, User:Airplane Maniac is asking the question here, I am merely responding.Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, Winner 42, and I apologize to you. I made a mistake copying and pasting the user name. Airplane Maniac is the editor I intended to address. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What if I don't have access to the book in question?--AM (Talk to me!) 01:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Airplane Maniac follow the directions at WP:RX.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Submission for review

an article by another author titled Preetam Pyaare was requested for deletion by me coz it had incorrect information. i started writing another article for the same person with proper references which are very much permitted by Wikipedia rules. it was deleted too only because this personality is not famous enough??!! and this person has been voted world wide and has fans world wide...there are so many silly articles floating on wikipedia about much less known personalities..i want to put it for re-review. please tell me how can i do it? and as per wikipedia rules my article had at least three notable references. i was told that my language sounded like i m advertising for him which also i corrected. still it was deleted. why this unfair thing? Toshwets (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Toshwets: Draft:Pritam Singh (Actor, RJ) is very much not deleted. If this is the draft you are speaking about it has simply been pushed back to you for further work. Please enjoy doing that work. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Toshwets hello and welcome to The Teahouse. "Famous" is not the same as "notable", although many famous people are notable, and many notable people are famous, though some are not. It's all about what has been written in independent reliable sources. Extensive coverage of the person in these sources is what counts. And as for the other articles, the usual answer is we haven't gotten to them yet. And as TheRedPenOfDoom says elsewhere on this page (at least until archiving takes place) "That doesn't mean they are examples that should be followed and that inappropriate non encyclopedic content should be spread to other articles."— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL

I have recently been greatly expanding the Birmingham pub bombings article, and have included the names of the victims in one subsection. Another user has removed the names with the justification of the talk page (which is 8 years old and itself including opposition to removal of the victims list). Some articles such as Bloody Sunday (1972) and the 2014 Isla Vista killings include victim lists, whereas others do not. This article could and, I feel, should, too in spite of the edit reverts I have seen. It seems like this WP is a grey area. My understanding is that WP:NOTMEMORIAL has nothing whatsoever to do with victim lists, but, rather, it is to stop people starting pages about specific non-notable people as a memorial to them. That would not and should not happen in this case. Can a final consensus on this please be reached as I basically do not wish myself and the other editor (whose integrity I 100% respect) to engage in edit warring. Many thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Kieronoldham:. Please see Wikipedia:Victim lists . I think the clear point to remember is that we are writing an encyclopedia. I fail to see the encyclopedic value of lists of names that no one knows and and that had no significant impact on the wider world and who merely happened to be tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks. This is a good start, although the link you sent may be passionately contended as in more than seven years, 10 editors have contributed to that article since its inception and, sadly, impartiality may be breached in the seemingly approved structure ("I feel that", "I have yet to see" etc.). As the link you sent unequivocally states in the header, this is contentious and in my humble opinion, as I stated in my 1st message, why is there complicity in the usage of victim lists in some articles but not others. Many similar articles have similar lists, but, the main point of my reply is that WP:NOT refers to articles per se; not lists/names within an article. I'd say, as per "notability", these people should be included as this act was the worst act of terrorism in mainland Britain between WWII and the 7 July 2005 London bombings (and the 7/7 article is another example of many which has its own fatalities list). It is a good start, though. Thanks again. I'd welcome two or three other editors' opinions though before I finally steer my judgment. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are lots of articles in the 4+million that have inappropriate content. That doesn't mean they are examples that should be followed and that inappropriate non encyclopedic content should be spread to other articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If these other articles have vociferous claims/efforts to remove them as this one now does I'd acquiesce. Aside from the points in my earlier two messages, I reiterate that I believe a fair, balanced and neutral discussion as to the pros and cons of this gapingly grey area on Wikipedia should be engaged. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kieronoldham and thank you for a sincere and thought provoking question. I wrote an article when I was a fairly new and inexperienced editor called Ford Hunger March. Looking back on it now, I see lots of shortcomings in my article, including elements of original research. I mentioned the five people who were killed in that terrible incident, not as a list but as part of the narrative. Three killed on the first round of gunfire, one killed in a second skirmish, and a fifth who died much later of his wounds. The fifth was an African-American who couldn't be buried in the same cemetery as the others due to segregation. For me, this is an important distinction. We can mention a few victims in the narrative. We can list notable victims, with blue links. But it seems unwise to me to have long lists of the names of non-notable victims. I readily acknowledge that reasonable people will disagree. But that is how I see it after thinking about it for a few hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Kieronoldham, if the victim lists or memorials are available at another website, it would seem like a link to that webpage would be OK to add into the External links section of the article. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply as the subject of the article is not the victims but the bombing. Wikipedia:Victim lists is an opinion, not policy. Many wikipdedia articles oncontroversially include the victim(s) name(s) and in this case it takes up a tiny part of the article, approx 1.4% by word count. Some readers will want to have the names available. As the information is sourced, not overwhelming, and similar information is available in other articles why remove it here? It is notable that ironically some of the victims were of Irish descent and that some of the victims' relatives are campaigning for the case to be reopened. Flexdream (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As a participant in Ireland-related articles on Wikipedia I have to say that there was once a co-ordinated campaign by a group of Irish republican editors to keep the names of victims of Irish republican attacks out of articles whilst ensuring the victims of Ulster loyalists/British forces where stated. No doubt as it humanises the victims which they want for "their" victims but not the "others".

The majority of editors in our WikiProject are not against the inclusion of names but this "cabal" ensured a MOS couldn't be adopted as it didn't have consensus due to their irrational refusal. This "cabal" is now largely dormant or retired from this site, which now means maybe we could go forth and get a set in stone MOS for the Ireland WikiProject on this issue. In fact I notice that several of this "cabal" where the principle opponents and removers of the names in this article.

There is in my view nothing wrong with having the names of the victims listed as prose in the article if needs be. This is an encyclopedia and what are they for? Enlightening people with information. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to people creating memorial pages, which this is not. This is the academic listing of victims of a terrorist attack.

Mabuska ^(talk) 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you redact your irrelevant and offensive WP:POV comment and WP:AGF like the rest of us- if you are capable of doing that. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you believe it is all that you describe then by all means please open an AN/I or user conduct report against me. If not then I suggest you pipe down and do as you suggest, WP:AGF, which you clearly haven't despite preaching it. Did I name you as part of the "cabal"? No I did not. I didn't even direct anything at you or your argument, so why so defensive? You will be hard pressed to find evidence that contradicts what I said, statements that are facts, that are easily provable and acknowledged by the majority of the Ireland WikiProject amongst others. It is interesting to note you decide to comment on me personally rather than critique my points, when I never directed anything at you at all. Very interesting.... Mabuska ^(talk) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates showing in the wrong place on infobox map

The coordinates for New Quay Lifeboat Station put it out at sea (at least on my computer screen). The coordinates for New Quay are correct, but when I tried to use them in New Quay Lifeboat Station it didn't seem to work. Is there a conflict in the infobox with the x and y map locators? And why are there three different options for location in the infobox? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I've solved the problem with the example I gave (it was the x/y map locator), but I'd still like to know why the infobox gives the three different options on location, if anyone can enlighten me. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not a Teahouse host but interested in these problems. The map I use most has at least seven systems for coordinates, discounting refinements for precision. What if any, are the preferred ones? Commons I have found only likes coords in certain formats and will only allow uploads in them. Is there agreement across all wikis as to which to use? SovalValtos (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Until an expert in the area comes along with an answer, I can add what little I know. Many infoboxes have a number of different options for coordinates. You can choose one of those (only choose one to avoid conflicting coordinates) depending how you want the coordinates displayed in the article, at the top, in the infobox or below the article. I have also discovered that different maps that are used for displaying places, correspond with different ways of entering the coordinates in the infobox. The whole thing is a bit of a jungle. If you want to make sure that everything will work, and the location will be displayed in the right place, look at another article using the same infobox and see which system is used there and copy that. Let's hope that an expert shows up here soon to explain further. w.carter-Talk 12:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates and their diverse infoboxes and other templates and options are unfortunately a poorly developed part of Wikipedia, thus too complex to handle well without a lot of study (it was even worse five years ago!). Better place to find people who have done that studying is at their Project within Wikipedia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your input and advice. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff so far. Is there a chance that an editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates could be lured here to educate us general editors in one place rather than scattering the discussion which is then difficult to follow for at least this one simpleton? SovalValtos (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC) . SovalValtos (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

At a guess, 'fraid not. Other way 'round would not be as slim a chance, quoth the wise and mighty IMHO. I play in the shallow end of that pool, yet it keeps my shallow mind too busy to drink deeply of the Teahouse. Only the word "coordinates" in my watchlist attracted me this time. Oh. A continuation of the "jungle" metaphor would have been cuter. Whatever. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What is a "pre lead"?

Does anyone know what a "pre lead" is?[1] I can't find this concept in wikipedia. Thanks! :) OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 03:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@OnlyInYourMind:I believe it is supposed to be "per lead", the user appears to be arguing that the lead is too long and that unnecessary content should be removed from the lead. Whether that content is unnecessary there is a matter of opinion, if you want it changed I suggest discussing it with him on the talk page. (There are also Hatnotes which could be considered pre-lead, but I don't think they are relevant here) Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Winner 42! Just making sure there isn't a concept called pre-lead. You're awesome! :-) OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 03:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, OnlyInYourMind. I agree with Winner 42. The lead section should summarize the body of the article below the table of contents, and including specific detailed "nuggets" of information in the lead is not really appropriate. The topic is highly controversial, and the article should be built on consensus of all interested editors, and on summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about the films. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I edit a page to say that a reference is needed?

How do I edit a page to say that a reference is needed? TrishApps (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@TrishApps:Hello and welcome to the teahouse. If you want to tag a whole page as needing reference improvements you can use {{ref improve}} and if you want to tag a specific statment as needing a reference you can use {{cn}} (the "citation needed" tag). Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi TrishApps and welcome to the Teahouse. Just to add a little more detail the information Winner 42's provided. There are a few things you can do: (1) You can add a post to the article's talk page explaining where and why you think a reference is needed. (2) You can add a Template:Citation needed to the specific article text (sentence) to show exactly where you think reference is needed per WP:UNSOURCED. (3) You can add a clean up template such as Template:Unsourced or Template:Refimprove to the top of the article or the top of the section to show that the article or section needs (better) referencing. You can also use combinations of the three if you like. For reference, there are quite a few templates besides those that I've mentioned above that can be used, some of which may be better suited for particular types of articles. You can see what a few of these actually look like at WP:TC#Verifiability and sources. Clicking on any of the blue links on that page will take you to pages that provide more detailed information.

Finally, the one thing that you should not do under any circumstances is to add comments to the article itself. In other words, don't edit the article by adding a sentence like "This is a mistake." or "This needs a reference."; Use a template instead and then explain why you've added the template either in your edit sum or on the article's talk page so that other editors can follow what you did. I hope that helps. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To add more, don't forget to add date. Go to edit and see what I have written. We can ask any questions other than just "citation needed". For example , , , , , , . Just go to edit and see how I written it. Actually I'm also relatively new but I have learned many things.--Human3015 talk • 01:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a great deal of excellent information above. I'd just add that a page targeted to listing all these templates and more can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. Its base page Wikipedia:Template messages is very useful to know because it is an easy to navigation point to find many of the templates we use across the site.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing other wikipedia pages

Are we allowed to use other wikipedia pages as references for a different wikipedia page? Thanks!

DataManiac18 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Anybody can edit wikipedia, so the wikipedia page that you attached as a source can be changed or edited, also we can't judge neutrality or reliability of the wikipedia page that you have attached. In short we can't use Wikipedia pages as source. But we can link various Wikipedia pages in our writing and it may work. --Human3015 talk • 01:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally -- if "statement 1" is in "article 1", and you want to include "statement 1" in "article 2", you can, if a) "statement 1" is backed up by a good reference, and b) you cite that reference in "article 2". Hope that wasn't too confusing! Eman235/talk 01:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey DataManiac18. Agreeing with the above, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it (know commonly by the shortcut WP:CIRCULAR) for the policy statement on this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia Articles in the context of your article is perfectly fine. For instance, if you are writing an article about Vietnam in the 2015 Olympics, and decided to link Vietnam to the article by adding [[]] around the word "Vietnam", this would be acceptable.

On the other hand, if you were making the statement that some Canadian Rock band hit number 20 on the Canadian music charts and you cited another Wikipedia article as "proof", this could be contested because you cannot use Wikipedia to substantiate Wikipedia. Hope that helps... Ormr2014 | Talk 

Hello, Ormr2014. Please note that the original question used the word "references" regarding other Wikipedia pages. You are, of course, correct that the navigation structure of Wikipedia relies on wikilinks, the blue links to other Wikipedia articles created by double square brackets in the wikicode. But there is a big difference between a wikilink and a reference. References, sometime called citations, are footnotes that tell the reader that the information can be verified in a published, reliable source that is independent of Wikipedia. The bottom line is that one Wikipedia article can never be used as a reference in another Wikipedia article. However, you may find reliable sources in other articles, which you can cite elsewhere if you actually read them yourself, and verify that they back up the assertion in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm well aware of everything you stated. I was simply clarifying what is and isn't acceptable for the individual who was asking the question. Ormr2014 | Talk 

Thanks everyone, I think I'll add links to other articles using [[]] to give readers additional info to read about on other wiki pages

11:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataManiac18 (talk • contribs)

trying to bring a page up to compliance

Hello,

I am trying to re-submit a wikipedia page for a living person for the 3rd time today and have questions about NGN Guidelin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline_)

I have adjusted the tone of the article, as well as edited down the list of sources for this page in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tristan_Pollock#Biography

When I asked for guidance 2 days ago on what defined significant coverage for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_answer_to_life,_the_universe,_and_everything, I was given an answer that I found hard to interpret.

Is it possible for the guides here in the Teahouse to take a look at the page and advise further on what would help get the page to completion?

40muleteam 40muleteamfactax (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, 40muleteamfactax, but there's not a single substantial independent source about Pollock in the references in Draft:Tristan Pollock. Most of them are reliable sources, but the ones that say anything about him are just quoting what he says, so they're not independent. You need places where people unconnected with him have written about him, not just quoting him. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks! ColinFine that is the most helpful comment I've had to date. What I love about it is that you call out quotes from him as "not independent" though they are from reputable sources. It's taken me 4 editors giving input and a bit of newbie browbeating (unpleasant) to get that level of clarity--I really value that. Thank you so much. 40muleteamfactax (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 40muleteamfactax. I would like to expand on what ColinFine has said above. When I look at your references, they are primarily about Pollack's company, and either quote him briefly or mention him in passing. One story I read mentions his partner not him. These sources do not establish his notability as Wikipedia defines it. We are looking for significant coverage of Pollack in reliable, independent sources.

When we say "independent" sources, that excludes quotes from him and interviews of him, as it should be clear that his own words are not independent of him, even if published in reliable sources. So, the source must be both reliable and independent, and the coverage of him as a person (not of his company) must be significant. The cumulative coverage should be enough to build an actual biographical article. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, 40muleteamfactax, non-independent sources are not useless: they can be sometimes be used to support uncontroversial factual information. But the bulk of the references, and the only ones that can be used to establish notability, must be independent. Also, I agree with Cullen328: I think you might find it easier to establish that Storefront is notable than that Pollock is, though again, those references don't do so. --ColinFine (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Great news, 40muleteamfactax, I located two independent news sources that have info on your person. I left the references on the talk page of the draft. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all the users here ColinFineCullen³²⁸ and Bfpage. I am much clearer now and have edited a new draft that's in the review queue. Your assistance has helped but it creates an interesting conundrum around whether the notability requirement will be met to justify a page for Mr. Pollock. Storefront is notable, yes, thanks and is a good example to learn from. I would love any feedback on the current draft: with your feedback it seemed sources were good but reliable sources is where I'm short as well as in the volume of independent coverage. I am also struggling to find the right wiki markup to point correctly in the article to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storefront_%28company%29 and not, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storefront.

Socking

If a user has been using both their account and their ip for editing are they Socking? TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey TeaLover1996. It's impossible to tell based on your premise. You've given us enough to know that the multiple accounts element of the definition is present. But sockpuppetry is such use for an improper purpose, such as (quoting from the linked page), "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Just using multiple accounts is not in and of itself sockpuppetry. Indeed, the linked page also lists valid uses of multiple accounts at the shortcut WP:VALIDALT. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Simply forgetting to log in is not a Wikicrime either. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Several difficulties with publishing my first page.

Hello,

I posted a few days ago already, because I didn't manage to post my first page (on World's Best Sommelier Andreas Larsson). I am a French-English wine student, and greatly inspired by Larsson, so I was very surprised to find he didn't have an English Wiki page. I then decided to make him my first Wiki article, as I've long wanted to contribute; so I wrote a simple stub about him based on his French Wiki page. I then posted, and my article was rejected for reasons I now understand (I quoted the same sources as on the French page, but apparently the standards are higher in English so that was not enough). It still didn't work, so I have a few more questions:

-I have added new and reliable sources to the page, and submitted again - but the new page was rejected because I had started writing from the French Wikipedia page and my article was thus automatically posted in French, despite being written in English. How can I resubmit it to the English Wiki?

-How can I make sure that the article is linked to the other languages in which Larsson has pages - namely Swedish, Chinese and French?

Sorry for being a n00b, but...SyrahQuaffer (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SyrahQuaffer. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. The draft Draft:Andreas Larsson, which you have resubmitted, has no references whatever. I don't know what you're talking about when you say your article was automatically posted in French - have you perhaps been working in the French Wikipedia as well? The different language Wikipedias are entirely separate projects, and have no connection except where users choose to connect them by unified accounts or by interlanguage links via Wikidata. And that is the answer to your last question: once the article has been developed to the level where it is accepted, you can link it to the other language articles by the button on the sidebar; but I really wouldn't bother with that until the important things have been dealt with. Until the draft has a number of references to substantial writing about Larsson in independent reliable sources, it will never be accepted as an article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible racist comment

I am worried the comment here[2] is racist. Should I act on this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop canvassing. As an editor with 11,000+ edits, many focusing on fringe topics, you know what channels you can use to raise your "concern". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: That's your decision to make, and if you think it is, then WP:AN/I is the place to go. Personally I think it is just a bit of humour, nothing too bad, but once again it's up to you. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't think it's humor. I think it's like someone stating that Chinese publications would not have an accurate portrayal of the 14th Dalai Lama. State promotion of traditional Chinese medicine is written into their constitution. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, imagine that, somebody says that Chinese SCAM studies are always positive. Clearly racist. Unless of course it's merely a reflection of the evidence:

In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective.

— Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials.

Oh, whew, that's alright then. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That study is 17 years old! I am aware that this is not the forum for such discussion so I will not post on this thread again unless it is in response to the direct question I posed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and a recent analysis I read showed material progress. Up to 1% of studies published in China are now negative. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Where do I propose that an essay be moved to the "Wikipedia:" namespace?

I have a user essay that I wish to propose for consideration to be moved to the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Where would I do such a thing? Tharthan (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Go to the article's Talk Page and explain where you think the article belongs and why you believe it should be moved. Ormr2014 | Talk 

@Tharthan - As it is a User-space page I'm afraid that User:Ormr2014's advice won't achieve anything. If you give us a link to the essay we would be able to see what it is about and then figure out the most apropriate venue for discussing its "promotion". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect User:Tharthan/The Fall of Wikipedia is the page in question. Nthep (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Tharthan (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hosting

I cannot find my name under the Host Profiles tab, am I still a host? TeaLover1996 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Just checked, you're still on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts- they seem to be listed in a random order, but you are there. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC) @TeaLover1996:

@Joseph2302: Thanks very much. Regards. TeaLover1996 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up to be a host, TealLover1996   Bfpage |leave a message  13:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A bot lists the hosts in order based on how active they are at the Teahouse. If you answer lots of questions, your profile moves up higher on the list. The expectation, of course, is that your answers are accurate, helpful and friendly, TeaLover1996}. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No problem I enjoy it very much, regards TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Transforming a draft page into a live page

Help please. I finished a new article on a new subject matter "Virtus Economic Theory and Model". I used the wizard to write it. It is currently in Draft form and wished to know: a) what happens next? b) how do I (or someone else in Wikipedia) transform this article from a Draft status to a live one? c) how can I benefit from someones more experienced to look over the draft?

Many thanks and all the best bfvolve Bfvolve (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bfvolve: Hello, the quick and dirty answer is that you need to put {{subst:submit}} somewhere on your draft to be submitted into the AfC process. From there an experienced editor will come along and either approve or decline it based on whether the draft version meets Wikipedia's standards and policies. If they decline it you can approve it and resubmit it. Drafts usually are reviewed in a few days but can sometimes take upwards of a week. As for your draft in its current state, you likely need additional references to reliable sources to show the models notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bfvolve:, I will tell you simple way, just edit "See also" section of any related economics page and add your page link there Virtus Economic Theory and Model in [[]]. It will be a red link, then click on red link, you will see that you can "create page" directly.(You can even click on red link here and can create page) Then copy paste whatever you wrote in your draft and save link. Your page will get created automatically. Then someone comes and patrols your page. --Human3015 talk • 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Could we not encourage new editors to skip the AfC process? If he followed your advice, his article would just end up at AfD. :/ Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely agree, new editors should almost never publish an article without going through AfC. At least 90% of new editor articles that don't use AfC get deleted in my experience. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Winner 42, You are also right. But If he writes that article properly, citing several references with NPOV then even if he creates that article with my said method still it will not get deleted. I have created many such articles. --Human3015 talk • 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: You are correct, but his article, like almost all articles written by new editors, isn't properly written and referenced (nothing against Bfvolve, we were all new editors once). So it is best to encourage new editors to go through AfC to avoid the deletion process and ensure the quality of new articles. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: A small friendly tip: When you answer a question from a new editor here at the Teahouse, it is always helpful if you first check the contributions of that editor. This will give you a better idea of what the best answer to that editor might be. If someone is asking about a draft, like here, take a look at what draft they are working on and formulate your answer with that in mind. w.carter-Talk 20:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter and Winner 42:, I haven't seen his draft earlier and I was talking in general assuming that he/she knows basics of Wikipedia article because even if he/she is a new editor still he/she may have reading various Wikipedia articles since years and he/she knows how a Wikipedia article should be. But just now I saw his draft and I take my advice back. Next time I will take care in replying new editors. --Human3015 talk • 21:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Can you also not advise anyone to copy and paste articles. Everyone should use the move function if they are autoconfirmed or request an autoconfirmed user to move it. Cut-paste moves are damaging and can cause attribution and copyright issues. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6:, I said him to copy paste his own created draft. But I want to say that, everyone here is talking about "new editors" and Me also consider myself a new editor and I'm still in learning phase. I have joined Wikipedia 4 months ago and became active on Wikipedia since just 2 months. I know what new editors have problems, so I'm trying to help them on my level. Even though I am new still I never created such drafts because I'm reading Wikipedia articles since 10 years and I know how a standard Wikipedia article should be. I thought same for this person that he/she knows about standard of Wikipedia article. --Human3015 talk • 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment came across harsh. Even if it is your draft, the move function should still be used for a few reasons. First the creation date and history is moved, this provides attributions and copyright status. Second the draft is automatically converted to a redirect in the move, so there will not be anyone accidentally editing the draft and creating parallel articles and histories. Once again, sorry for sounding harsh, was just trying to get my words into text in a hurry EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Human3015: A very good rule here is to never assume anything (except for good faith occasionally). This is the most international Wikipedia and people come here to edit for an infinite number of reasons and from equally diversified backgrounds. This is the one place where you can not use your own experience as basis for assessing other people's knowledge about the WP. We know that you mean well, just try to see things from other perspectives as well. w.carter-Talk 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I use infoboxes?

I'm not sure how to use infoboxes, I've read through the page on them, but I still do not get it. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Philipnelson99. I think the easiest way is to choose an existing article on a similar topic (so that it is likely to use the same infobox) and edit it: you can see how the infobox is used there. In fact, you can copy and paste it to the edit window for the article you are working on, and then make the appropriate changes. --ColinFine (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Philipnelson99 and welcome to the Teahouse. Infoboxes are a set of parameters written inside double curly brackets {{}}. Anything written inside such brackets is called "Templates". Infoboxes are one kind of Templates. They are a sort of "fill in form" where you add data from the article. There are Infoboxes for many, many sorts of subjects here, each with its own set of parameters to "fill in", of which you can use as many or as few as you want. When facts are added to the Infobox a "program" will automatically sort these facts into a nice little (or big depending on how many facts you enter into it) box at the top right part of the article. Most Infoboxes have built in "programs" that will display the facts in the "Wikiway", such as calculate age for persons, convert measurements, etc. This is a very simplified way of trying to describe something that have created many grey hairs here on the Wikipedia over the years. Start with the excellent advise given above. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Another thing you should know, Philipnelson99, is that some experienced editors love infoboxes while other editors hate them. It is a complex disagreement going back years. My advice is to avoid, at all costs, battles about whether or not to add an infobox to a specific article. This is, in my opinion, a deeply counterproductive area of controversy on the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I acquire the ability to use rollbacks? Moreover, how do I use them when I get them?

I barely joined yesteryear yesterday, so I need to conform to Wikipedia as soon as I can. Thanks! Twoandtwoalwaysmakesafive (Wait, what now? I didn't quite catch that.) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Rollback is explained at Wikipedia:Rollback, basically it is a tool for undoing edits that other users have made, and is therefore used in anti-vandalism. The way to request it is at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, however in order to be accepted, you need 200 edits, and some evidence of anti-vandalism work. Unfortunately you're too new that your request will never be accepted. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Twoandtwoalwaysmakesafive: To add, while Rollback can be useful, it is no way required, and many users don't have it and don't want it. For now I suggest you do some recent changes patrol without rollback, maybe with the assistance of WP:Twinkle, a very helpful tool. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me! I'm still going through the rather extensive (well, not really, but, y'know...) beginner's guide, so I'm still learning. As always, Twoandtwoalwaysmakesafive (Wait, what now? I didn't quite catch that.) 01:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

sandbox--how do I start another page?

I've got one article in my sandbox and it was posted live a couple of months ago (through the NIH women scientists wikipedia project). I'm trying to start another article, but can't figure out how to start a new page in the sandbox.

Once I write the new article, what's the mechanism for submitting for approval?

Thanks. LSC124 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, LSC124. (1) Your sandbox currently contains a redirect to the mainspace article. If you go to User:LSC124/sandbox, you'll be redirected to the article, where you'll see, under the title, "Redirected from User:LSC124/sandbox". Clicking on that link will take you to your sandbox, where you can simply delete all the content, readying it for whatever new content you want to write. (2) When your new article is ready for submission, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, and all will be well. Deor (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What type of references are allowed for an article submission?

The Jay Shidler article submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jay_H._Shidler got denied because of referencing/sources. Can you tell me is it because of the Wikipedia references? If not, what type of references are allowed or OK? Newspaper articles, notable online publications? Shere'e Young 02:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommPac (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CommPac. Other Wikipedia articles can never be used as references. As for the type of coverage in reliable sources that would demonstrate the notability of Shidler here on Wikipedia, we are looking for significant coverage of Shidler himself in books published by university presses or high quality mainstream publishers, newspaper and magazine stories from papers with reputations for accuracy, network TV news coverage, and the like. On the other hand, his own writings, speeches, interviews, website, social media pages, blogs or anything published by companies he owns are not independent and do not establish notability. Whether or not the publication is notable is far less important than whether it is reliable. We have an article about the notable Weekly World News, for example, but that notable rag is utterly unreliable.

The tone of your draft is excessively promotional and looks much more like something from Shidler's website than a neutral encyclopedia article. Strip every trace of praise and promotionalism from the draft, and then go back through it again and remove everything you missed the first time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing the name of a page when it is still in draft

Can this be done? I want to add a word to my page name "See-through (window) graphics". Thanks Chutney2001 (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You can move it to Draft:See-through (window) graphics if you wish - my personal preference would be to rename the page when it moves into article space instead, but it's up to you. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Is RCDB reliable as a source of information?

The roller coaster database has lots of useful information that I could use in some of my edits, but I am hesitant to use it as a reference. Is this source reliable or should I find a different website? -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Parks appear to consider it reliable, so I don't expect you'd be challenged on its use. Duane Marden is appearently regarded as an expert in the field, so although it's effectively his personal website it could still be used as a source. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the help -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing after AFC Draft rejected

Comments given to me included deletion of certain unreliable sources,one of them if facebook. WP:FACEBOOK says that verified facebook page will be considered reliable and i m using only verified facebook page as reference. Pls clarify as i would like to make the necessary changes and resubmit but this time i dont want it to be rejected.Please guide me. and i would like to communicate with editor - wikiawesome as he/she had been guiding me, but dont know how to? pls help. the page am taking about is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pritam_Singh_(Actor,_RJ).

Also refrences like imdb and wiki can be used as external links. is it right? so how to add external links?

Toshwets (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Toshwets. Here a few observations: It is your responsibility to show that this person is notable, by providing references to reliable, independent sources that have devoted significant coverage to him. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as reliable sources, although you can wikilink to them in the body of the article. Facebook is a very poor quality source, as Facebook's computers often create unreliable pages about people without their permission. Even if a Facebook page is genuine, it is a primary source of no use in establishing notability on Wikipedia. If I post on my official Facebook page that I am the world's leading Wikipedia editor, would you believe it? I hope not. Your draft article still has promotional language which must be removed. It reads more like a resume or a curriculum vitae than an encyclopedia article, and should be written primarily in neutral biographical prose. There are many words and phrases in bold which do not comply with our Manual of style. For instructions on external links, please read WP:EL. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen, though I have a fair idea of what you re trying to explain, am a bit troubled too as i have only these many sources right now..and i hope i m able to make the necessary corrections so that the re submission is not rejected Toshwets (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot problem

How can I stop bot from making incorrect edits in Urdu language.
it is Cascabela thevetia in urdu language. The problem is at the top of the info box.
ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/كسكابیلا_تھاوٹیا

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 05:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately users here can only help with questions relating to the English version of Wikipedia (en-wiki) - different language versions have their own rules and processes. I would encourage you to take this up at the Urdu WIkipedia (http://ur.wikipedia.org) instead. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aftabbanoori. The page history links to the bot's talk page which redirects to the operator's talk page ur:تبادلۂ خیال صارف:محمد شعیب. You can make a post explaining the problem there. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui & PrimeHunter

Thank you very much for your help.

Best regards

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 12:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for help with a COI edit request

Hi all - what is the rule of thumb for time you should wait before asking again for help with a COI request? I'm a paid employee of Tom MacArthur and requested edits for his page 1 week ago and haven't heard a response. I fully understand and respect that there is no deadline, and I'm not on a deadline either! Just curious about the best way to go about getting help here. Thanks so much! ChloeTMacStaff (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ChloeTMacStaff: I can't look over your edits right now, but you might want to try here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know what "authority control moved to wikidata" means in a pages editing history please

After Wikidata

Before Wikidata

I would like to know what "authority control moved to wikidata" means in a pages editing history please Madeline.smither (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also be interested in knowing this. I guess it's a technical thing, but it's come up in 5-10 unrelated pages on my watchlist. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Authority Control is a system which "links Wikipedia articles ... to the corresponding entries in catalogs of national libraries and other authority files all over the world." Wikidata is a centralized database for all Wikimedia projects. As Wikidata has been rolling out, data in articles has been moving to the centralized Wikidata servers making the information on Wikipedia redundant. This is my understanding of it, for technical editors, feel free to correct me. Helpful graphs are to the right bottom, this looked nicer in the preview. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, see WP:WIKIDATA.--ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Link please

In Plane (geometry) article, Mathematics and collinear were linked 2X. I removed it, and I was reverted. One user left a message about it. Can I have the link to that page where it is said not to overlink the articles. And also not to repeat the same links?
117.207.26.105 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! You would be looking for WP:OVERLINK which explains the linking rules. Hope this helps! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: That's it. Thank you for answering, and also notifying the user as well!
117.207.26.105 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)