Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 408

Archive 405

Archive 406

Archive 407

Archive 408

Archive 409

Archive 410

→

Archive 415

Re.: 5 minutes of your attention

I would like to offer to my fellow Wikipedians to have a look at the sketch of the following idea: AN ANNUAL COMPETITION IN PHOTOGRAPHY AMONG WIKIPEDIANS ONLY, and to consider a possibility to turn this sketch into a working project by ideas, suggestions and constructive criticism, or to offer a better plan to solve the “problem”.

The tDear hing is, that many articles (as I have noticed) on various subjects of science can be illustrated in much more interesting, expressive way, in better quality and, what is even more important, in stronger connection to the essence of the subject; that’s why I propose to hold a competition in photography for (as a first step) the science articles.

It is necessary to stress here, that the appearance of the new photos in the articles is getting less attention of the Editors, than the appearance of the new articles, that is why good texts are bit by bit being filled with obscure and sometimes confounding photos, which often does not correspond to the current level of photography and doesn't reflect the latest scientific concepts and achievements.

The proposed competition could attract a focused attention to the articles of all participants, what will help to improve the quality of edited photos, and the winners will become a Wiki’s known and recognized experts, as each winning photo should be marked by the symbol of the win —Wiki-medal; thus, the winners will be able to give valuable advice to those, who need it, and to help the beginners to join future competitions, being better prepared.

Each day really gigantic number of people are approaching each Wiki page, and especially articles about science, such as palaeontology, astronomy, geology, etc...

For many of the readers these articles are the only immediately available source of information they have, and illustrations are incredibly important, as they act here as the “windows” to the World of Science, and this wonderful world should be presented correctly and interestingly.

I believe, that many Wikipedians can offer high quality photos of their own work for each of selected by Editors topics (articles). Those who are not interested in photography, could participate as the creators of designs for Wiki-medals, or to vote for the best 3 photos on each topic.

As the purpose of the competition, in the first place, is to improve a quality of the illustration of the articles, it will be appropriate to have competition without 1-2-3 places, but with selection of 3 best photos for each article, and prize the winners, for example, in category Chemistry, by 3 Wiki-medals of the same, ‘chemistry’ design, but in category Astronomy — by 3 Wiki-medals of the different design, created specially for the article Astronomy, and so on.

Every next year Editors could offer, let's say 4 (probable, it will be the optimal number) new different subjects for competition and 4 designs of Wiki-medal. Designs should reflect the assents of the subjects by its symbols. All designs, being different, should be contained in the chosen shape, which remains constant. On my page I presented an example of 4 designs of Wiki-medals for the best illustration of the following articles: Chemistry, Geology, Mineralogy, Gemmology.

It doesn't mean at all, that I wish to suggest to narrow down the Photography Competition to some single category, as for example, the illustration of science articles, or wider—to narrow down competitions to Photography only.

There’s an endless variety of the possible types of brilliant competitions and only the will and creative ideas of Wikipedians are needed for their development. I’m offering to take Photography Competition under consideration just as a first step, and if it will be found by Wikipedians, as the positive step, then the advice, recommendations and suggestions of the experienced and willing to help Wikipedians will be absolutely essential and invaluable, as there are a lot of questions here, for example: how to organize the competition technically? Whether it is possible to create a special contest page? In what form shall Editors vote for the best photos? And many more.

But the first question - what Wikipedians think about this proposal?

Thank you.

Regards, Chris Oxford. Chris Oxford (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

How would this differ from Picture of the Year, and how do you propose to address the issue of people thinking the winning photos have some kind of special status and shouldn't be removed from articles, which has been an ongoing problem for as long as I can remember regarding WP:Featured pictures? There isn't much correlation between aesthetic attractiveness and encyclopedic value. This isn't to say I'm automatically opposed to such a process, just that there would need to be very good arguments in favour of adding yet another layer of bureaucracy. - iridescent — Talk 15:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris Oxford and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you are relatively new to the community you may not know that most of the pictures used in the Wikipedia are stored at another Wikimedia project called the Commons. This is where the pictures, videos and audio recording are kept, currently 28,780,973 of them. On this sister project there are many competitions that are similar to the one you are outlining in your post, such as "Wiki Loves Monuments" and "Wiki Loves Earth". In fact, there is one that is almost exactly what you propose. It is held on a monthly basis, you can read all about it here. This month's challenge is "100 years later". Previous themes have been things like "Personal Protective Equipment", "Fountains and wells", "Fossils", "Steps, Stairs and Staircases", "Household items in use", etc. With so many active photographers the subject needs to be more narrow than just "Chemistry" or "Geology", since the number of entries for such large categories would be impossible to handle. I'm sorry, but I don't see the reason for having two similar competitions. Best, w.carter — Talk 18:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I also see that you have uploaded some pictures here at the Wikipedia. It would be better if you uploaded them directly at the Commons. Start on this page. If you look at the pages where your pictures are, you can see that they are all tagged with a notice that they should be moved to Commons. w.carter — Talk 18:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first place I would like to thank Editors iridescent and w.carter for their replies. Summarising your comments, I can confirm, that I myself was concerned about (and that is mentioned in my proposal) some aspects, which you pointed out.

I certainly suspected, that the organization of new competition is not an easily achievable goal.

Answering Editor iridescent comment "There is not much correlation between aesthetic attractiveness and encyclopaedic value.", I can say, that quality image, brightly and cleverly stressing the essence of the subject, can have not less encyclopaedic value, than dull, technically poorly executed one. Of course, if we are talking about photos, possessing historical value, the quality is not that important, but if we are talking about today’s level of the illustration of the science articles, than the ideal image just has to combine two qualities: both encyclopaedic and aesthetic, and only in this case an image will have Wiki value, and the purpose of the proposed competition “Photos for Science Articles” was to select exactly such photos.

But I understand, what Editor iridescent meant and completely respect his point of view: photos for science articles should be not just “nice pictures”. On Talk:Mineralogy it is possible to find the discussion (Hope diamond) on the subject directly related to the issue, which we are discussing with Editor iridescent here. During the talk on Talk:Mineralogy me and some Editors agreed on the fact that the photos must conform to the essence of the article and should not be “chosen because they are pretty”, as a knowledgeable Editor RockMagnetist aptly remarked. So Editor iridescent now can see, that actually we are on the same page.

I thank Editor w.carter for welcoming me to the Teahouse. It’s correct - I’m quite new to the Wiki community, but I already heard about such photo competitions as Picture of the Year, "Wiki Loves Monuments", "Wiki Loves Earth", but I did not consider them as an analogue of the competition “Photos for Science Articles”, as they targeted different fields, although, of course these photos may be used in such articles as Architecture, etc. But Commons’ Photo Challenge monthly thematic competition was a complete surprise for me. It really has similarity with Photos for Science Articles; the only difference is that Photo Challenge is monthly competition, but I offered annual one without 1-2-3 places, and focused on illustration of Wiki’s Science Articles only, not on completely different subjects every time. That is the only difference, but the basis is really similar.

But I am actually very pleased that I was not alone on this path, and that this idea also "visited" my colleagues Wikipedians, and that it was already put into reality.

Probably Photo Challenge competition will include regularly Science thematic by fields, as they did for Palaeontology (Fossils), and as I have seen, the article Fossils obtained, as result, exclusively perfect photo material. I'm often reading magazines Gemmology and Gems & Jewellery, published by the UK Gemmological Association (Gem-A) and always find there the articles on the latest scientific discoveries, illustrated with photographs of rare minerals in rough & cut forms and antique and modern masterpieces of jewellery art. I know, that UK Gemmological Association has a huge collection of minerals from all over the world, most of which are the gifts of geologists and collectors of minerals, and must be available for educational purposes. For illustration of the Wiki article Mineralogy etc., this collection can be used by photographers as an invaluable source of excellent examples of different minerals.

As Editor w.carter suggested, I looked at the pages with my pictures, and found the notices, mentioned by him. When I uploaded photos to the pages, I marked them as "free image", but now I realized (thanks to w.carter), that it is not enough to make them available for other Editors, so I'll move photos to Commons as soon as I will get another free hour.

I am sure that useful information out of discussions, including this one, will help all new Wikipedians to orientate better in the Wiki-space.

Regards, Chris Oxford.

Chris Oxford (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent and W.carter: Please

1. sign your name with four tildes ("~~~~"), which will automatically generate your signature linked to your User and User talk pages
2. use colons to indent, not spaces.

A line beginning with a space is automatically formatted like this, which is not what you usually want and certainly not what you wanted in your contributions above, which I have reformatted. (Original formatting here.)

--Thnidu (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu! We sure did sign our posts the right way when we first made them. But the original question was answered so long ago that it had already been archived. What happened was that Chris Oxford copied the old text from the archive to his post here. Hence the faulty formatting. But for some reason the 'ping' you made above did not work, I just saw this post while browsing. I think it was the multi-mentioning, I have seen that fail before.

And Chris Oxford, when you have moved the pics to Commons, be sure to tag them for deletion here at the Wikipedia. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

W.carter: Thanks for the explanation, and for not getting mad. Yeah, there's no indication of the original date. And maybe the ping didn't work because you display your username with a small "w" (so that's what I used), although it starts with a capital. --Thnidu (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Better to correct once to often than the opposite. I don't think the caps have anything to do with it, you did the same with Iridescent's name and they both appear with the right combo of letter in the resulting thing as seen on the page. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks to you, Thnidu, for the returning back to normal the text, which I copied and carried to the top, as time was running out and I saw that I’m losing a chance to answer my fellow editors, who kindly helped make clear the situation with the competition. Actually I was horrified when I saw what happened with the text, when I brought it’s copy to the top of the Question forum. Thanks again.

Hello, w.carter I would like to say, that I appreciate your help very much: your clear, friendly advises gave me an opportunity to obtain right information and to understand the Wiki rules much more quicker, than I would have done it alone, and I terrible sorry about delay with reply; as soon, as I’ll correct things with uploaded photos, I’ll visit your talk page with the couple of questions and a pleasant surprise.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is owner and controller of Wikipedia?

WP:DFTT

Yes, I know, it's the Wikimedia Foundation, but who controls it? There must be some boss or so. --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Like all American non-profit and charitable organizations, it has a board of trustees. Please see Wikimedia Foundation#Governance - Arjayay (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you. --Ueberwolf (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Hello Ueberwolf. The executive director of WMF is Lila Tretikov, but the WMF has no day-to-day editorial control over Wikipedia content. That is in the hands of volunteer Wikipedia editors like you and I. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I see, thank you, but there are e.g. administrators and bureaucrats who have to control the WP e.g. that there are no lies in WP, but only the truth aso.. --Ueberwolf (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, Ueberwolf, but our administrators and bureaucrats are just volunteer editors who are trusted with additional powers. They are not paid. The responsibility for maintaining accuracy though verifiability is the job of all editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Of course, but buraeucrats e.g. cannot be degraded anymore and if they are for whatever reason blocked they can unblock themselves. So they have a major power, don't they? --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Don't they? --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC) In theory they could, but if someone actually did they would almost certainly have their administrative rights taken away immediately upon doing so and be re-blocked. It's called an "emergency desysop" and it almost never happens. Also due to the size of the project administrators or bureaucrats don't review every article, let alone every edit to an article. Chuy1530 (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Ueberwolf: I'm sorry to inform you that what you believe the Wikipedia is ... that there are no lies in WP, but only the truth ... is very wrong. See this essay: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. There may be thousands of "lies" here. Which is one reason why the WP should never be regarded as a reliable source. w.carter-Talk 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

IP Range Edit/Editor Search

Hi, there has been a persistent vandal jumping IP addresses (see this ANI report). I was wondering if there is a way to search for edits/editors in an IP range to see if any vandalism has been missed? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi KylieTastic, Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option: Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches (e.g., "Splark*") (report issues) PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers PrimeHunter - That works.... but unfortunately brings back way too many changes to go through as they are now using the 2.24.0.0/16 range of 65536 IP addresses. I guess I really need a way to search for changes in that range but limited to the last x days. I guess maybe I'll just have to use the api and write a program to do that for me. Thanks KylieTastic (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Actually it appears from the help for that tool it does do it - you just have to use a custom query string - so just want I needed. Thanks again KylieTastic (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Gadgets like Twinkle

Twinkle is very efficient. Is there any other gadgets/tools like Twinkle? The Avengers (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey @The Avengers:. There is WP:STiki and the stuff listed at Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools and Category:Wikipedia tools. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

BOT

Okay. So I want a help to make a bot. It should add some extra CAT whenever some particular CAT is added even if HotCat is used or not. For example, if CAT:Egypt is added, CAT:Africa should be added bu the bot automatically. So, what should I need to know? The languages, and other requirements.
P.S. I have an account here.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If an article is in a category, it should not normally be in a parent category, see WP:SUBCAT. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I know that it will be listed, but will that happen to the article itself? For like to the page of Chelsea, London was added. Will CAT:England also come? I don't regularly add categories, but I don't think that happens.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No. The article does not, and should not, get listed under Category:England, or Category:United Kingdom, or Category:Great Britain, or Category:British Isles, or Category: Europe, or any of the parent categories. Did you read WP:SUBCAT? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I just read WP:SUBCAT and I can understand if the reader comes away not knowing exactly what's going on. I see two problems with that explanation. The first is that while there is a very nice diagram illustrating the concept of subcategories, and a text-based explanation, they are unrelated. The diagram talks about art and craft being subcategories of culture, while the text talks about cities in France and populated places in France. The diagram ought to either match the text or the text match the diagram. I was going to suggest that it would be easier to change the text to match the diagram but it doesn't appear that those entries are actual categories so a more appropriate diagram is in order.

The second problem is that the section states, for example that you shouldn't put "Paris" in "populated places in France" because "cities in France" is in "populated places in France". The statement is true, but how is an editor attempting to add category supposed to know this? Experienced editor's may know that you can look at a category look at the bottom of the page and see what categories it is in, but a new editor may not know this.

I'm aware of WP:SOFIXIT, but I have a full plate. I hope someone else will take a look at the section, and improve it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never found the CATS useful when looking for stuff because you have to drill down so far to find anything. All of the articles in all the child cats should be displayed and then clicking on and off parent and child cats should filter the items displayed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

newby asks about talk pages, & how to enter request for citation into article

As a first-time editor reading the article on sundowner winds, I saw that it classified them as foehn winds. This is explicitly contradicted & explained in what was said about sundowners in the Santa Ana winds article. I thought that if I hit "TALK" I'd get into an area of discussion about the article where I could question the inconsistency, and let a more knowledgeable editor sort out the contradiction between the 2 articles. But that wasn't what happened when I hit "TALK". So I tried to edit it instead. I also wanted to question the etymology attributing "sundowner" to the Argentinian term "zonda", but couldn't see how to insert a request for a citation. In searching help I haven't found any info about how to do that. I'm out of time at present for searching through all the how-to articles about editing - can you tell me how to enter a request for a citation, and if there's a way to get onto a talk page about an article if you don't want to do an outright edit??? Nubelibra (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You were going in the right direction. From Sundowner winds the "Talk" link takes you to Talk:Sundowner winds. That is the correct place for discussion and concerns (and it's just that nobody has raised any previously). To start a new discussion topic on that talk page, hit "New section". --David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! To enter a request for a citation they {{Citation needed}} in the "edit source" window. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC).

Creating a new page

I have a question in regards to creating two new pages. Can I create a page about an e-magazine? Can I create a page about the advertising company that publishes this e-magazine? The reason I ask is because I read that certain pages may be removed if they aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. (Amy Sarkiss (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Amy Sarkiss, and welcome to Wikipedia. You are correct that articles can be deleted if they are not considered to meet the criteria for inclusion, and the relevant policy guidelines here are outlined at Wikipedia:Notability. The simple version of this is that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. So, has the e-magazine you want to create an article about been discussed in other, third-party sources such as newspapers? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the magazines base is in Egypt and has been featured on television and in a separate magazine. The e-magazine's website has the interviews posted. (Amy Sarkiss (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

another important question: do you have any connection with the magazine or the advertising company? If so you have a conflict of interest and should follow the guidelines listed here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Amy Sarkiss - in your last comment you said "interviews". Interviews with people involved in a subject are not independent of the subject, and do not contribute in any way to its notability (in the Wikipedia sense). An article about the magazine (or the publishers) should be almost 100% based on what people who have no connection at all to the magazine have published about it: Wikipedia is basically not interested in what subjects say about themselves. So you would need to find places where people have published about the magazine with no input from the magazine or anybody associated with it: if you can find some, then there can be an article on it; if you can't then there cannot be. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are other internet sources. Blogs and websites that have been created by individuals who aren't related to the article at all. However, I'm not sure if they are considered "credible sources" according to wikipedia standards. (Amy Sarkiss (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are almost 5 million pages in Wikipedia and many hundreds of thousands probably dont meet the criteria to be here. However, that is a terrible basis to make a claim to let another article that doesnt belong here be created. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'm only asking to get a better understanding of the rules. Would a readers' feedback be considered a credible source? (Amy Sarkiss (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't I'm afraid, Amy Sarkiss. Reader feedback would be considered user-generated content. What we need it something that has been subject to editorial control, really. If the magazine had been the subject of a feature in a newspaper, for instance, that could count. Can I ask what the magazine is called, so that I can check for coverage myself? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. It's called Truly Love Egypt (Amy Sarkiss (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Amy Sarkiss. My initial impression is that the magazine is unlikely to be considered notable in the sense that the term is used on Wikipedia. The first issue of the magazine was published in June 2014, which is quite recent, and it seems unlikely that the magazine would have been the subject of a significant amount of third-party coverage in that time. While I'm not an expert, I suspect that very few of these type of free e-magazines would meet our notability criteria, as they don't tend to be the kind of thing that other authors write about (unlike, say, a magazine such as Rolling Stone or The New Yorker, which are of wider social significance and therefore get written about in third-party sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete pages

Hi I accidentally created this page, can someone please delete it? And also delete my subpage. Thank you.srini (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Srini, and welcome to the Teahouse. To request deletion of a page you created in good faith, simply insert {{Db-g7}} into anywhere of the page's source. This will notify the administrators, and this page will be removed. Frank (User Page) (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Imfrankliu/Templates/Sniff

@Imfrankliu: I think it's great that you're trying to help other new editors at the Teahouse, but I'm not sure if it's really necessary to add User:Imfrankliu/Templates/Sniff to your posts. Doing so seems to add a unwanted line break between the template and any post that follows it. Maybe there's away to simply add a link to the page to your signature? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard that line breaks somehow breaks pages too. Yeah I think its unnecessary. Sorry for that. Frank (User Page) (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Placement of maintence tags

I was wondering if the tags should be placed above or below the hatnotes, such as See also, For other uses, etc. Outedexits (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The recommended order is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements. In that list, hatnotes come before maintenance tags. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on page splitting

Another editor's comment led me to support a page split at Talk:Heroes Reborn (miniseries)#Merging Dark Matters, and propose another one at Talk:List of Heroes characters#Split. However, neither of these has received any responses. Is this a situation where I can assume there is no opposition and be bold and create the new pages myself? Should I wait a few more days for comments? And is there any specific procedure/template/tag I need to use to "close" the discussions? Thanks, 2macia22 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @2macia22:!

given that many people do not edit Wikipedia on a daily basis, unless something is critical (like a copyright violation or controversial content about living people) it should generally be a time frame of at least a week before you can consider a "no responses" to be tacit approval. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. How fast and hard is that rule? I have content I see here that desperately needs an editor's deft touch, and some which needs to be totally rewritten. Am I safe to assume that forewarning of one week without comment is sufficient for me to go in there and get my fingers stinky (if you'll pardon the expression)?

BLUSTERY☆BLOWER^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER}

09:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to undo vandalism including a move

The page Wee Waa was vandalized, and also moved to Javed Ali (country town). Now instead of describing an Australian town, it refers to resisting the lizard people. I am not sure how to undo the move, and I don't want to mess things up by doing a partial undo ... can somebody please help? Gronk Oz (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

After messing things up a bit, I think I've got everything in order. Deor (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @Deor: - that's perfect! --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim on the page? I think this needs a or possibly a if it's making claims about names and meanings.....

BLUSTERY☆BLOWER^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER}

09:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

New Article

I have started a new article Aviation in India. However, I am finding it difficult to find a suitable layout for the same. Any help or review will be appreciated. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Capankajsmilyo, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I did not see any serious layout issues with the Aviation in India article. I did, however, move the Indian Air Force section to before the section on civilian air regulation, both because the air force is mentioned first in the article's introduction, and because the sections on airlines and airports should follow the section on civilian air regulation rather than being interrupted by a digression on military aircraft oversight. I changed some section headings to better reflect their content.

I also made a number of corrections (all in one edit) to grammar and formatting errors I found. (Note that I am not fluent in Indian English; I apologize if any of my intended corrections introduced errors as a result.) Regarding the use of bolding in articles, generally only the title of the article itself, and the titles of any redirects to the article, should be in bold; titles of other articles mentioned in an article should not be bolded. (I think you probably just copied text from the beginnings of the articles which you used {{Main article}} links for; I'm just letting you know why keeping the bolding you found in those articles isn't correct in this article even though it was correct in those articles.) I also left a few tags, and one asking for clarification because I couldn't figure out what the sentence was trying to say. Thanks for contributing yet another article to Wikipedia, and as always feel free to return with any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot GrammarFascist, your edits were really helpful. I will keep in mind your suggestions. I do invite some more editors over here to help me improve this article for DYK or (if available) other tags. GA seems far fetched at present, but im an optimist. Thanks once again -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And ya, I will try and provide cn for {{cn}} tags asap. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help me update article Islam by country

Th article Islam by country already outdated. Please help me to update that article. In this article Islam followers in 2011 already 1,6 billion. I want to update number of Islam followers in 2014 already 2 billion according to http://www.religiouspopulation.com/ and this http://www.muslimpopulation.com/World/ Thanks--ReginaIndo (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@ReginaIndo: welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no deadline - we do not need to worry about presenting up to the minute updates and we rely on reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. The two sites you have linked do not appear to meet that criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ReginaIndo, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Islam by country currently lists the 2011 figure of 1.6 billion Muslims based on multiple reliable sources. While the Muslim population has probably risen in the past 4 years, just as the world population has, Wikipedia needs a reliable source in order to report how much increase there has been. Neither of the sources you suggested seems to be a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.

ReligiousPopulation.com mentions a "study" but does not provide any details about that study which would let us evaluate whether it exists and, if so, whether it followed standard research protocols. The wording on the page suggests that the 2.08 billion figure was simply extrapolated from the figures from 2011 which Wikipedia already cites; such extrapolations are not necessarily scientific and can't necessarily be considered reliable. I also note some content on the ReligousPopulation.com page which indicates it may have a pro-Islam bias, which would further call its reliability into question.

The other website, MuslimPopulation.com, seems to be sourcing its claimed figures to the Wikipedia article Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. You may not be aware of this, but by Wikipedia's own standards, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source! If there were a study referenced in that article which mentioned relevant population statistics, that study might be usable as a source for updating the Islam by country article; but no such study seems to be mentioned anywhere in the Carnegie Endowment article.

If you can find a reliable source Wikipedia could use to update the figures currently listed, please feel free to return to the Teahouse, and we can help you update the article at that time. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.religiouspopulation.com/ and http://www.muslimpopulation.com have identical design and link to each other on a displayed address in the sidebar. They are obviously by the same author or organization and make the sensational claim that there are more Muslims than Christians. Every reliable source I have ever seen says there are a lot more Christians. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Issues with the article title

I started creating an article about a Bollywood Playback Singer titled "Jubin Nautiyal" on 25 October.But later I came across another article with same title which was created on 27 October.I finished the editing today and submitted it for reviews.However,my article is comprehensive and detailed.What should I do now...??? Prabhat 9 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this the article you're referring to as being from 27 October? And is this the one you created 2 days earlier? If so, I think the one you created will probably be merged with the other one. Or the other one may be deleted, since yours is more comprehensive and provides better coverage of the subject.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 15:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Yes,You got it right.Now the problem is that my article with the same title is waiting a review.I submitted the article today itself. Prabhat 9 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the reviewer, obviously, but I would say it stands a good chance of passing review just from my glance-over of it. You write good articles! White Arabian mare (Neigh) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

@Prabhat 9: the live space version has been deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so if your draft article passes review, it can easily be moved to live space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for resolving the issue.Interacting with experienced editors is indeed fruitful.Looking forward to contribute more...!! Prabhat 9 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have an article for my company. Guide me how to post my article

Hello, I tried a lot but each and every time my article got deleted due to violation. I have a company which I want to post in wikipedia. Guide me how to solve the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paresh Nandy (talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Paresh Nandy. I'm afraid the probable answer is, You can't. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory or advertising medium. If there has been substantial material published about your company in reliable places (such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers) written by people who have no connection with the company, then Wikipedia could have an article about the company; but you are not a good person to write it, as your conflict of interest is likely to make it difficult for you to write in a suitably neutral way. If there are not such sources, then it is impossible for anybody to write an acceptable article about the company at present. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a company (or a person, a band, a school, or anything else) wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what independent people have published about it. Besides the link I've given about, please read WP:CORP and Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Paresh Nandy, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only article I see that was created by you is Draft:ICA, newly created today, which does not appear to be about a company. It is completely without references, however, and in that state has no chance of ever passing AfC review. I don't even see notifications on your talk page of previous articles or drafts you created being deleted. Did you perhaps create those articles under a different username? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked into their deleted contributions but there is nothing there. All of these deleted articles must have been created by the user under a different account(s). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help, which content violates wikipedia rules ?

I wrote an article about my Invention. I have news paper coverage. I am the managing director of a company. The page I created was "3CS Invention".

Can any one help my content to comply with wikipedia rules as it is very tricky to delete to comply with rules ? Mallikgn (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Mallikgn: - welcome to the Teahouse!

There are probably a lot of different policies in play. The first would be our conflict of interest policy. You should not be editing directly about a company/product/issue about which you have a direct stake. Others that probably come into play are

• the basic requirements that reliably published sources have covered the subject in a significant manner, and not just local paper coverage of "local boy makes good!" puff pieces and
• inappropriate promotional tone which serves not as encyclopedic coverage, but promotional platform

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Mallikgn, and welcome to the Teahouse. At the moment, all of the content violates Wikipedia principles, because none of it is supported by citations to reliable sources More over we need independent sources to establish the notability of the topic. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article. It also feels rather promotional, being about the specifics of a new technology in terms which might be used in a company white paper about it. Also, as the Inventor, you have a Conflict of Interest on this topic. Please read the guideline on COI linked above, and declare your COI on your user page.

This page is not at all suitable for an article as it stands. If there is significant in-depth coverage by independent reliable media (not based on press releases, not blogs or the like) it might become suitable, otherwise not. I would prefer to move it to the Draft: namespace, where rules on notability are not applied while an article is developed. Otherwise I fear it is likely to be deleted again. I see you created this at 3CS Invention and after it was deleted, recreated it at 3CS invention. That is not a good idea, It looks like an attempt to get around the rules, and it won't work well in any case. Will you agree to the move to Draft? DES ^(talk) 17:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to move two different article pages to acknowledge incorporation of new municipality in Minnesota

In reference to the page "Rice Lake Township, St. Louis County, Minnesota", and the unrelated page "Rice Lake, Minnesota" (Clearwater County). Request to move two pages.

Incorporation as a municipality is now an established fact for the Rice Lake in St. Louis County. It is no longer a civil township. The article page name should be changed. The page should be moved and updated with city status. The former Rice Lake Township incorporated as the city of Rice Lake on October 22, 2015. In an order dated August 20, 2015, Minnesota Administrative Law Judge Barbara Case ruled that the township "has established the relevant factors by a preponderance of the evidence, and therefore Rice Lake Township's petition for incorporation is granted." The incorporation effort began in June 2014. On October 13, 2015, residents of Rice Lake turned out to elect their first city mayor, and their city councilors. The results of the election were certified. The first city council meeting of Rice Lake was held on October 22, 2015. Cite the following reference.

The name of the article page for the now former township should be changed to simply "Rice Lake, Minnesota". There is currently another article with the page name "Rice Lake, Minnesota", but that is a Census-designated place in Clearwater County, Minnesota. That page name also needs to be changed to "Rice Lake (CDP), Minnesota" in order to disambiguate between the two different pages. This should happen to acknowledge the legal change that has recently commenced as a result of the incorporation of Minnesota's newest city. Changes should happen to both of these existing pages. They both need to be moved and updated, the Rice Lake in Saint Louis County, and the Rice Lake in Clearwater County.—AlphaTaxonomy (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi AlphaTaxonomy and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you are discussing the moves and the changed status on one of the talk pages which is the correct thing to do, that is where the discussion should be kept. You can also make a request for the moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you have new facts supported by reliable sources you can update the facts about the location's status in article yourself. w.carter-Talk 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, W.carter, he can't. Rice Lake can be moved to Rice Lake (CDP) no problem, but before Rice Lake Twp.can be moved, an admin will have to delete the original Rice Lake page. Perhaps one will see this and take care of it. There is no controversy in this move and except for the technicality, could be done BOLDly. John from Idegon (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct, I know that , but since the answer was to a totally new editor I skipped all the technical details and directed them to the Wikipedia:Requested moves which is handled by admins. I'm reasonably sure that one of the admin there would help to sort it all out if the request was made. They do not only handle the usual controversial moves, but also the tricky ones like this. It falls under Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves - Requesting multiple page moves. Also AlphaTaxonomy can not be BOLD since they have only been here for two days and not made more than four edits. (I also saw that my first post needed some clarification) w.carter-Talk 11:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I have done the move, and have used AWB to adjust links to the CDP before I did the second move, so that links to the CDP would not go to the newly incorporated city instead. The city really should have a hatnote, pointing to the DAB page, but I don't have time right now. Please check to be sure that I have correctly adjusted all relevant links, AlphaTaxonomy or any other editor. DES ^(talk) 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Thank you. Everything is current now and correctly adjusted.—AlphaTaxonomy (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

how to improve inline citations

Can anyone help me to improve my inline citations + help me get rid of the annoying long standing message "This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted. Please improve this article by correcting them. (June 2015)" Thank you. Mariana Marianadjraposa (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marianadjraposa and welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken out the message. That should only have been there if you had been using Wikipedia:Embedded citations or creating your own numbers for citations. Your references are fine. There is no requirement that they be perfectly formatted. You have provided the needed information. You can read User:Yunshui/References for beginners for a nice introduction to formatting references if you want to improve them. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Move Draft

If i create a draft, but there is a redirect which has the same title: then how to move the draft over the redirect? The Avengers (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @The Avengers:. It depends upon the various content. If the article that you have created is overwhelmingly the main thing that people would be looking for when they type in the phrase FOO then you should request the redirect at page FOO to be deleted to make way for a move of your article (and maybe place a hatnote on your new article directing to the other topic). If there are multiple things that different people could reasonably be expecting to find when they type in FOO, then the redirect should be converted to a disambiguation page listing both your new article and the redirect and your article should be moved to live space as FOO (some type of disambiguation phrase noting what FOO means in this context). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand??????The Avengers (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Avengers: what is the article you are drafting and what page currently exists where you want to move your article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not drafting right now. I wanted to know the process. Some user talk pages have message "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time." or "Your article for submission is accepted".--The Avengers (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Theoretical explanation take 2:

• I have written an article at [Draft:FOO] about a type of cheese called FOO.
• There exists at [FOO] a redirect to [FOOBAR] because sometimes FOO is used as an abbreviation for FOOBAR, which is a movie.
• I read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and I believe that:

Case 1: About 90% or more of the time when someone types "FOO" into Wikipedia, they are looking for information about a type of cheese.

• Delete the existing redirect at [FOO] and move [Draft:FOO]] to [FOO]. (maybe place a hatnote that says "This article is about the type of cheese. For the film sometimes called FOO, see [FOOBAR]"

Case 2: About half the time people may be looking for the cheese, but about half the time they may be looking for the movie.

• Move [Draft:FOO]] to a dis-ambiguated title, [FOO (cheese)]
• Change the redirect at [FOO] to be a disambiguation page that reads :

"FOO may refer to:

• [FOO (cheese)] a type of cheese
• FOO, an abbreviation for the film [FOOBAR]

Case 3: About 90% of the time people who type FOO into Wikipedia will be searching for the film.

• Move [Draft:FOO] to [FOO (cheese)]
• Add a hatnote to [FOOBAR] that says FOO redirects here. For the cheese, see [FOO (cheese)]

Does that clarify anything? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand reviewers comment

I have submitted and re-submitted a Wiki page about Gary L Krupp. I feel like I follow and incorporate reviewer suggestions, but it has been rejected again. I don't understand the comment that was left this time "This is a start but still needs any more available coverage overall. Cheers," Any guidance is much appreciated.

bjsolberg207.38.128.240 (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this must be about Draft:Gary_Krupp – which reads more like a piece of puffery than an encyclopedia article. Maproom (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

For example, "established himself as a successful businessman". No Wikipedia article should ever describe anybody or anything as "successful" unless it is quoting a reliable independent source. And "established himself" is the language of a magazine, not an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It reads like an advertisement/resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is lists of awards and speaking engagement. Take a look at any biography of a living person (outside of the film/TV industry where long filmographies are common) and you will find more prose, explaining why an individual is notable rather than containing lists of achievements. Because of this, it does look like a CV/resume, more appropriate for LinkedIn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi bjsolberg. See the comments about a previous submission of this article at the top of User:Linda Sussman/sandbox. Also, since you are associated with Gary Krupp's Pave the Way Foundation you have a conflict of interest which makes it difficult to write an impartial article. We recommend that articles be written by people who are not connected with the subject. Gary Krupp is certainly notable in the sense of being well-known and having had much written about him by people not connected with him. However he is controversial and you might not be willing to include some of that material in an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Linda Sussman, Bjsolberg: This draft was started at User:Linda Sussman/sandbox and on July 3, restarted at the above draft with the same content but by a new user (or likely the same user under a new name). I have accordingly performed a history merge, but then hidden most of the page history because of copyright violations – which StarryGrandma fixed when she cleaned up the draft to remove the pure résumé content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you sign your user-name in color?

Hello, I've been on Wikipedia for about 2 months now and have learned lots of things since signing up. However upon learning, I've seen many user names with different fonts/colors/text/sizes and I always wanted to know how to do it. Can anyone help me (or give me a tutorial) on how to change my user name when signing? Adog104 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Adog104, welcome to the Teahouse. You can customize your signature through Special:Preferences. When customizing you have to use Wiki markup language which is a simplified version of HTML. If you have trouble figuring out Wiki markup this tutorial might help. When you are done make sure to check the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box. Lastly, make sure that your signature doesn't breach Wikipedia:Signatures policy. Cheers! -- Chamith (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Adog104 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Adog104 or do what I did. If you see a signature you like, copy it and make sure to replace the other person's name with yours.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it handled Vchimpanzee, thanks. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just don't make a signature like mine, though. You cannot use images within your signature, as it disrupts the servers. 19px|link=User:Twoandtwoalwaysmakesafive|2+2=5 19px|link=User talk:Twoandtwoalwaysmakesafive|SPEAK TO ME, WIKIPEDIAN! 04:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoandtwoalwaysmakesafive (talk • contribs)

Adog104, my sig looks rough under the hood, but I like the way it renders. I had to use some tricky code so I could include a visible "pipe" and use "curly braces" without them rendering as a "template". When you make changes to your signature it will appear right above the change box and you can see what it will look like right away without having to use your "sandbox". I tried <font color="orange">, but I thought my sig go too "hot", so I went back to the native color. I also used a non-breaking-space so my sig does not wrap on to two lines. If you copy/paste my username with the curly braces then you can ping me easily. Do a view-source to see how to do a nbsp. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Help

I just moved the article How Deep Is Your Love to How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song) as Calvin Harris has this song title too. I just want someone to help fixing all the links because I forgot the gadget to fix it. Thanks! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nahnah4, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately the changes you made (moving How Deep Is Your Love to How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song), and removing the hatnote from the top of the article) were incorrect and I have undone them.

On Wikipedia, when there is more than one article which could reasonably be referred to by the same title, all but one such articles have a (parenthetical) at the end of their titles to disambiguate which subject they are about. If one subject is by far the most likely article readers would be looking for when typing in the main part of the article title, then that article — as with "How Deep Is Your Love" — uses the subject title without a parenthetical after it. Incidentally, there are several songs listed on the "How Deep Is Your Love" disambiguation page, not just the one by Calvin Harris.

Removing the hatnote from the top of the article would have been the wrong thing to do even if the move had been correct. Maybe you removed the hatnote simply because the page move broke the hatnote and you couldn't figure out how to fix it? But hatnotes are essential for helping readers find the articles they are looking for. It would almost never be correct to remove one, unless it implied there were articles on topics with similar names and those articles didn't exist... and even then, it might be a case of another editor leaving a redlink to indicate where an article didn't yet exist, but one should. Thanks again for trying to help. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Ok, so what I meant was that the article should have been moved as there are songs with the same title, and so the article should have been How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song), not How Deep Is Your Love. My initial plan is to make the article How Deep Is Your Love to a redirect to the disambiguation page, but I knew that all the links must have been fixed and that is why I came here, but yet you keep on emphasising on the hatnote instead. I removed it, as I was wanting to redirect the page to the disambiguation, but change the links first. That is why I did that. I wasn't asking about hatnotes. I wanted people to use WikiEd to fix the link (or what the gadgets are called, I forgot) to fix the links. Thank you. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 07:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, Nahnah4, but the article title being simply How Deep Is Your Love, not How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song), was already correct, for the reasons I explained above. I mentioned the hatnote because you deleted the hatnote entirely (rather than changing it) and created a situation where readers had no way of getting from the article about the bee Gees song to either the disambiguation page or any of the other articles about other songs with the same name. If you feel strongly that the disambiguation page is the page that should have the title How Deep Is Your Love, then what you should do is propose that change at Talk:How Deep Is Your Love and see whether the consensus that develops among other editors supports such a move. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 08:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Ok, I will do that. By the way, if the move is suggested, what is the gadget used to fix all the links? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)