Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 459

Archive 455

←

Archive 457

Archive 458

Archive 459

Archive 460

Archive 461

→

Archive 465

Is it ok for people to act like this in Wikipedia?

See how this person is acting here? [1] Is this ok? How do people even talk to each other like this so mean? What is it about? ElectraGrrl (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ElectraGrrl. Our medical and scientific content must accurately summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say about the topic. In that discussion, I see an experienced editor insisting that the article correctly summarize scientific sources, and I see you calling that editor "snotty". So, it looks to me like you were the one who resorted to a personal attack, instead of focusing on accurate content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I partly agree and partly disagree. I see two inexperienced editors who both are uncivil. I think that both the original poster and the editor about whom she is complaining are being profoundly uncivil. I think that they should both be cautioned. Both editors are being very uncivil. I suggest that the filing editor read the dispute resolution policy. If discussion on a talk page does not work, follow a policy for resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor commenting here has 28 edits, several of which consist of complaining that other editors are being mean. The editor she is complaining about has well over 2000 edits, and I agree is being quite forceful in insisting that scientific content accurately reflect the sources. But it is the newer editor who calls the other one "snotty". One cannot effectively oppose mean behavior by behaving meanly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute compounded by uncivil behavior on both sides. There appears to be a real question about whether the pesticide is teratogenic. I suggest that both parties read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell them to discuss on the article talk page. That has already been tried, and is resulting in incivility. It will then advise them as to various content dispute resolution procedures. They should try a content dispute resolution procedure. I would suggest either the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments, knowing that a DRN volunteer may close the case and suggest RFC either if they continue to be uncivil or if they are at an impasse. Either of them may instead treat it as a conduct dispute and take it to WP:ANI, but they should first read the boomerang essay, which will explain that your own conduct will also be reviewed if you report another editor's conduct at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Both editors cautioned about civility. Now they can resume discussion on the article talk page about whether the pesticide is teratogenic or can go to DRN or RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon has had several run-ins with me in the past. In every single case, it has consisted of him inserting himself uninvited into a situation without reading up on the prior discussion in order to disagree vociferously with me, all without ever addressing me directly. In this case, he elected to template me for a "personal attack" because I said someone was completely wrong and suggested they check the sources. That is by no measure, a personal attack.

Also note that the talk page is not the place to discuss the possibility that pyriproxfen may be more toxic than scientific testing has shown it to be. It is the place to discuss changes to the article. If the only suggested changes are that we make the article disagree with its sources, well, then there's nothing to discuss. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

BG19bot

This bot never edited two articles before, but after my edits, it edited the page Zână. Captain Spark (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The bot added a "References" section and the {{reflist}} template, after you had added a reference citation but forgot to add the section into which the section would be placed. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your statement that it "never edited two articles before" is hard to understand. Since it was created in May 2011, BG19bot has edited 569,747 distinct articles. Maproom (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand now – maybe you mean that it never edited two particular articles that you were involved with. That would happen if those articles weren't missing their References sections. Maproom (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

notability of law firm in Myanmar

[[2]] was denied because the subject lacks notability. This is one of the older law firms in Myanmar. If a law firm with the same relative longevity in a Western nation was the subject matter for an article, I think the law firm would be sufficiently notable. We ought to gauge the notability of a law firm with reference to other law firms at that location. No? The tone is a bit promotional, but that can be adjusted. Please advise.Steven McIntire ALLEN 05:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mcintireallen. Your draft was not denied because the topic "lacks notability" as you said, but because the references in your draft article "do not adequately show the subject's notability". Perhaps better references exist which have not yet been added to the draft. If so, it is incumbent on you to add them. At this point, the assumption is that the problem is with the references provided to date, not with the notability of the topic itself. So, the burden on you is to provide better sources.

As for your claim that you can justify the acceptance of one potential Wikipedia article because a comparable mediocre Wikipedia article exists, then our answer is "no". We have over five million articles and many are mediocre. We either improve them or delete them. We do not use the existence of mediocre articles as a justification for creating more mediocre articles. Those of us who care about quality will accept only compliant, decent articles in 2016, though standards may have been lower in the past.

I am aware that Myanmar is emerging from decades of dictatorship which may have impeded reliable source coverage of the topic. You are far more familiar with the potential reliable sources than I am. Make your case to the reviewing editors based on evaluation of the sources and the inherent systemic problems with them, not on unsupported assertions that the topic must surely be notable because you say so. That kind of argument is completely unpersuasive here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I did not mean to suggest the topic was notable just because I said so. Thanks for letting me know. Steven McIntire ALLEN (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

AFC Review of Autobiographies

I have a question about AFC review of autobiographies. The policy isn’t really directed toward reviewers. The policy is directed to the authors who would be subjects of autobiographies, and simply strongly discourages writing autobiographies. However, I would like the comments of other experienced editors and reviewers about reviewing autobiographies. How negative should a reviewer be about autobiographies? Very often the autobiography is of poor quality, and can be declined both as an autobiography and on style grounds or notability grounds. Should the reviewer add, when appropriate, that it doesn’t seem that notability can be established? However, what tone and approach should be taken when there is hope of establishing notability? For instance, the autobiography may state that the subject played association football in a Tier 1 league, which meets association football notability guidelines. How negative should I be? Should I advise the subject to leave the draft alone and to ask participants at an appropriate WikiProject to improve the draft? If the subject of the autobiography appears to be marginal at meeting general notability guidelines, what approach should I take? Some autobiography writers don’t want to follow the advice in the policy not to write autobiographies, and some can be very persistent in resubmitting them. (In some cases, the approach has to be to nominate the draft for miscellany for deletion, an approach that is not limited to autobiographies. That is of course a last resort but is less punitive than blocking the author.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't really a direct comment on your question, but I often feel that Teahouse hosts (and possibly reviewers too, though I only really see reviews of drafts that crop up at the Teahouse) are a bit too harsh on conflict of interest (and to a lesser extent, autobiography) situations. Sometimes the approach seems to be to tell editors that they must not edit if they have a conflict of interest, when the policy only discourages such editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

...which is not to say that I am a fan of autobiography or of conflict-of-interest editing. We might disagree with policy in this area, but we shouldn't misrepresent it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be distinguishing conflict of interest editing from autobiography editing, but that may be just that your post seems to make a distinction. Autobiography editing is (and the policy says so) a form of conflict of interest editing. In my experience, it is one of the two most common forms of conflict of interest editing that goes through the Articles for Creation process. The other is creation of corporate articles by corporations. My question, and the previous comment acknowledges that it doesn't directly address my question, is about how negative a reviewer (or a Teahouse host) should be about autobiography drafts. Most but not all autobiography drafts are about completely non-notable people who are wasting their own time and that of the reviewers. Should they be advised to just stop trying? Telling them to add independent reliable sources seems to raise false hopes (on the part of editors who don't have a grounding in policy and don't fully understand Wikipedia), and increases the likelihood that they will add unreliable sources, such as Facebook and LinkedIn and Instagram. So to what extent should we be pessimistic and try to discourage trying to improve drafts that cannot be improved? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I recognise that autobiography is a form of conflict-of-interest editing, Robert McClenon. Sorry, my choice of wording didn't really reflect that. I tend to regard autobiography as amongst the most serious COI problems, and so differentiated it from other, perhaps less serious forms (where the conflict of interest results from a more tenuous personal link, for instance). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Corporate drafts are a somewhat different problem. It is seldom obvious that a corporation isn’t notable. So there my choice is just to decline the draft, but sometimes to request that the corporate account be blocked pending rename as a corporate account. I can usually recognize a non-notable autobiography just by reading it, but it isn’t obvious from a corporate draft that the company isn’t notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with the policy. It should strongly discourage conflict of interest editing including autobiography editing, but not forbid it. That is why I am asking exactly how much to discourage it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We should always keep in mind that one of the reasons that that AFC was established in the first place is to give COI editors (including autobiography writers) a legitmate opportunity to draft potential encyclopedia content. This is discussed toward the end of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which is a guideline not a policy. Therefore, these editors should not be treated as if they are violating policy. Simply stated, they aren't. That being said, notability comes first, and if the topic is not notable, we shouldn't have an article. If notability is established or even borderline, these editors should be given advice and tools to improve the content until it is ready for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As you say, one of the purposes of AFC is to give conflict of interest editors a chance to run their edits through a neutral review. This works well for corporate articles that are submitted from personal accounts of employees of the corporation. In fact, if they are properly submitted from personal accounts, the reviewers may not notice the conflict of interest, unless the author has made a paid editor disclosure, or unless the author has the same name as to the corporation. Also, as I noted above, it is seldom obvious to a reviewer that a corporation cannot be made notable. It is sometimes obvious to a reviewer that a person cannot be made notable. The question is how discouraging should the reviewer be? If the article lacks reliable references, that should be noted, but should the author be simply advised to add references, or also told that they probably aren’t notable? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Some autobiography submitters (and some corporate submitters) don’t seem to try to understand. See I didn’t hear that. For them, I think that the less punitive option is requesting deletion of the draft. For other autobiography editors, my real question is whether to strongly discourage them from continuing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would recommend doing a quick Google search, including Google News, Google Books and Google Newspapers (older stuff). For academics, Google Scholar is useful. I use this technique at Articles for Deletion all the time, and within a couple of minutes, can develop an informed opinion about notability that is roughly 95% accurate. If the evidence is strong, say to the person, politely, "I have concluded, as an experienced Wikipedia editor, that you are not notable as Wikipedia defines that term. In my opinion, you should give up this attempt to create an article". If, on the other hand, your Google search uncovers some solid sources, then point them out to the editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9))

Is there anyway to revise this draft to meet the submission criteria or should I give up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Temba&direction=next&oldid=703263891

BLEUEwater (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BLEUEwater. If you can produce references showing significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources, then yes. Otherwise, no. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BLEUEwater, and welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding Draft:Temba, it is hard for me to tell whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as many of the sources you have cited are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards (you also need to consult Help:Referencing for beginners on how to make the citations operate correctly as footnotes). What you need to demonstrate is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. An example would be an in-depth newspaper profile of him. There are some criteria that apply specifically to academics, listed at WP:NACADEMICS. Does he meet any of those? If not, it is not worth you working on the draft, as it is not possible to make someone notable in the sense that that term is used on Wikipedia - only to demonstrate that they are. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Jat people

This page is protected very strictly. I never saw this type of protection in any other page. Captain Spark (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question about that protection, Captain Spark? Are you asking why the page is protected in that way, what the protection entails, or how you get the protection level reduced (or something else)? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Under what condition, a page is protected like this. Where can such request be made.? --Captain Spark (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The 500/30 restriction was applied to four articles and a talk page, Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar and Talk:Nair on 22 October 2015
This was due to excessive problems with these caste articles, although other caste articles may be added depending how this restriction works
For more information please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183#Caste articles and talk pages (The section needs expanding) - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Changing a redirect to an article

If I want to create an article on a place that's currently redirected (e.g. Woodstock, Pembrokeshire), do I just delete the redirect and write the article in its place, or does that upset any WP procedure? There are some instructions on the redirect page that I don't understand, so hopefully there is a simpler explanation. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

First, develop the article either in draft space or in user space. When the article is ready to be accepted into article space, you can tag the redirect for speedy deletion with a criterion of G6, which is a move. An administrator will then speedy-delete the redirect and move the draft or user subpage into its space. The advantage of this, as opposed to a copy-and-paste from user space or draft space, is that it preserves the history of your edits when you developed the article. The disadvantage of just building the article over the redirect is that (unless you are one of the very few editors who can develop a complete article in one edit, and very few editors can do that), you will leave an incomplete article while you are still building the article, and it then is at risk for any of the three types of deletion. Whether you should develop the article in draft space or in user space depends largely on how confident you are in your article creation skills. If you create the article in draft space, you can submit it to AFC review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Tony Holkham looks to be an experienced editor, so I'm not sure there is a need to use the AfC process here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Cordless Larry Thanks, both. I have created quite a few articles which I normally prepare in a Word doc then paste the text into the new name, which is normally a red link. In this case, as it is a redirect, I wasn't sure what to do. The simplest way, I guess, is to request deletion of the redirected page and then start from the red link as usual. And hope this meets guidelines! Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to request deletion, Tony Holkham. Just edit the page, replacing the redirect markup with your text. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks Cordless Larry. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of the article "Vivekanand Jha" created by me

it seems the page is being recommended with vested interest. The person who recommended to delete it speedily seems to be revengeful and stopping someone to contribute to the wikipedia. Otherwise after more than one year of creation of the article he would not have recommended it straightway for deletion. if there is someone who is fair to wikipedia must look into it and save the someone who want to contribute wikipedia by using his diligence and aptitude Prinshukr (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Prinshukr. Can I ask why you are creating multiple versions of articles, such as VerbalArt and Draft:VerbalArt? Doing so isn't inspiring confidence that you aren't using Wikipedia for promotional purposes (which is why Vivekanand Jha has been nominated for speedy deletion). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Do updates automatically get reviewed?

Ive recently created an article Kate Blackwell (barrister) Flags went up because originally the early years section had no references and there were no other wiki articles linking back to my page.

I have since rectified these two issues but the flags are still there - do i need to do something particular or will the system automatically review these amendments at some point? Help please Christopherlockwood1972 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christopherlockwood1972. The maintenance templates are removed manually by people like you and me, just as they are placed. You are not alone., It is a perennial issue that users think these templates are somehow automatically removed coupled with that that there are seemingly no instructions for their removal. I am actually working on a proposed process to address this, and that page, while net yet implemented by a note in the templates and not yet completed, might help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Many editors think that there may be a bot to remove maintenance templates, but it would be nearly impossible to define how a bot would know when to remove the template. Maintenance templates are added by humans and removed by humans. Unfortunately, edit-warring over the addition and removal of templates occasionally happens. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup User talk

After almost 2 years, there are some 120 questions and comments on my user talk page. Can I/ should I just delete the older ones? What do other editors do with it? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marcocapelle. You are free to remove routine talk page messages if you wish. However, it is recommended that you archive them instead. Please read Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, after years of manually archiving my user talk page, last year I activated the MiszaBot automated approach outlined on the page that Cullen328 linked to. It's been great and completely removes the need to worry about the page getting too big. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both! I've done it manually this time, and will look for the automated approach in the future. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Haven't a clue how to add external link

I added an item to the bullet list in the article entitled AIMM, specifically the words 'Saskatchewan Adult Invasive Mussel Monitoring (AIMM)', but I can't figure out the syntax to link to http://www.prairiewaters.ca/aquatic-invasive-species/saskatchewan-s-invasive-mussel-monitoring-protocol/ Jkwood (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify. It sounds as if you are asking how to add an external link to a disambiguation page. The answer is that you shouldn't do that. A disambiguation page contains links to Wikipedia articles, not to external sites. If I misunderstood, please clarify. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the links in disambiguation pages such as AIMM should be to Wikipedia articles, not external sites, Jkwood. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I add a reference list and make my references go to that list?

I have tried to split a general reference list into a reference list for scientific research and one for books and promotional material. I used the insert button to insert a new reference list and named each list accordingly. I then edited each citation by clicking 'ref' and typing in the title of the appropriate reference list. I thought that these sources would then be redirected to a reference list and two lists would appear at the bottom of my article, but this did not happen. I went in to the help section and ensured that the wikicode for the reference list is correct. Does anyone have any idea what I did wrong? Thank you.Sarah.Monk (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't put any of the references into the relevant group with <ref group=groupname>Content</ref>. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

When I edit the citation and place it into a ref group with the correct title that isn't placing it into the relevant group? Thank you for the redirect to the footnote page. I have checked that my reference list syntax looks like the footnote but do not know where to go to make the footnote for each citation. I have tried manually editing the citations but then I get an error message. Sarah.Monk (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Try reading again what it says in Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups and what I said above. You have not put the references into the group with <ref group=groupname>Content</ref>. You have used <ref>Content</ref> or <ref name=refname>Content</ref> but not used <ref group=groupname>Content</ref>. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am really confused about what I am doing wrong. My two groups are scientific study and magazinees. I have done <ref group={Scientific Study}>Content</ref> In the content section i have tried pasting in all the information about my citation, i have tried typing the word citation, I have moved the <ref group={Scientific Study}>Content<ref/>from the end of the citation to the beginning of the citation, and have tried leaving the 'Content' section blank. All of these options have led me to red flags and I can't make any of them go away.User:Sarah.Monk)

Hello Sarah.Monk. I do not use refgroups in my articles, so do not claim expertise. My guess, though, is that the curly brackets that you have added around "Scientific study" may be the source of the problem. They need to be used very carefully in wikicode and the documentation does not show them used that way. Try eliminating them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about the error message you got from this edit, the error message had a wikilink to Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref too many keys, which explains that if you have spaces in the group name you need to enclose it in quotes. Try <ref group="Scientific Study"> instead of <ref group=Scientific Study>. This need for quotes is also mentioned in Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups, which was the link I gave you yesterday. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected one instance in this edit as an example. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarah.Monk,There's a wider issue here and that is why do you want to separate scientific sources from other sources? Normally references are only split into citations and explanatory footnotes (see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Separating_citations_from_explanatory_footnotes) and not by type. Splitting by type either in the way you propose or online vs print for example can introduce bias or suspicion that one is in some way superior to the other. Unless there is a really compelling reason to do so I'd suggest leaving all citations from where ever in one list. Nthep (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I was struggling with the quotes as i read it on the foot note help page as there were no examples using quotes as such and i tried numerous combinations. Thank you very much for showing me with an example. I have gained guidance from @https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ian_(Wiki_Ed) and will be leaving the reference page as a whole entity. Again thank you for the help.Sarah.Monk (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Karl-Hermann Geib

I reviewed Draft:Karl-Hermann Geib and declined it as inadequately sourced. One of the references was to Wikipedia. Two of the references could not be displayed. The author, User:Nordosm, then asked me to review the revised version of the draft. (At least, I think it was the author, editing logged out by accident. Please log in before editing.) The two Russian references still cannot be displayed. (I wouldn’t be able to read them if they could be displayed, but, as it is, someone for whom Russian is their first language and English their second language cannot read them.) The author has added a reference to a work by David Irving, who is a discredited historian, and so not a reliable source for most purposes. Three of the references are still to his own work. We need more references on what other scholars have said about this scientist.

I removed the stub tag. Although the article is inadequately sourced, I do not consider it a stub. The author states in the article that much of the work of this scientist is not currently available due to secrecy. Unfortunately, work that is not available to the public due to secrecy interferes with notability in the peculiar Wikipedia sense.

I will also comment that the infobox says that he died in Moskau. In the English Wikipedia, if he died in Moscow, as is probably meant, use the English form of the name of the capital of Russia.

Do other experienced editors have comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The article elaborated taking into account all remarks

Nordosm (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How to Sort Articles

Hello... all,

I'd like to sort articles according to my field of focus and those that need sources. I'd assume there's a way, but I don't know how to find that.

Any help would be appreciated,

PiousCorn (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PiousCorn. Try entering "Category:Articles lacking sources" into the search box. If you mention what your "field of focus" is, maybe we can give you more detailed suggestions..Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Some WikiProjects have created to-do pages for their members. For example, WikiProject Military History keeps an index of open tasks that are updated through an automated process. It might help to find relevant WikiProjects and see what resources they offer. Many cleanup templates place articles in specific administrative categories, where they can be tracked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Using the example WikiProject Military, such a category would be Category:Military history articles needing attention. Most projects use the same phraseology (eg. Category:Science articles needing attention). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'm interested in medical and scientific articles, broadly applied. I'll see if I can hunt down projects focused on them (I'm sure there are), and given those are kind of broad areas, I suppose that might be the best approach. PiousCorn (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Can I add this image?

Hello! We are working on Suzanne Duchamp's Wikipedia page as part of the Yale/Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon.

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

We just inserted a photo of a photo that appears in the book that we cited (the artist appears in the photo, it is from 1921 and the book was published in 1990). Is this ok or should we take it down?

Thanks for your help!

annabanona5

(Annabanona5 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Annabanona5 It shouldn't be tagged as "own work": there is no separate copyright gained on taking a photo of a photo, or other 2D work under US law. If the original photo was published in 1921, and only reprinted in the 1990 work, then it is in the public domain, and should be so tagged, and may be used. If it was unpublished until 1990, it is copyrighted, and must be taken doen unless the copyright holder releases it under a compatible free license. DES ^(talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Error message in infobox:person

I am trying to do an inbox on a person and inputted the "spouse" field correctly but got the following error message: Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "spouse(s)" (this message is shown only in preview). What did I do wrong?

AuthorKJ (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The infobox had a parameter "spouse(s)". I have changed this to "spouse". The definition of that infobox, at Template:Infobox person, supports the parameter "spouse", but not "spouse(s)". That may not be how the infobox template should have been written; but my change has got rid of the error message. Maproom (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

04:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorKJ (talk • contribs)

It worked. I edited it in Edit Source and it worked! Thank you.

AuthorKJ (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to partake in proposal

Hello, I hope it's OK to ask you about your opinion regarding to my proposal about the name syntax of Wikipedia categories. I am telling you there, that I think brackets should be used to make the name more structured. Just write what you think and vote accordingly. Here is the link Proposal. Regards, CN1 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@CreativeName1: Teahouse is a place to ask questions, not for opinions. Ikhtiar H (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

improving help

hi!

please help improving these two articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenal_Literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VerbalArt

Prinshukr (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Prinshukr. I had a question for you below. Did you see it? Anyway, as t this question, the Teahouse is the place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, not to request that people help improve specific articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature might be a better place to recruit people to work on the articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Prinshukr, I note that both of these journals are still in their first volumes. There simply hasn't been long enough for them to have received coverage in independent sources, so they both fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines in my view. Give it some time and they might become notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

How can I contribute? What can I contribute?

I am a doctoral student and need to contribute at least 35 hours to a FOSS project. I chose Wikipedia, because I love and use the resource often as a student and as a teacher. One of my requirements for the project is to participate in a community and to contribute to a software project--not a knowledge base. Will you please guide me to options that are suitable? Thank you! C3pokuda (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, C3pokuda. I do not know what "FOSS" means, and you need to write for the general public when writing for an encyclopedia, avoiding jargon as much as possible. If you are a PhD student, then we will assume that you are fully conversant with the reliable sources in your field of study. If so, go about expanding and improving articles in your area of expertise, humbly summarizing the previously published work of the recognized experts in your field. If it is coding skills that you intend to contribute, as opposed to improving encyclopedia articles, then please state your area of expertise. Coders who donate 35 hours and then disappear without maintaining their code are often seen as counterproductive here. This is a long term project and we need volunteers for life. I am approaching seven years of daily involvement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

(Free and Open-Source Software) Rojomoke (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request for DriveTime

Hi, I'm Chris from DriveTime. I recently sought to update the Wikipedia article on DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc. and on January 29, 2016, posted a full draft of the article in my user space. It's basically a complete rewrite: the existing article contains significant issues, which I've outlined on the article's Talk page. I'm want to bring the article in line with Wikipedia's standards, and I think my draft does that.

A reviewing editor took a look at my proposal in early February and agreed my draft "is MUCH better than what is here now!" (her words and emphasis, not mine). Unfortunately, the editor didn't have time to fulfill the request. I then posted requests at WikiProject Companies and WikiProject Automobiles, but I've yet to hear back from editors there. So now I'm here. I am new to Wikipedia, but I take Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest and paid editing policy seriously. Can somebody here give it a look?

Thank you, CP at DriveTime (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@CP at DriveTime: Thank you for being so patient about this. I would run it by our conflict of interest noticeboard to see what they think of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

polietly correct me or will someone blast me?.

my question concerning Wikipedia is as follows.

If I have edited another persons information, and my information turns out to be wrong as-well. Will someone politely correct me,( of which I do not mind)or will someone blast me for having the wrong information?.Savannah.wade.21 (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to blast you and I just reverted one of your edits. :) Then I saw your question here, so I thought I'd respond here in case you didn't see the explanation in my edit summary. I think you just added something to the Hometown Association article that you meant to post on its talkpage, Talk:Hometown Association. In general though, sometimes other editors will blast you even when your edit is correct with reliable sources. Just because they're mad doesn't mean you're wrong. Permstrump (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Savannah.wade.21. Two of our guiding principles are to Assume good faith and to be Civil, so if the other editors are acting according to principles, then they will not blast you. Having said that, we have thousands of editors, and we are all human, so sometimes you (or any of us) may get blasted. Maybe they've just had an argument at work, and are taking it out on somebody they don't meet in person - who knows? If people make a habit of being uncivil, there are sanctions that can be taken, but mostly it is best just to ignore it, or to politely point out that their behaviour is unacceptable. What you shouldn't do is assume you are in the wrong (or insist that you are in the right!) Look at the case and decide whether you stand by your change, or if they have a point; and try to achive consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

When you refer to editing another person's information, do you merely mean changing an article edit that they have made, or do you mean editing the biography of a living person who is a Wikipedia editor? In the first case, go ahead and either make a bold edit or discuss on the article talk page and then edit. You should not be afraid of being "blasted". As you are advised above, if you are "blasted", your choices include ignoring the personal attack, templating the attacking editor for incivility for the personal attack, or, in extreme cases, reporting the "blaster" at WP:ANI. If you are asking about editing a BLP, you should be very very careful not to add anything that isn't supported by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Promosis, Inc.

I reviewed Draft:Promosis, Inc. and declined it, both on notability grounds and on conflict of interest grounds. User:Promosis then posted to my talk page: "Hi, many people have been asking for wiki information about Promosis, so I thought it would be helpful to add a page. However, you rejected it stating the author and topic are a conflict of interest. So am I expected to get a complete stranger to submit a page?" My own answer is: Yes. If the company is notable, anyone should be able to Google information about it. Read the conflict of interest policy and the neutral point of view policy. You are very unlikely to be able to write a neutral article about your own company. Also, a user account should not be the name of a company and should not be shared. If this account belongs to one employee of the company, they should change its name to one that is not that of the company. Does any other experienced editor either want to expand on what I have said (or disagree with what I have said, although I think that what I have said is consistent with policy)? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I usually tell them (COI editors): "If your company is indeed notable, someone, someday, will probably create an article about it. From the point of view of the encyclopedia and its commitment to neutrality, it is best if that someone is unaffiliated with the company." Your answer, I think, is entirely in line with policy too. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the draft has been tagged for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In this specific case, it appears almost certain that this company is not notable, so speedy deleting the draft is probably the best solution. It is important to discuss the broader principle, though. The AFC process was set up, at least in part, to provide users with a disclosed conflict of interest a legitimate and acceptable path to draft content, subject to review by experienced, uninvolved editors. In my view, it is incorrect to treat disclosed COI editors submitting drafts at AFC the same way that we treat undisclosed COI editors who try to slip their promotional brochures into the encyclopedia without review. Apples and oranges. So, Finnusertop's quote is appropriate when directed at the second group of editors, but not the first group. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:COI is very clear about this: "COI editing is strongly discouraged." It's discouraged – for everyone – yet allowed, under some conditions. I am usually frank about this: you should not create an article for a company you represent. If they keep asking: "But can I? How do I know if the company is notable? What's the process of creating an article?" I refer them to the relevant guidelines, and even spell out the gist of it. I've come across COI edits of stellar quality and in total conformity with COI editing guidelines. The outcome is responsible COI and high-quality content. Usually these are the ones that don't need to ask any questions, because they've read our guidelines. They know that "strongly discouraged" does not mean "not allowed", because they've read the policy. All of our policies are open and available to the public, so we should assume that a potential COI editor has read it and complies, rather than having to be sanctioned afterward. If there is bypassing of the review process by COI editors who hide their identity, we are not dealing with a COI issue anymore, but a sanctionable policy violation. I always assume good faith, but I rejoice in it only when I see it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The longer version of the instruction to COI editors is "You are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles." (emphasis added) An AFC draft is not an article. There is nothing in our policies and guidelines that says that a disclosed COI editor should not submit an AFC draft for review by experienced, uninvolved editors, Finnusertop. As a matter of fact, that is part of the reason that the AFC process was created. In the same way, COI editors are encouraged to propose referenced new content on the talk page of an existing article. Good faith COI edits outside of article space should not be discouraged, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

can someone please take a look at my comment in an article's talk section

...or is there any sort of automatic notification to some people subscribed when i make such a comment there? here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Municipalities_in_Tenerife thanks. 195.38.103.165 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If other editors have the page watchlisted, they will know that you commented. I don't know how many editors watchlist categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You might be better off commenting on the talk pages of some of the individual municipality articles, 195.38.103.165, or perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, a category page cannot be watchlisted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not correct, Roger. I have a category on my watch list. Not sure how I got it there tho. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Category pages can be added to one's watchlist, Dodger67. Just press the star icon to do so, as you do with articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Making a table

How can I make a table on a page? Wseef (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wseef, welcome to the Teahouse! To create a table, go or the editing page and click on "Advanced" at the top of the editing box. Then click on the icon. Another box will appear where you have to set up the number of rows and columns and style of the table. For further queries go to the help page. Cheers! Ikhtiar H (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to protect my wikipedia page but I don't know how to do it can you help me?

I would like to protect my wikipedia page Template:United Kingdom Radiotelevision Broadcasting but I don't know how to do it can you help me?Luke de paul (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You can ask for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection. However, I'm not quite seeing enough activity to justify protecting it under the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Another admin may disagree, though, and I've added the template to my watchlist (for what it's worth). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There has been persistent vandalism on templates related to this. Whether they warrant page protection should be determined on a case by case basis. I managed to get Template:Channel Four Television Corporation protected. The same IPs are all over this one, so protection might be a good call. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a tip, Luke de paul: I would avoid referring to a page that you created as "my page". There's no ownership of articles on Wikipedia, and some editors get upset by the possible implications of referring to "my" article/template, which suggest that other users have less right to edit it. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luke de paul, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think another problem is that Template:United Kingdom Radiotelevision Broadcasting is not currently used on any articles [3]. That makes it harder to argue for protection, and indeed difficult to argue for keeping the template in the first place. Are you planning to use it in any articles? Voceditenore (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

REDIRECT linking to a particular section

I've created many redirects previously, so should know a bit. But I cannot get this one to work and link to the specific section of the subject article. Initially, I just copy/pasted the exact syntax from the URL of the article when at the correct section; that did not work. My tweak has also not worked. Would very much appreciate someone with more know-how taking a look. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi N2e. I think it is a heading level too far to work. If you change it to the main heading for the section it should work. Yes I have changed it and it works.Charles (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It was because the section is called: Radial, prograde and transverse perturbations. You forgot the s. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done—Thanks very much for graciously looking at my problem, and finding the problem. It is all fixed now, and by one of the helpful Teahouse folks who looked on. N2e (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Badly writtten 'Edit' markers

For someone's attention - someone who knows how to correct 'Edit' markers. The article "Fermat's right triangle theorem" has badly written 'Edit' markers. They do not look like similar markers in other articles, nor do they enable editing when clicked on. I do not want to edit said article, but nonetheless it should be corrected.84.111.241.87 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Purging usually fixes these kinds of problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Free wallpapers

There are many websites which allow users to download free wallpapers as desktop backgrounds. Can such pictures be uploaded in Wikipedia as Public domain picture? Captain Spark (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Spark. In general, no. Just like any other image, you would have to have positive evidence that the image was released under a compatible free copyright license or into the public domain. The fact an image is presented as free to download does not mean it is in the public domain (or is not a copyright violation in their use). And even if it is theirs, all you can take from them allowing you to download it is a license for your personal use, which does not mean it's free content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I took a close look at three such websites at random, Captain Spark, and was happy to learn that one releases their images under a Creative Commons license freely allowing reuse even for commercial purposes. Those are acceptable for upload to Wikimedia Commons. A second website states that their images are freely circulated on the internet and found on a variety of websites. Accordingly, those images are of unknown copyright/licensing status and cannot be used on Wikimedia sites. The third was a Microsoft wallpaper web page which says:

"These desktop background (wallpaper) images contain the intellectual property of Microsoft and other third parties. They are offered for download solely for your own personal use. Any other use, including the redistribution of the desktop backgrounds, or any other conduct in contravention of the applicable Terms of Use or Microsoft Software License Terms, is prohibited."

Clearly, those Microsoft images cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under any circumstances. The bottom line is that it is your obligation to verify the copyright and licensing status of any given image, and upload only those that you can prove are in full compliance with our policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you consider this a notable source?

Hello - I'm working on draft: Martin Babinec. Can you please tell me if you consider the following article a notable source - http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/print-edition/2015/08/07/10-minutes-with-martin-babinec-serial-entrepreneur.html Kathryn Cartini (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kathryn Cartini. I'm not absolutely sure if it's a realiable source. When I followed the link, one paragraph came up and then up popped a blurb telling me that I had to subscribe to see more. However, it did appear that the article is written by an independent reporter and published in print as well. I would say it's OK to go ahead and use it, and if anybody has a problem they can remove it. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Kathryn Cartini, did you mean to ask whether the source is considered reliable, or whether it contributes to establishing the subject's notability? Those are different - if related - things. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cordless Larry and User:White Arabian Filly. Yes, my question is if the article is a reliable source for establishing notability for Martin Babinec. So far, all signs point to yes, but before I start creating a new draft I'd like to be 100%

Here are a few more I would like to confirm for the piece: http://www.uticaod.com/article/20150302/NEWS/150229303 http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Upstate-cities-may-be-on-wrong-end-of-Great-5587145.php http://blog.timesunion.com/business/upstate-high-tech-economy-being-fueled-from-little-falls/60335/ Kathryn Cartini (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Albany Business Review, Times Union, and Observer-Dispatch are reliable sources, but being profiled in regional newspapers may not be enough. Smaller regional sources are often rejected at articles for deletion as being too limited in scope to properly demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

upload company logo

Hello, my company page needs to be updated with a new logo. The page in question is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Disgusting

Where/how do I update the logo? My account is not yet confirmed, the current logo was updated by someone unknown to the company. Thanks!

Owentomm (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Owentomm and welcome to the Teahouse. The correct venue is WP:FFU. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Row headers in tables

Can anyone tell me if it's OK technically to use row headers in the right hand column of a table instead of the left, by using a "!" at the beginning of the cell which is to appear in the right hand column. Jodosma (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

am i on the right track ?

Greetings,

This is the first time that i register on wikipedia and try to create page. I read instructions before writing, but i made few mistakes obviously and receive a message to edit or page will be deleted. I made some changes and planing to add more text next days. Can someone check it out and please tell me is my page ok for now (i will work more on it next days) This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameColony

Thank you!

GamesOfSkill (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, GamesOfSkill, the problem I see with the article is that it has no sources and is written in a promotional tone. Wikipedia requires secondhand sources to show notability, and a neutral tone. If you add sources like news articles, that will help prove notability. The promotional tone should be removed and the article written in a bland, encyclopedic tone. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How to 'comment out' something (so that it won't appear)

How do I 'comment out' something in or on a userpage - or in any other Wikipedia article (so that it won't appear)? MaynardClark (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MaynardClark. This technique is infrequently used on Wikipedia. You should never hide another editor's talk page comments. If the comments are overt vandalism, just remove them. If they are threats or severe personal attacks, then an administrator can remove them entirely. If you object to content in an article, remove it, explaining why in your edit summary. Please see Help:Hidden text for the limited circumstances where "commenting out" is appropriate, and how to do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MaynardClark and welcome to the teahouse. You can mark a section as comment by using the following syntax: '<!--' to begin, and '-->' to end. For example, to comment out 'hello' would be: <!--hello-->. However, you should also consult Help:Hidden Text as per Cullen328. Frank (User Page) (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have done that already in the article with an item which WILL become useful in a few weeks, and I would forget to add it by the time it will become factual and useful for this article. Then I can tweak it for the current situation. MaynardClark (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Help me understand why an edit on "twerking" was removed

I made an edit at the WikimediaNYC edit-a-thon at MoMA yesterday but didn't have a chance to get help before I submitted. Too immersed in the breakout sessions. The "Twerking" edit I made as User:kyraocity was immediately removed. Can you help advise me on how to contribute to this monitored page? kyraocity 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyraocity (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question was answered at User talk:Loriendrew#Twerking. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You got an excellent answer on Loriendrew's talk page, Kyraocity. I encourage you to study it carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)