Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 386

Archive 380

←

Archive 384

Archive 385

Archive 386

Archive 387

Archive 388

→

Archive 390

Language References?

I've tried tweaking a couple of articles e.g. Sun_Moon_Lake to put in pinyin (or possibly missing 繁體 characters) however I have not seen any guides etc on how to do so, or what should\should not be included. While my changes have added to the article(s), I'm not sure they've been a total success. Ideally I'd like to lose the Chinese link but have no idea how to code it out. Anyone able to point me in the right direction? 人族 (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey 人族, This is not an area with which I'm familiar but see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China-related articles (MOS:CHINESE). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@人族: Hello! Not sure if this is helpful, but if the "Chinese link" you mentioned in your question is actually the link to the "Chinese language" article in the lead (where it displays as Chinese), that is actually controlled by the {{zh}} template. By adding |links=no to {{zh|c=日月潭|p=Rìyuètán|w=Jih<sup>4</sup>-yüeh<sup>4</sup>-t'an<sup>2</sup>|poj=Ji̍t-goa̍t-thâm}}, you can remove the link to the Chinese language article—as well as the three other article links in that template. (See the template's documentation for more information.) However, since I think the links are fine being in the lead, I've added |links=no to the last three {{zh}} templates instead, since having four of the same links seemed like a little bit too much. CabbagePotato (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Issues with advertising

Hey everybody, I've recently created an informational page about one company and it got tagged that it may potentially be an ad. I made sure it has a neutral point of view and is informational, i.e. no information is boosted or praises the company at all. How to avoid it? I don't want to be a spammer. Viktorijagor (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, at the time it was tagged it had sentences like "Creamfinance offers highly customized approach to the personal loan in speedy and reliable manner." Not neutral at all, and very ad-like. The current version seems a bit better, although I think the Operations section needs to be expanded and sourced, because I have no idea what this "self-learning automated technology" is. And I have no idea what the "Competition" section even has to do with the company; it sounds like a blurb to attract investors to Latvia.

If you have a question about an article, or want to discuss it, it's best to start by posting on the article talk page. That's what it's for!

Also, note that if you're writing an article for a client, you have to disclose that, either on your user page or on the article talk page. --Ashenai (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Change Title?

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

I just created this page, and realized too late that the person's last name need to have the "a" capitalized to an "A". How to I contact an Admin to have that done?

Jordan

99.245.242.23 (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - I have moved the page and corrected the date formats - Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Creating a new entry for an accounts program we are launching in Dec 2015

We have developed a new accounting software for new start up businesses / companies. Is it in line with Wikipedia guidelines to allow us create an entry providing details about the new software?

Regards,

Bob Bkapur58 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Bkapur58: and thanks for stopping by The Teahouse. No, it isn't in line with Wikipedia guidelines for you to create it or add information about it. Wikipedia strongly discourages editing under a conflict of interest, which means that people who have a vested interest in some subject should NOT edit articles about that subject. Articles should only be written by disinterested editors who have no interest in promoting the subject. Secondly, it is highly likely that a new product may not have enough independent reliable writing to use as source material to develop a Wikipedia article, so even if you didn't write it, there isn't any source material for anyone else to write about the software either. I hope that helps explain the situation. --Jayron32 13:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just something to add. If something become notable, as a general rule of thumb, 3 reliable sources, an article will usually be created. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood and thanks for your prompt response. Bkapur58 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Submitting someone else's draft at AfC

I've been helping out a new editor who's been trying to create Draft:Nahem Shoa. We've gone back and forth editing it couple of times. I think it's now ready to pass (after failing three times before I lent a hand with reliable sourcing) but the author didn't resubmit it yet, maybe waiting on my response to their latest changes. Would it be problematic in any way for me to click the Resubmit button myself? —GrammarFascist (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist - If you did that you would become the "registered author" - all future review notifications and messages would go to you rather than the other author. So basically you need to discuss it with the original author if you really want to take over primary responsibility for it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have resubmitted it for review using the Articles for Creation helper script, which now has a clever option which allows you to "resubmit as" someone other than yourself, in this case the "most recent submitter" who was also the creator of the Draft. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GrammarFascist. Don't hit that Resubmit button quite yet but, yes, you may. No one owns the content of the draft article (WP:OWN in wiji-jargon). You or other contributers may modify or resubmit but as a courtesy, you should definitely let other significant contributers, especially the author who first submitted the article, know on their talk pages. Oops, I see it was already resubmitted.

I have some suggestions even though I agree that the article would likely pass this time.

• Create a new section, Early life and education and move relevant information now in the lead papagraph to that new section.
• Rewrite the lead paragraph as described in the Wikipedia Manual of Style: Biographies and MOS: Lead section. The first paragraph should summarize the rest of the article. Details should generally be in the body. To make reading smoother, citations should be in the main body with few or no in-line citations in the lead paragraph.
• Add an Infobox artist and fill in all of the information that you can. Leave the rest blank; they may/will be needed in the future. Don't worry about a photo unless you find or take one releasable under a suitable license. Fair use is seldom acceptable for a portrait of a living person.
• Deal with any tags such as the not in citation given after the second paragraph under the Heads section. If the second citation corrects that issue, remove the tag and explain in the edit summary.

Finally, prepare in advance to submit the article to Did you know. It looks like you and the other major contributers deserve to see your article featured on the Main Page. Once the article moves to article space, the DYK nomination must be submitted in less than seven days. I like to [[WP:DYKR}review another article]] right after nominating one. I hope this is helpful, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Tips on Article Neutrality?

I recently submitted a draft for review (Draft:Heliotrope Books), which was declined on September 2nd for the reason that the article was worded too closely to an advertisement. As this was not my intention, I have since revised the language in the draft; the current version that you will see on the page has had all the wording that could be considered promotional excised.

Before I resubmit this latest version, does anyone have any suggestions for confirming article neutrality? Thank you in advance. VitebellaVitebella (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vitabella, I fixed most of the issues and brought it out of the draft space to Heliotrope Books. After a few other users come across it and make some edits, it will get further from sounding like an advertisement. Thanks Tortle (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have gone in and added a few sources, and plan to source as much of the rest of the article as possible. I couldn't find anything about "memoir-noir" as a genre, even without mentioning Heliotrope Books; the assertion that Heliotrope/Rosenblatt coined the term should probably be sourced, so if you know of any, Vitabella, I can help you format a proper citation. —GrammarFascist (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Vitebella, welcome to The Teahouse. You have messages. Unfortunately, you may not have gotten the notice since your name is spelled differently from above.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is excellent and so helpful. Thanks very much to Tortle, GrammarFascist, and Vchimpanzee - really appreciate it! (And yup, my username is spelled perhaps a little differently from the norm - "e" in the beginning instead of "a")

Thank you all again! Vitebella (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Citations for Scientific Journal articles and notability

Good morning everyone my name is Sanjev Rajaram and I'm a new editor here at Wikipedia. I was adding some information to a article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal and referenced it in CSE style (the gold standard for publications pertaining to biology) an editor correct the formatting to make it more like Wikipedia. So what is the correct wikipedia style for citations of this nature. Another questions that comes to mind is the issue of notability, I read through a little about notability but is the criteria of a peer-reviewed scientific journal sufficient as a standalone merit for notability? --Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. All this tea talk is making me thirsty I think I'm gonna make myself a glass of tea ;) any suggestions? I have several different flavors I'm working with here.

Hello, Sanjev Rajaram. I'm not going to attempt to answer the question on referencing style, as I know that there are several different styles which are acceptable. You may find that Referencing for beginners helps.

As for the question of notability - the significant point is that there must be substantial writing about the subject by people unconnected with the subject. So, for a Wikipedia article about a scientific subject, peer-reviewed papers about that topic would be excellent references (though if all the references were to papers by the same authors, that might leave its notability in doubt), but for a Wikipedia article about a scientist or institution they would be unlikely to contribute to notability. --ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand. My last question is I have access to a variety of scientific papers that are in peer-reviewed primary scientific journals because of my alma matter. I am not required to pay for these papers however for most people these papers are available for full text via payment and only the abstract is a free and publically accessible read. If I am citing something from the discussion for example which does not appear in the abstract do I have to provide an image of some sort (which may be copyrighted so this laso would liekly not be a smart way of going about it) due to the fact that the article's discussion can only be viewed with payment? --Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sanjev Rajaram. As is discussed in WP:PAYWALL, it is perfectly acceptable to cite sources that a reader must pay to access, jsut as it is acceptable to site offline printed sources, or sources not in English. You can use the quote= parameter (if you use a citation template, which is not required) to quote the relevant (short) portion of the source if it is not in the freely available abstract. By the way, WP:CITEVAR makes it plain that any consistent style of citation will do, provided it gives enough information for readers to verify the sources cited. You do not have to change citation formatting, nor should another editor do so without discussing the issue first. (if ther is no consistant style used, or if there are nothing but bare URLs that is another matter.) DES ^(talk) 23:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DES that was very helpful. Also I forgot to Thank you earlier ColinFine that was also helpful too. Both of you please have a good day and thanks again for all the help. --Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I edited Randy Thornhorn draft and it disappeared when I was trying to eliminate the first draft.

I edited the second article I submitted, punched the save button, went to review it, and it subsequently disappeared. It had a section of the References in the text, which I believe was from the first article I submitted on the same subject, whci I was trying to eliminate. Now, I can't correct the mistake of the references in the text because I can't resurrect the article on Randy Thornhorn I had edited. Lyn Dunsavage Young (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

hello, Lyn Dunsavage Young, welcome back to the Teahouse. The draft is at Draft:Randy Thornhorn and seems to contain two copies of the article with much the same content but different formatting. This should be corrected so that only one copy is present, and then other issues such as sourcing can be addressed. DES ^(talk) 05:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, please read the response you had to your question at Wikipedia:Help desk#Randy Thornhorn. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

After I declined the second submission of the article, which contained duplicate information, the original poster asked me at my talk page for help. I was able to delete the duplicate information, but am still trying to help with the formatting, which is weird due to the mix of numbered footnotes and in-line references and apparently other complications. I advised the original poster to come here for further help, and also to play The Wikipedia Adventure to gain editing skills, and possibly to ask for a mentor. I am still trying, within time limits, to help this editor, but any other help that can be provided (now that the duplication has been fixed) will be appreciated. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Where to discuss regularization of a certain kind of template?

I'd like to get clarity on whether full names or simply family names should be used in templates like this one: Template:LosAngelesCityAttorneys. What is the best place for a discussion and resolution? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey BeenAroundAWhile. The talk page of the template, or in this case, the talk page of the directly related article comes to mind. In fact, there is actually a current discussion going on of this very issue. See Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney#Disagreement about how to format the list or lists of past Los Angeles City Attorneys. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that you've actually made edits to that page, so I assume you're aware of the discussion and my post misses the mark. Now I'm now wondering if your looking for some type of "higher forum". Instead of seeking a different one, you could create an request for comment there to draw wider community input and make it about the larger issue and not just that template. I should caution you that going somewhere else to discuss that template while there's such a discussion already ongoing could be seen as forum shopping.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Vishuddhasagar

Need help getting my draft approved. Please review Draft:Vishuddhasagar. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Capankajasmilyo. Most of the information in the draft is unreferenced. In particular:

• Don't use evaluative terms like "prominent" or "popular" unless you are directly quoting a cited independent source.
• There is too much detail in the lead (before the first heading). The lead should be an introduction and summary, but some of the detail in that paragraph should go in a section - perhaps called "Biography".
• The list of Chaturmas is mostly unreferenced, and would be better presented as prose rather than a list. It also needs more explanation for the general reader (why is it of any significance when and where he did this?)
• The list of works is disproportionately long for the length of an article. Far better would be a paragraph of prose talking in more depth about a few of those works, preferably drawing on what people unconnected with Vishuddasagar have written about them. There should not be links to them, as these do not meet the rules in WP:EL: there is a link to his website in the infobox, as is proper.
• The list of disciples is inappropriate in every way: it is unreferenced, the individuals are mere names, and presumably not notable in themselves. Again, much better would be a section on his disciples in general, perhaps picking on significant individuals or events, and based on independent published sources. The list as it stands should be deleted completely, as not encyclopaedic. --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Popular and prominent removed. Lead broken by introducing biography. Ref added to chaturmas. Work converted into paragraph. Initiation is relevant, please suggest if there's an alternative way to present, if the current method is inappropriate. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I submit this for approval now? How to submit this for approval? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo welcome back to The Teahouse. I'm not sure your draft is ready for approval. You still have that list of disciples (or at least I think it is) which doesn't really mean anything to me. It is sourced, but it was recommended that a section talking about them be added, not merely a section listing non-notable people.

However, it says "Review waiting" at the top so it may have already been submitted. Some other problems: The man is repeatedly called "He" when he has a name that should be used. I'm not sure what that name would be other than Vishuddhasagar. I am thinking more of his name needs to be in bold at the beginning, but I don't know enough to say for sure what needs to be bold. The name that starts with "P.P." probably should also be bold, not italics.

I have no knowledge of this man's religion, so terms like "Prvachan" and "pooja" should probably be wikilinked for those who might want to know more.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, terminology explained and linked. List of initiated removed. Content added to that section instead. He issue resolved to certain extent. PP explained. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of Peruvian woman visual artist article

Hi, everyone! I created this article: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_G%C3%B3mez-S%C3%A1nchez and I want to know if I have categorized in the right way. I have doubts because I saw there is a Category named "Pintoras" and I decided to include it there too, am I falling into an overcategorization mistake?Yhhue91 (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. A wikilink to Gloria Gómez-Sánchez is more readable than the url https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_G%C3%B3mez-S%C3%A1nchez. Note, however, that this Teahouse is for questions about the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish. You may want to ask at es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I improve my article to be acceptable?

I recently wrote and article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shingi_Munyeza It was declined. How do I improve my article to be acceptable?.Clairedongo (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Clairedongo. The reviewing editor User:SwisterTwister denied the submission because he didn't think that you had enough sources. I personally have seem many short articles (or stubs) turn out fine with less references than yours. I do agree that there need to be more sources but I dont know if that was basis for a denial of your request. But anyway, enough of my nonsense. SwisterTwister asked for more sources so I suggest adding a few more and resubmitting it. I see that you know how from looking at the article but if you need help, please let me know. Thanks Tortle (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clairedongo. In my opinion, it is not so much the number of the sources as the quality of the sources. For example, his profile on his own blog is cited nine times in the draft article. We need independent sources to establish notability, and a biography should be built almost entirely based on what other people have written and published about the person, rather than on what they have written about themselves. The LinkedIn, Pindula, LeadZimbabwe, Nyngi, Religion in Zimbabwe and African Breakfast citations do not seem to be independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tortle and Cullen for the feedback. Much appreciated! I will take another shot at the references and re-submit. 41.60.91.186 (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, I changed my signature to be more creative, and dropped the numerical portion so it could be easier for other users to discourse with me. Is this OK, or does it make it more complicated because then the "189" part doesn't show up? --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 11:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's fine - the link still goes to your userpage, which is the requirement. Many users have signatures that, for one reason or another, don't accurately reflect their usernames - it's perfectly acceptable. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui. My user name reflects my family culture about where our houses are... some of us "MountainSide", some picked "LakeSide" and mine is "CitySide". The 189 component was the street address. ----Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 12:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Rule for possessive case in Generational titles

In the possessive case of generational titles such as Pasquale Grimaldi, Sr. would the possessive case be: Pasquale Grimaldi, Sr.'s house or Pasquale Grimaldi, Sr's house? Period or no period? And do we included the comma after Grimaldi before Sr. in this case? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The MOS is surprisingly reticent here, but according to the Harbrace Handbook, " Pasquale Grimaldi, Sr's house" would be correct, with the comma being optional. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with {{birth year and age}} template

I'm trying to add an infobox to the biography page of an artist who is alive and whose exact birth date is not substantiated, only the year. Template:Infobox artist says to use {{tl|birth year and age}}, but when I try entering the birth year, it yields "{{1968}}" instead of "1968 (age 46-47)" — what am I doing wrong? —GrammarFascist (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And I just answered my own question. I thought the tl was part of the template. —GrammarFascist (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Great. If you didn't also find this out, tl stands for "template link" so there's your mnemonic. There's others. See Category:Internal template-link templates--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GrammarFascist and thanks got letting us know. I have improved the documentation of {{Infobox artist}} to avoid this confusion. I'll get the related infoboxen later today. DES ^(talk) 13:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Creating a new Infobox - tutorial step by step

Hello! My first attempts on Wiki. I am creating a page for one of the EU-funded research project and need to create an infobox template for it with:

- title - logo - scope - type - duration - budget - coordinator

I tried to modify existing infoboxes, but it does not work. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Designing_infoboxes is too complex... Could you recommend me a tutorial, which would help me to create such an infobox Marta.goralczyk (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marta.goralczyk. I suggest that you take a look at Template:Infobox project, which may well meet your needs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thanks. Indeed I saw this template but it does not match my requirement, e.g. I have no owner or founder in my project, but coordinator. Marta.goralczyk (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not just leave those fields blank and mention the coordinator's name in the "key people" field? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hell, Marta.goralczyk, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not always worth creating a new info box template for a single use. Note that an infobox is in no way required for any article. How many similar articles would you expect your new infobox to cover? What is their general commonality? That is what woulfd they have in common that would make this new infobox best for them? DES ^(talk) 17:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking purpose

Hello all, I had a lengthy explanation typed up, but my browser crashed while I was editing. Go figure. (For what it's worth, I can reproduce the bug. Double-clicking the text in the box that pops up after clicking "Ask a question!" will crash Mozilla. If someone who reads this knows whom to contact, please do so.) My question boils down to this:

Where can I find places that collect problems for an editor to solve?

I'm focused on effective and useful editing. i.e., avoiding edit-war sinkholes in favor of adding citations to claims made on popular medical articles. (That's just an example. My heuristic is essentially "maximize real-world impact.") I've already seen wp:articles for creation and CAT:UP. Unfortunately, I had to find these pages myself, which was a lot harder than I care to admit. Where can I reliably find places that guide editors to problems in need of fixing? Thanks for reading. --- Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 08:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Asgardinator. A good place to start is the community's To-Do list, which contains many, many tasks that need editor attention. There's also a fairly extensive list of attention-needing categories at the backlogs page. That should keep you busy for a while... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you have a particular area of interest or expertise, you might want to check if there is a WikiProject covering that area which keeps a list of work to do. For example, you mentioned medical articles, and there is a section on "How to help" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both; you've been tremendous help. This is more than enough to get moving in the right direction. Cheers. — Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 17:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

First Article- Help needed!

Hi!

I'm currently working on my first article (I previously have been editing/revamping stubs) and could use some help. The article is on a New Works Theater that I admire. Located in my sandbox as Draft:Process Series Any suggestions?

Bean1028 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bean1028. By far the biggest problem I see with your draft is the complete lack of references to Independent, reliable sources that are needed to show that this theater group is notable. All of your references are either to the group's's own website, or to the websites of theaters which have staged plays developed by that group. The backbone of the article should be coverage of Process Series by people entirely unassociated with it, such as professional theater critics for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

help me understand what is going on

I've been working all day on an article titled Thompson Brothers Boat Manufacturing Company because it had no citations within the body of the text and was poorly organized and was essentially a huge block of blah blah blah with no images and no "breaking up of the huge boring area of written material" (I don't know how else to explain). I am a stickler for making a page look as appealing as possible, so someone might want to read it. Anyway... I was in the middle of placing the citations where they should be and in the correct form, when I got an edit conflict message and couldn't save my work. I could find no way on that page to explain what I planned to do... the "talk" thing wouldn't let me write anything there. it would seem someone else has jumped into the frey, after a couple years of this article sitting dormant and unread due to its profoundly unappealing nature. What do I do now? Should I let the other person do what they need to do... even if it's the original editor reverting things to a pile of crap? Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

never mind... I accessed the page and will leave it as-is, without citations in the text if someone thinks it's okay to simply have a list at the bottom. None of my "visual improvements" were disturbed. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Squirrelwhisperer and welcome to the Teahouse.

First of all, in an edit conflict you are always shown the difference between your edit and the one made while you were editing. You ahve the chance to save your work, by copying the relevant portions of your version from the bottom edit box to the appropriate place in the top box and clicking save. It happens all the time on heavily edited articles. See WP:Edit Conflict

Second, if you are referring to the various edits of User:32.218.40.154, they generally seem to be improvements in my opinion. They organze the lead section better, arrange the history in chronological order, format section titles in sentence case as specified by the Manual of Style, combine duplicate citations, remove an inappropriate citation to an online forum, and properly expand abbreviations. Which of these changes do you object to? In any case, any change or proposed change can be discussed on the article talk page. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There should indeed be "citations in the text" if by that you mean inline citations, but as far as I can see you never saved any. Perhaps you were in the process of doing so when you hit the edit conflict, but they were never saved and so the otehr editor never saw them. If you are willing to re-add them, that would help the article and the project. DES ^(talk) 22:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Squirrelwhisperer if in future you are in the middle of a string of edits and you want to ask other editors not to interrupt, you can add {{In use}} to the top of the article. However, this should not be left in place for more than a few hours at most. DES ^(talk) 22:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am the person who organized this article, which was one block of blah blah with no paragraphs or anything to break it up. The only thing the other entity did was to take the horribly written bibliography at the end and put it in the customary order of a bibliography. Because I KNOW the information in this article and have read the resources, I had placed in-line citations where they should be. And now that's gone. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to using the "in use" template, or copying your content from the bottom box of the "edit conflict" notice screen, you can also prevent major frustration by making smaller edits and saving often , or by copying the article into your sandbox and making your edits and updates there. Losing a lot of work to an edit conflict sucks, but unfortunately edit conflicts are a part of life in editing an massively multi user Wiki. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that although I only tried seven times to put something on the article talk page, and only for 30 minutes each time, I failed to be able to do that, which is a first for me. I have been editing here for a while, although not consistently. I tend to forget my password and need to re-up with a new name each time. Anyway, I have always used the talk function to explain what I hope to do when working on something that already exists. It didn't work on this article for some reason. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Eh... I think I will give up on this one. It can be deleted if need be... I'll rewrite it when that happens, as this company should be mentioned. I am old and don't have time in my life to dick around with someone else's poorly done thing. It can be easier to write from scratch and get the citations as they should be than to go back in and put them where someone else left them out. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

While I can't be sure, Squirrelwhisperer, I suspect you tried to click talk while the edit conflict screen was displayed. I supect that doesn't work, adn you ahve to deal with the edit conflict first (but I might be mistaken about that, i haven't tried it). One way to do this is to copy the text from the bottom edit box into a text editor on your computer. Than you have the work saved and need not fear losing it. I am sorry that you lost work, i am trying to suggest that you need not do so in future should this happen again, and that the other person never saw your changes. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. I surely would not delete it if it were tagged for deletion. I am sorry that you were frustrated, but I hope that you will reconsider. I also hope that you will consider that the other editor was a person, not an "entity" even if s/he didn't log in. DES ^(talk) 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

S'okay... I will probably add some more images to that article and may fool with it later (it needs more boat-examples). Sorry to have called the other editor an "entity"... too much science fiction can make that seem an okay term to use. And I was only doing little bits of changes at a time so hadn't actually lost much. I feel good about today's work, because if the article looks okay now it's in part because of what I did. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As to "The only thing the other entity did was to take the horribly written bibliography at the end and put it in the customary order of a bibliography.", the following was done. In this edit the lead section was reorganized to put the nature of the company first. In this edit proper sub-section titles were added in place of simple bolded text. In this edit the subsection titles were corrected to sentence case. IN this edit the order of events in the article was changed to be in chronological order. In this edit an unreliable source was removed. In this edit and this edit abbreviations were expanded. Not so bad, really, for an entity. DES ^(talk) 23:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

(Struck above comment after reading your latest post. DES ^(talk) 23:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC))

Help with correcting this issue

I have been trying to fix the issue of verification of citations/sources. Message from wiki:

"This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately."

Everything I add to the page is removed immediately. Anyone I can speak to about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.249.223 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 September 2015‎

If you are referring to Patrick Hoelck, in this edit you (or someone else using the same IP as you now are, the edit was on 24 August 2015)added a large amount of information without providing a source citation of any sort, and another editor removed it because it was unsourced. I might have simply added a {{cn}} tag to ask for a source, but removing uncited content is accepted here. in this edit you added what looks like the exact same content, agfain unsourced, adn again another editor removed it with the summary "Reverted good faith edits by 76.91.249.223 (talk): Unsourced change". I urge you to discuss your edits on Talk:Patrick Hoelck, including why they will improve the article (in your view) and what your sources are. The same advice would apply to any other article, discuss on the article talk page. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh and for your information, that message "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification..." is not "from wiki". A specific individual editor put it there. DES ^(talk) 23:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Contributions

Dear Users,

Can someone explain me, will an image, uploaded to Wikipedia Commons be counted as my contribution and where it will be marked as such, if it is? I tried to click on Contributions on my page and it shows all the past correspondence - does it also count as contributions?

Regards, KurKur Kerdirichi (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kur Kerdirichi: Hey there!

Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia are two different projects and each will track your contributions separately, but they both always maintain records of your contributions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Commons contributions are shown at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kur_Kerdirichi. You see it if you click "Contributions" while you are at https://commons.wikimedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I am looking for a map of the Red Sea,

how do I get to a place that lets me see maps showing different parts of the world? 2601:2C3:8002:2CC7:6D09:6B06:1871:7D8B (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You will find several relevant maps and images at Red Sea. DES ^(talk) 02:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Article tagged for quick deletion

Hey Everyone, I'm very new, so I apologize in advance for the stupid question.

I have an article (Ignatius Mystkowski) tagged for quick deletion. This article is one that I literally tried to translate from the Polish version of Wikipedia. I'm not sure why it was tagged. Can someone please help me?

Thank you so much! Otani11 (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Otani11 and welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed the speedy deletion tag from Ignatius_Mystkowski, and I have asked the tagger for his reasons at User talk:Gparyani#Tagging of Ignatius_Mystkowski. However, the standards on different editions of Wikipedia can be different. I don't know the policies at the Polish-language edition of Wikipedia, but on en.Wikipedia, we require that articles demonstrate "Notability". This most often means that we cite independent reliable sources that have written about the subject. See Your First Article and the basic elements of an article. Currently, the Ignatius_Mystkowski article does not have any such citations. I suspect that the subject is indeed notable, but please cite some sources to establish this, and to verify the statements in the article. See referencing for beginners for help on how to do this, but if you find that hard, simply list your proposed sources on Talk:Ignatius_Mystkowski and add {{request edit}} or post again here, or ping me or another experienced editor to ask for help. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate the quick response. I added some sources that I believe are notable, I'll repost them in the talk section and hopefully they will count. All of the sources I've found are in the Polish language, which my command over is shaky, so we'll see. This guy was a military commander for a major rebellion, so there has to be some source that is considered acceptable out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otani11 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Otani11, sources in Polish (or any other language) are quite acceptable, but if there are sources in English of otherwise equal quality, those are preferred. If a translation of the key passage in the non-English source can be provided, that helps. However, if your command of Polish is "shaky" how do you know that a source supports a statement or statements in the article, or even that it is reliable? Perhaps it isn't TOO shaky? DES ^(talk) 02:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, please sign your posts with four tildes: (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this into your default or custom signature and a timestamp. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Article lead/Intro, and Note at the top

Hello,

In the article Intro/Lead Section, is it okay to include bulleted text ? Is there any rule on formatting that prohibits this ? Also, can one use bold face to emphasize some key aspects (e.g., some small phrases) in the lead section ?

I have another question, unrelated to this: On many articles, we see a note at the top, mentioning about several things, e.g., incomplete, not neutral, lacks citations, etc. Have these notes been put down by an admin ? Or could anyone have put in these notes ? Also, can these notes be removed by anyone ? Or does an Admin need to remove them ?

Thank you. Js82 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Answered at the Help desk in this edit. DES ^(talk) 03:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Js82, and welcome to the Teahouse. it is usually not a good idea to ask the same question in two different places within minutes of each other. Remember that all of these pages are responded to by unpaid volunteers, much like yourself. DES ^(talk) 03:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See also position

Where should See also be placed in a Wikipedia article compared to references and notes. Should it be below or above it? Why is there no consistency in this aspect on WP articles? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Capankajsmilyo. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. There is some consistency, and there will never be anything close to perfect consistency on a writing project developed through the efforts of thousands of different people.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

New learner

I finished Training for Student, training for educator and training for ambassador. Can you help me how create my course page. I tried it but it says i have not participated to any of them. I needed to know how to start using Course page. Thanks. Ras Benjih (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, but there is specialist education help at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about 'Missing' Article

There's a major news story at the moment about a professor who has worked for NASA and is also being "sought" by the FBI. Enough significant and reliable sources have covered it that I am wondering why no one has created a page about this individual. He's a highly cited scholar at a major university as well. Is it the presumption of innocence? The person in question would merit their own page on their contributions to the NASA project they worked on, let alone the accusations. In any case, I am missing something here and hoping someone can explain it. I'm not mentioning their name, but Google is your friend.New Media Theorist (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @New Media Theorist:, and thanks for stopping by. The answer to your question is: The reason the article does not yet exist is because you didn't create it. Literally every article, and every single word of text in every single article, at Wikipedia exists for only one reason: because a person who cares noticed Wikipedia didn't have the information yet, and added it. That's all. Nothing else at all exists at Wikipedia for any other reason. Here's the reason why it's your particular fault it doesn't exist: 1) You care. 2) You noticed the information doesn't exist. 3) You have not yet created the article. Wikipedia's most important core value is be bold. If you find something missing, create it. If you find something wrong, fix it. You don't need permission, and you don't need to find someone else to do it for you. Just take care of it. --Jayron32 04:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron for your quick answer! I have no problem being bold, but I still wonder if the subject and what is happening in the news is notable enough. Any thoughts on this particular story? It feels like I might be condemning them to bad press if their first Wikipedia mention is an article with material like this. New Media Theorist (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)People accused of a crime are a complicated matter on Wikipedia. There has to be a balance of informing readers with not defaming the individual. The relevant guild lines are WP:BLPCRIME which states that people presumed innocent until proven guilty and WP:CRIME which outlines notability guild lines. The cases are always unique, and it is difficult to assess what consensus will be. I would definitely give an article a try with sources such as this providing good coverage, but don't be too discouraged if the article ends up at WP:AfD. I can't tell you how that debate would be decided, but I am personally leaning towards inclusion (though others will certainly disagree). Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to New Media Theorist: No clue. If you have sources, create the article. That's the best advice I can give. The worst that can happen is someone can object, and at that point, you can seek dispute resolution or invite a wider audience to comment. But you should not start assuming that you'll be opposed, and feel free to go ahead and create the article. You are correct, that Wikipedia should never be the first venue to publish information about anything (see WP:OR), but if reliable source material exists on a subject, and the material is in-depth enough to create a reasonable article where every statement is cited to a reliable source, and the article can be relatively complete, go ahead. If the source material exists outside of Wikipedia, the article should exist at Wikipedia. If the source material does not exist, it shouldn't have an article. It's as simple as that. --Jayron32 04:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both! if you google simply NASA+FBI you will get news results of what I am talking about. I understand the basics entirely, and was just looking for the voice of more experienced editors from the WP:BLPCRIME angle as it applies to this particular subject. I've got that, and will hold off for now.New Media Theorist (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@New Media Theorist: In addition to the WP:BLPCRIME there is the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a breaking news forum. There are lots of things that fill the 24 hour news cycle which are not encyclopedic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Splitting category

I'd like to split the ambiguous category Category:New Zealand Māori academics. My plan is to split it into one category of academics of Māori descent (a child of Category:New Zealand Māori people by occupation), one for academics who study the Māori language (a child of Category:Linguists by language group of study and one for academics who study the Māori culture and history (a child of Category:Cultural academics). My difficulty is in what to call them. Category:Academics of Māori descent, Category: Linguists of Māori and Category:Māori studes academics? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Stuartyeates, and welcome to the Teahouse. Such a split should be discussed at categories for discussion, I think. DES ^(talk) 11:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Carpet from Bagdad

With total 78 edits it is a featured article. Is it still a qualified featured article, as some articles are former featured article. Action Hero (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Action Hero:,

the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria do not include "X or more edits" as one of the criteria.

However, if you feel the article no longer meets the current criteria, you can either start making edits to ensure that it does, or take it to the Wikipedia:Featured article review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

First Article: Request for Review and Comments

Hi Folks, I've spent some time editing a stub article about the S. H. Couch company. I welcome observations from editors as this was my first contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you! GanderMusings (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GanderMusings, and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at it. In my view it relies too much on public records. These are considered primary sources here and should only be used with care. they should be supplemented by secondary soruces, such as news coverage. I added some {{cn}} tags whre I thoguht a source was needed.

I don't think the list of patents as it stands belongs. In generally we avoid cites to the original patent filings. If these are considered particularly significant developments, we should have secondary sources (news, books, etc) that say so. If not, we shouldn't list them at all.

The relation of ESB to Couch is not clear. It should be clarified, or else the section on ESB should be removed, in my view.

In spite of all these commetns on what is still to be done or changed, this is a fine job so far, particularly for a relatively new editor. DES ^(talk) 23:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I need to ask you a question

Someone sent me a letter about “The Teahouse" and I would like to try it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxRoadhouseBluesxX (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello there XxRoadhouseBluesxX, and welcome to the Teahouse! Anything in particular you need help with? --Ashenai (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It is basically a friendly question page where we can all help each other with things we are not familiar with, and ways to stay sfae and avoid the horrible ban (yuk)! Mendezes Cousins (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I also find I learn a lot by reading other people's questions here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Has anybody got tips for editing with a smartphone?

My only Internet access is off my smartphone (I have the Samsung Galaxy S4, if it makes any difference). I usually don't have any problems, but sometimes somebody will mention something that I can't see or find, and I think it's because I'm on mobile view. I tried using desktop view, but it makes everything so small it's virtually impossible to read it. I can't copy and paste things like links either. Can anybody with experience in editing using a smartphone give me any tips? White Arabian mare (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Wikipedia's got an app you might like. It's free in the Play and App Stores. — Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 01:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

White Arabian mare, for mobile I use a Blackberry Bold 9900 with a tiny screen and with a few caveats I get by splendidly.

1. I stopped using Mobile view unless the page stalls when loading.
2. By using Desktop view I get the full left-column toolbar.
3. By double tapping my screen the font size is increased and right/left justified so I can see full width text.
4. When I use Mobile view 75% of the time the Edit window won't open.
5. Desktop view gives me full functionality in the Edit window including Preview, pre-threaded Comments, etc.
6. My mobile device always Caps the first letter after punctuation and if I desire lower-case instead I have to double insert the first desired letter then erase the Capped one.
7. Only 20% of the time does my cursor focus go to the text so I can copy it to my clipboard for pasting.
8. My device times out frequently during page loads/saves/previews, etc.
9. I am a Pending-Changes-Reviewer and Mobile view does not show me all the features I need to perform a review or to implement a review.
10. Visual Editor does not work on my Mobile device and many times the Edit links for visual edit are missing anyway.
11. A Pending Changes review effort takes forever to load and the screen freezes forever at every click.
12. In Mobile view I see the red-bell that alerts me to messages, but when I click on the bell nothing happens.

That's it for now. Checkingfax (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, White Arabian mare. I agree with Checkingfax. I do over 90% of my Wikipedia editing on an Android HTC One smart phone. I recently took an article George Meany to Good article status, and every edit during that lengthy process was on my smart phone. I always use the desktop site on my smart phone, never the mobile site, which I consider both outdated with a 2009 look and "not ready for prime time" as it lacks functionality for serious editors. I expand the text size so a column fully fills the screen, and always edit in landscape mode as opposed to portrait mode. My one finger typing is pretty darned fast with practice, and I use the "suggested word" function, which speeds things and reduces typographical errors. My phone now knows all the WikiJargon. I am self-employed, work in a different customer location.most days, and have frequent chunks of "down time" many days. Smart phone editing allows me to.contribute to the encyclopedia anywhere, any time, whenever I have a few minutes to spare. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'm probably not getting the app because I hope to get rid of this phone fairly soon (it updated to Lollipop and I hate it) but I will try everything else you mentioned. It sounds like it will make life a lot easier. White Arabian mare (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Greetings, White Arabian mare. At Wikipedia:Tip of the day/June 29 there is information about WP mobile for various devices. Don't know if this will help as I do all my WP edits on a wide screen laptop. Cheers, JoeHebda (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to edit the Tehachapi Energy Storage Project page that was deleted. How can I do this?

I would like to edit the Tehachapi Energy Storage Project page that was deleted. How can I do this? Kfok-business (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

hello, Kfok-business. Draft:Tehachapi Energy Storage Project was deleted by Jimfbleak as a copyright violation, so it is most unlikely to be restored in any way. You would need to start over from scratch. However you can ask Jimfbleak to provide the cited sources, and he might choose to do so. DES ^(talk) 03:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing the name of a image

[file:Modern_Vidya_Niketan.jpg|199 px] Hi ,I this file name should be "logo of__Modern_Vidya_Niketan.jpg" to be more accurate. Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Aryan hindustan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I understand that you want to rename File:Modern Vidya Niketan.jpg. On Wikipeda, renaming is done with the WP:MOVE function. As you will see at Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a file for images and other files, only admins and editors with the "File Mover" right may do this. As you will see at Wikipedia:File mover#What files should be renamed?, file renames are done for only a limited set of reasons, and it specifically says: "As a matter of principle, it is best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist." Therefore, i will not be renaming this file as you request. DES ^(talk) 12:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks @DESiegel:

-- Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)