Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 578

Archive 575

Archive 576

Archive 577

Archive 578

Archive 579

Archive 580

→

Archive 585

Sources of a Wiki Page

Can I uploade PDF files as sources for a Wikipedia Page? Hcastronuevo (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's best to link to the source of a pdf file, and put the link in a reference naming the file and its author and date. If all else fails you could put it on Google drive and link to that; however, the pdf needs to be an identifiable, previously published document to be a source for citation.Jessegalebaker (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hcastronuevo. A PDF published by an organization with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and error correction is acceptable as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article. However, that PDF must be hosted on a website controlled by the copyright holder, or the content must be freely licensed, for example, under an acceptable Creative Commons license. We cannot link to any copyright violating material on any random website. Please read WP:COPYVIOCITE for the details of the guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all the Cullen328 has said, Hcastronuevo, but I don't think he has been sufficiently direct in arguing against part of Jessegalebaker's advice: Do not put a PDF file on Google drive and link to it. If it is not your PDF, this will probably be a copyright violation anyway; but even if it is yours, or its copyright makes this legal, it will still be useless as a reference or external link for Wikipedia, because its provenance is not known: anybody can put a PDF up on Google drive that says anything at all. --ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Re Cullen328, ColinFine: Indeed, there are copyright issues; I've never used Google Drive to source here. But it's possible, if only a photostat is available and the author allows re-posting. Provenance would be established by naming the author, date, original source, and proof of existence (a library catalog record is good); the photostat may show creator info as well. Some genealogy citations may have to be done this way, or refer to reader to the genealogy library where the record can be found. Cheerio. Jessegalebaker (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, Jessegalebaker. The meat of the reference is the bibliographic information by which the published information can in principle be found (eg through a major library). If the information is online at a reliable source, then the citation can include a URL for that source; but it shouldn't contain a URL for an unreliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Re ColinFine: I won't argue with your general view on it. A proper citation is necessary; material lacking this can be challenged and removed. Yet some readers (homebound or not near a library) may appreciate, in addition to bibliography, an immediately viewable copy if it can be provided without copyright infringement; that's the only reason I mention a user's posting it if warranted. Readers share a responsibility for assessing the reliability of claims they encounter. Wikipedia is rife with political bias, edit wars, articles of marginal quality, and other imperfections yet I still treasure it as a resource. Even professional literature is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or free from ulterior motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessegalebaker (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 February 2017 -(UTC) (Thanks, forgot to sign!) Ignore; I didn't mean to be pedantic, or to encourage careless editing.Jessegalebaker (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has both Azerbaijani and Turks listed as Middle Eastern Americans, just not Armenians...plus Iran is a Caucus territory, as well., but also considered a Middle Eastern one. So you kind of contradicted yourself.

Bzazaian11 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

How do I add a subcategory to a page?

For example, the categorial page for "Middle Eastern Americans" does not have the subgroup "Armenian-Americans" listed. It should, though, however as the U.S. Census Bureau and CIA/World Fact Book list Armenian Americans as Middle Eastern Americans. Plus, other pages on this website has them listed as such. I guess that page (Middle Eastern Americans category) failed to list them.Bzazaian11 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bzazaian11, welcome to the Teahouse. Definitions vary. Middle East#Other definitions of the Middle East says: "The countries of the South Caucasus—Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia—are occasionally included in definitions of the Middle East.[1]". I think Wikipedia does usually not do this. I don't know what is most common in America but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. It could be confusing if Armenians are called Middle Eastern if they emigrate to America but not in other situations. A subcategory is added to a category by editing the subcategory the same way an article is added to a category. See Help:Category#Putting pages in categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has both Azerbaijani and Turks listed as Middle Eastern Americans, just not Armenians...plus Iran is a Caucus territory, as well., but also considered a Middle Eastern one. So you kind of contradicted yourself.

Bzazaian11 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bzazaian11: Nobody said Turkey and Iran are not in the Middle East. The Caucasus is only a small remote part of those countries. Wikipedia has millions of pages and I'm not sure which Azerbaijani listing you refer to but I said "usually", not "always". There are simply too many articles, categories and editors for Wikipedia to be completely consistent. You said "Middle Eastern Americans" (plural) in quotation marks. Category:Middle Eastern Americans redirects to Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent which doesn't have have an Azerbaijani subcategory. I now see Category:Middle Eastern American (singular) does have an Azerbaijani subcategory. I'm not sure whether the difference is accidental or deliberate. Maybe it's about country versus ethnicity, or Azerbaijani Americans saying it includes those born in Iranian Azerbaijan. The main category for the issue is probably Category:Middle Eastern countries which doesn't include any of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, but mentions all three in the lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Armenia today is a Middle Eastern country (even though the CIA World Factbook says it is: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/am.html), my point is that the majority of Armenians have Middle Eastern ancestry because the current location of modern Armenia isn't reflective of where most Armenians originate from. You fail to realize that the Caucus portion of Armenia was only a fraction of the country prior to the Ottoman Empire and invader tribes taking over our land. Armenians don't come from the Caucuses, per se, we come from the Armenian Highlands/Kingdom of Armenia. While the Highlands does encompass the Southern Caucuses, it also stretched into Ancient Mesopotamia (AKA present-day Northern Iraq), as well as present-day Iran, and Anatolia. Anthropological studies conclude that Armenians originate from each of these 4 regions. Those that originate outside of the Caucuses have mostly J2 (Middle Eastern) DNA, while those from the Caucuses have mostly R1b DNA (AKA the "fair-skinned" gene concentrated mostly in Europe). Furthermore, the majority of Armenian-Americans identify as Middle Eastern Americans. This is because most Armenian-Americans are of Western Armenian descent, who made up the overwhelming majority of the Armenian Diaspora. They were forced out of their native regions due to heavy persecution from the Ottoman Empire, as well as other invader tribes like Arabs and Persians. These Armenians mostly have origins that can be traced to Mesopotamia, Iran, and Anatolia, and therefore, have mostly Middle Eastern DNA, so most of us have no genetic relation to Armenia's current location. DNA tests show we are Middle Eastern, therefore we identify as Middle Eastern Americans. Here are a few other sources that support my stance: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/partnerships/community/mideast.html http://cis.org/MiddleEasternImmigrantsProfile http://www.ameredia.com/resources/demographics/middle_eastern.html http://www.mearo.org/lesson1.php

How to upgrade an article from stub to class Start or C

The article in question is Thomas Elphinstone Hambledon, a fictional character. IMHO, the article has achieved class C or at least Start. The instructions on the Talk page refer to templates that I cannot find, probably the Talk is out of date.

The article ends with {{novel-char-stub}}. Changing "stub" in the template to to "start" or "C" gives a red error on the Preview.

Should I just remove the aforesaid template? I would like to assign a quality class, but perhaps that only applies within certain projects?

FYI, the article has no templates at the start, and the complete set at the end is: {{DEFAULTSORT:Hambledon, Thomas Elphinstone}} [[Category:Fictional secret agents and spies]] [[Category:Series of books]] {{novel-char-stub}}

The #1 issue is to get it out of stub class; it has been expanded & has several valid refs. D A Patriarche, BSc 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, D A Patriarche. The text of the article is definitely beyond the stub level, but the article has a glaring shortcoming - a complete lack of inline references. There are a few references at the end, but they are not properly formatted as footnotes. I suggest that you read Referencing for beginners, and reformat the references properly. Once that process has been completed, I see no problem upgrading to Start class. By the way, the edits needed to upgrade take place in the wikicode on the article's talk page, not on the article itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the refs were not properly inline, thank you. I figured out how to upgrade the project class on the Talk page. I was overly enthusiastic in rating in "C" in view of your comments, I will revert it to Start. I'll do some work on the article. Once again thanks for your prompt response.D A Patriarche, BSc 02:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche (talk • contribs)

what's the best place to start editing?

I'm new here and looking for a place to get started as a contributing editor. I've read all of the guidelines and links for new contributors, but would like an easy(?) article to start editing. Thanks! Soli58 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Soli58, and welcome to the Teahouse. Take a look at these articles that have been without any sources for more than ten years. Try to find information about those topics and add it to the articles. And, unlike the original contributors, be smart and cite your sources.

This is an "easy" task because there isn't really anything you could break. Most (if not all) of that unreferenced content should have sources, or it needs to go. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Any article is open to editing. Short articles that aren't edited frequently are easier to work on. There's a "view history" tab to check the edits and look at previous versions of the same article, and a "talk" tab to look at other editors' comments or problems with the article. Know your subject and have notes and sources before starting the edit; I compose my edits offline. I've found the markup language difficult, as is the documentation for it, so the article I worked on took 150 edits to do, but computer-savvy users may have less trouble with this aspect. There is a "cite" button that brings up a dialog box whenever you want to put a reference in; this generates the code for it. There are also buttons for italic and bold type. Read WP:5P for more info on editorial policies. But it is open to anyone; you cannot damage Wikipedia because any edit can be reversed and the earlier material restored. Jessegalebaker (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Soli58 I agree completely with Finnusertop, but judging from my experience with Syntelic, getting rid of unsourced content is less satisfying than shoveling sand against the tide. If you are interested in Genetics, there are lots of "stub" articles at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Genetics that could benefit from additions. There are many other projects, as listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/WikiProjects_by_changes that probably have stub articles of their own. Happy editing! DennisPietras (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, your "sand shoveling" consisted of a single attempt to delete that article, which another editor declined. Then, another editor added a source to the article, and it is in somewhat better shape. You were advised that you should take the matter to Articles for Deletion if you had a policy based reason for deleting the article. You have not done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. Looking forward to editing!Soli58 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Is consensus needed to remove vandalism that is behind semi-protection?

On the day after the election, someone put on the top of the article "List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots" vandalism appeared as so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots&oldid=748639737

Then, someone saw it and assumed a good faith contribution was simply put in wrong, and fixed it into the tag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots&oldid=748648513

stated that: "(no idea if it is or isnt but this is how to tag it)"

Then shortly afterword, the page got semi-protected. So now the vandalism from the ip editor (it is also their only ever contribution) who is obviously disgruntled about the election (and thought implying there should be more assassination attemps now that Trump was chosen) is stuck behind a wall unable to be removed.

I tried in the talk page requesting an edit, but the person said that I should establish a consensus. Well how do I establish a consensus to remove vandalism, on a page that probably doesnt get huge traffic? Why should I need conesnsus to remove vandalism?

The person added it as their only contribution ever, the day after the election, with no supplied reason to add the text. Didn't even tag it correctly.

So I want to let other editors know, so they can establish a consensus and remove it. I don't know where to ask for editors to look at something so I am here. I can't edit the page.Odsnvdosijsdof (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To make it short:

Day after election, someone added to list of assissinations page "Article is incomplete" as first contribution and no reason to add this text. It was later turned into a tag, because somsone assumed it was in good faith.

When requested edit to remove it, they stated I need consensus to remove the tag. (despite the request edit page stating consensus is only needed for controversial edits)Odsnvdosijsdof (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The article is semi protected, so you will be able to edit it as soon as you are autoconfirmed (4 days and 10 edits). I'd say a concensus would be needed to retain it, but please refrain from using the term WP:VANDALISM until you better understand what it is. There is no indication it was entered in bad faith, which is a needed component of vamdalism. John from Idegon (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Vandalism can certainly be removed (and should be) while an article is protected, but this does not appear to be vandalism. It has been in the article for three months and the article was not protected for that whole time. I don't think the tag is need either, but at this point the approach to take is to raise the issue on the talk page. Meters (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see that John had removed the tag. No object from me. Meters (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear it was a bad faith edit. Here is a list of indications:

1. Day after contentious election, an IP editor adds text to a page about assassinations stating that the article is incomplete. His edit stated "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." EXPANDING IT. That is not how the tag is supposed to read. 2. It is their only ever contribution. (not bad in itself but combined with other reasons does not help the case) 3. The article was already being heavily vandalized in this period (hence why it was soon semi-protected) 4. They didn't add the tag correctly (if they were aiming to add a tag) 5. They gave no reason on the edit summery why they did their edit 6. They gave no reason in the talk page why they did their edit

Can people just add tags whenever they want without any reason on wikipedia, ? How clear can this joke be, the person is making a joke that there are missing assassinations and that the list "SHOULD BE EXPANDED" (because trump was elected)

But I will concede that it makes sense from the narrow point of view, that if there is a new president, they have to expand the article to show that incident at his rally. But at that point, he was still not president, he was president-elect so it wouldn't belong.Odsnvdosijsdof (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Odsnvdosijsdof, you should probably familiarize yourself with WP:AGF. It is, after all a pillar policy here. Surmising what another editor's motivation may be is usually a waste of everyone's time. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Where do I start?

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, (account made 2 months ago, editing for a while) and I want to know where to start. I have made a very small article in my sandbox, but I think it's too small to submit for review. I know every edit counts, but I want to do a little better than a couple of spelling mistake editing (even though I'm glad to do it!)

Bedsidelamp (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bedsidelamp. That largely depends on what topics you are interested in. There's usually a WikiProject for just about any area of interest. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bedsidelamp Wikprojects are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/WikiProjects_by_changes You can search them from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject DennisPietras (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

to edit

I want to contibut with wikipedia sameone can help mi? King Ban (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello King Ban and welcome to the Teahouse.

One way to start is to take WP:The Wikipedia Adventure for a spin. It will introduce many of the essentials of editing Wikipedia. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Page Speedy deletion

Dear Teahouse memmbers, the article I've created was deleted due to the comment:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person It appears to be a clear copyright infringement

Now, when I got these comments I wanted to ask if this content can be public at any case? It is a text about H2020 Project that is being implemented in 4 EU cities and proposes new open government solutions and applications..

Regarding the second remark: copyright problem - I can edit text.

I would be grateful if you could answer if I should keep working on this, or this content Wikipedia finds inappropriate in general? Thank you very much in advance. Tamara at WeLive (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tamara at WeLive: Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry it looks like we've got off on the wrong foot, but don't worry - the issue you describe above is very common, and thankfully rather easily resolved. I'd like to invite you to "try again" using the Article Wizard - this tool will guide you through creating a draft, which will then be reviewed by an experienced editor. Before doing that though could you read through these quick FAQ? As for the copyright issue, please ensure that when creating the draft no copyrighted material is present. On behalf of The Teahouse I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia and wish you good luck in your editing -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 09:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Tamara at WeLive and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not an admin, so I cannot read the deleted article or any comments you made on its talk page to resist the speedy deletion. I can only go by the comments that remain visible.

It looks like there are several problems that must be overcome. First of all, based on your username, you appear to have a conflict of interest with respect to the article's subject. This means that you would be strongly discouraged from attempting to write such an article. Second, it appears that this may be the first article you have tried to create; creating a new article on Wikipedia is a much harder task than most new editors anticipate – most Wikipedia hosts recommend that you spend considerable time on Wikipedia improving other articles and learning the ropes before attempting to create a new article. Third, while there is no particular prejudice against creating an article on this subject, it has to be created using independent and reliable sources. In doing a quick search on Google, I am not seeing that the project has been written about in major newspapers or magazines (perhaps I'm not looking in the right places), but these are the sorts of sources that are required to establish the subject's notability. Unless it contains these sorts of sources, an article cannot be accepted on Wikipedia. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Template for organisation article

I'm new to Wikipedia, but have written a couple of biographical articles, and would like to move on to articles about voluntary organisations.

What is the best template to use for such groups?10:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRAS (talk • contribs)

Hello, FRAS. I'm guessing that you mean "template" in the sense of "way of organising the whole article". Wikipedia doesn't have templates in that sense. I was going to refer you to the Manual of style, but while it has guidelines for many kinds of article, I can't find one for organisations. My advice is to find a Featured article about a similar organisation, and copy its structure. --ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I've selected the Toronto Observatory article to base my work on.

Stupid question: how do I copy the whole article to my sandbox to work on?11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRAS (talk • contribs)

@FRAS: Open the source article, and click the "Edit" button to display the source code. Select it all and Copy (Ctrl-C on a PC). Then Cancel (so you don't make any changes to that article), open your Sandbox, click Edit and Paste (Ctrl-V on a PC). This will put a copy of that whole article into your Sandbox. Then there are a couple of other things you should do: add at the start: {{Userspace draft|date=February 2017}} {{NOINDEX|visible=yes}}. And add a colon in front of each of the category statements (towards the bottom of the article) so that the user page does not show up in the category trees (which of course is reserved for actual articles). --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why my photo - Which I took - keeps getting rejected.

Everytime I try to upload a photograph for which I hold a copyright or that I actually took I receive an error message saying that the website cannot tell if the photograph violates the rules. How do I fix this please? Aquariusveritas (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aquariusveritas. It looks like you've uploaded four images to Wikimedia Commons, and none of them are currently marked for deletion, so it's not sure what you're referring to, unless it's a photo which has already been deleted, in which case only administrators may view and retrieve it. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you own the copyright to those photos with professional watermarks, then you need to read our policies on paid editing, editing with a conflict of interest and against using Wikipedia for promotion. If the photos with the professional watermarks are not the ones you're talking about, then those are copyright violations which gives us plenty of reason to worry about the other photos. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Aside from a possible "conflict of interest" (please read the linked guidelines above): if the license or copyright of your uploads is questioned, please see Commons:Commons:OTRS describing the process to verify your copyright and free license via mail. You'll also find some guidance about when this verification is necessary and when not (f.e. unpublished amateur photos with a credible claim of authorship are - usually - accepted without such an additional verification). Also, watermarked images are generally discouraged (see WP:WATERMARK). Please put a suitable attribution on the image's information page instead. Hope these additional details help. GermanJoe (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

are colloids heterogenous

the NCERT[Indian central board of education] book shows that it is heterogeneous but wikipedia is showning homogeneous??????Sohamms (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Sohamms! The Teahouse is really more for help editing for new users. Your question is best asked at the Reference Desk. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance! —Non-Dropframe _talk 18:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Permission of editing

Sir, Do I have permission to edit any page anymore? I've edited in Bangla Wikipedia. But now I can't edit any page in both Bangla and English Wikipedia. Would you please help me answering the reason of happening such problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imrozkhan001 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Imrozkhan001, you have obviously managed to edit, or your question would not be here. Which page were you trying to edit? It may be that the page is semi-protected, which with the number of edits you had, you possibly could not do - now that you have ten edits, try editing it again. If there is still a problem, please come back and tell us which page, and what messages you get. - Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh - and please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Imrozkhan001: Some of your edits were reverted. See the note on your talk page: User_talk:Imrozkhan001. RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

neutral policy

Hi, i looked up the 'chiropractic' article. I found it very biased towards a negative viewpoint, and not at all helpful to someone trying to understand the treatment method. I'm not generally one for alternative medicine, but my wife and I, and other friends have found it very effective at relieving back and joint pain. I can't see a simple way of editing the current article to make it more balanced and useful. Is it possible in wikipedia to have a separate article on the same topic, giving an alternative point of view? Andrewgl7 (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Andrewgl7 and welcome to the Teahouse. Personal experiences are not suitable for Wikipedia: instead, it aims to summarize the best avaialble information from independent, reliable sources. We do not publish other articles to give alternate views, but rather each article should give appropriate balance to each claim that is supported by such sources. If you have such sources, then please feel free to suggest them on the Talk page of that article (Talk:Chiropractic}. Or if you are looking for an article that explains the techniques that are used, you might find Chiropractic treatment techniques of interest. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

thank you Gronk, your suggested article was just what i needed. Is it possible to refer to it in the Chiropractic article that appears when you put the term into a search engine? Andrewgl7 (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It's linked in the third sentence of that article: "The main chiropractic treatment technique involves ..." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits' replacement

How can I know that my edit is wrong or right? And if someone changes my right edits... How can i change that? I recently edited colloids ....... My edit was rigt but still changed. My source was NCERT science book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohamms (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sohamms: Discuss this on the article's talk page at Talk:Colloid RudolfRed (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sohamms, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is very important that you cite your sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you look carefully, you will also notice that you were wrong by a factor of a thousand million. I'm sure your source didn't say what you wrote, though it is clear what you meant to write. The information was already in the article. Dbfirs 22:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I being followed?

Hi, do you ever feel like you are being followed? 0wl (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello 0wl: If you're referring to someone following your contributions in Wikipedia specifically, yes, that does occur here. You can read up about it at WP:HOUND, and for more information, WP:HARASS. Justin15w (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Justin15w! 0wl (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

However, not every editor who claims that they are being stalked, hounded, or harassed really is being harassed. An editor's editing (whether from an IP address or from a registered account) is a matter of record, and another editor can view it and can view the changes made. If editor A has, for instance, a habit of making non-neutral and unsourced edits, editor B may reasonably view them, and may, within reason, revert them and discuss them on the article talk page. The essays in question will explain what is and what is not harassment. While harassment does happen, unwarranted complaints of harassment also happen, especially if the editor who complains that they are being followed or harassed has been making unsourced or controversial edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Source editing by default

Whenever I click an edit link on an article, it opens visual editor and I have to switch it. How do I make source editing a default? Holy Goo (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you go into your Preferences, on the Editing section, about midway down is an 'Editing Mode' dropdown - select 'Always give me the source editor' option. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thnaks Holy Goo (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

help build band page?

We ask for help building a Artist page for the band LIBRARY OF SANDS! We cite UK music magazine UNCUT as a reliable journalist source: top 13 2013 playlist & 2 songs top 15 2015 playlist. Band website has press kit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicbyshineywater (talk • contribs)

Hello, Musicbyshineywater. Unfortunately, your question indicates that there are several things that you don't understand about Wikipedia:

1. There is no such thing as a "band page" or "artist page". Wikipedia has articles about many subjects, some of them bands and artists. These articles do not belong to the band or artist, who has in fact no control whatever over their contents; and Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the band or artist, or their friends or associates, say or want to say about them. We are only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them in reliable places. So very little that is on their own website would be of any use in writing a Wikipedia article.
2. Not all subjects are suitable for an encyclopaedia. Because we rely on independent sources about the subject, it follows that if such sources do not exist, then there can be no article: the Wikipedia term for this is that the subject is or is not notable. If it is not notable, then there is no point in anybody wasting their time trying to write an article about it.
3. I indicated above that the subject of an article has no control over it. In fact, the subject, or anybody closely connected to the subject, is strongly discouraged from writing or editing such an article, because their Conflict of interest is likely to make it hard for them to be sufficiently neutral.
4. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind.
5. Shared accounts are not permitted. Each user should create their own account.

For further information, please see the pages I linked to above (all the blue links), and also Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

How to save a page from deletion?

Hello, I am new to the site. The page I have been contributing to (along with others) is said to be deleted soon due to lack of notability. May I ask who will be the judge to decide the level of notability? The person, Jiansheng Chen, was a victim of an unusual shooting death where he was shot inside his van in his neighborhood by the community security guard. The case brings memory of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and it's getting increasing attention from the public. Thanks for your help in answering my question.SlowSuperMom (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SlowSuperMom. In order for the article to be kept, it needs to be demonstrated that it meets Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies. If it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, but maybe that it just doesn't need it's own stand alone article. For example, it looks like it's been suggested at the deletion discussion that some of the content be included in the main article on Pokemon GO, which may be a good suggestion.

Unfortunately, lots of newer editors get their first article deleted, because our policy on notability can be sometimes complex and difficult to understand. But a lot of the time that's just part of the learning process. After all, creating a brand new article is one of the harder things on Wikipedia to do. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SlowSuperMom. Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiansheng Chen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jiansheng Chen. These discussions usually take one week but sometimes longer. The final decision will be made by an administrator who will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments to keep or delete, specifically as they relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec)

Hello SlowSuperMom and welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your note and for contributing to Wikipedia. I have looked at your article Jiansheng Chen and see that there is a deletion discussion ongoing here. There is another very similar article, Shooting of Jiansheng Chen, which has also been nominated for deletion.

I often edit articles related to recent deaths that involve officers in the United States, and am concerned with these issues. In my experience, it is very difficult to predict, early on, whether an individual incident will become sufficiently notable to merit an independent article. Often, articles are written for a particular shooting, and then deleted after a review. Other times, article content is merged into another article where the incident may be summarized briefly. I see both options are being considered at these two articles.

In my view, those discussions regarding deletion are the best place to make arguments about whether wikipedia should have an article about the shooting of Jiansheng Chen. The discussion will focus on two primary issues: the notability of the subject (see these guidlines, WP:N), and what kind of coverage the subject has received in reliable sources (WP:RS).

Right now, it appears there has been significant local coverage (the Virginian Pilot), some coverage in the larger, national press (NBC, CBS [2][3]), and significant international coverage ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). This strongly suggests that some content might go somewhere on wikipedia, but I am not sure if the event should have its own article. My advice is to make cogent arguments at the deletion discussions, referencing all relevant newspaper articles. You should also provide more sources for the articles in question. I hope that helps. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello TimothyJosephWood , Cullen328 , and Darouet , thank you all so much for your help with the topic. Especially, I appreciate Darouet’s insight into the similar incidents and providing helpful references. It definitely makes sense to merge the page with the “shooting of Jiansheng Chen”. But merging with Pokémon Go may make it harder for people to find the information regarding the case. I will take time to write on the discussion for deletion board. Thanks again for your help!SlowSuperMom (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlowSuperMom: Merging things into Pokemon Go won't make it any harder for people to find. You can always create a redirect page, so that people who type in a specific term will be automatically redirected to the right place. Creating redirects is easy. You just create a page of your desired title, and the page contains one line:

#REDIRECT [[main article title#subsection title]]

Then anyone who goes to that redirected title will land on the main article subsection specified. If you omit "#subsection title" then the redirect will simply go to the main article itself. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Importation and translation of articles from de:Wikipedia

I requested the importation of the article "XY" from German Wikipedia. My importing administrator worked fast and created the sandbox page User:Username/XY for me to translate it. Now I think I'm done, except for the section Authority Control - that is not for me to fill in, is it? What's annoying is that "Weblinks" automatically shows "Username/XY" instead of just "XY" - how do I get rid of that? Apart from that I'm obviously a little dumb. Only thing that needs being approved in case of importation is translation... where do I submit it? Any ideas? Arigo (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Arigo. User:Arigo/Harald Sicheritz is not at present an article (in article space) but a userspace draft: that's why it has the User: prefix. Xaosflux put it there because an article in German doesn't belong in enwiki article space. When it is ready, you can move it to Harald Sicheritz (currently a red link, because the article doesn't exist). However, don't do that yet, because the draft is not ready. Enwiki's policy on biography of living persons requires far more inline references than the two you currently have. Please see WP:REFB.

In fact, what I would advise is that you don't move the article yourself, but when you think it is ready, you add {{subst:submit}} to the top, which will ask for a review (which may take a few weeks). If the reviewer accepts the draft, they will move it; if not, they will give you some feedback about what needs to be improved. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Arigo: The article username/xy is in your user space. You want to move the article to main space. Your account should have permission to move articles. However, you may want to get the article reviewed first, because to me it looks like a biography that is under-sourced, therefore not yet ready for main article space. I have put an AFC tag on your draft so that you may submit it for review after you finish working on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My request for IMPORTING AN ARTICLE FROM DE:WIKIPEDIA was denied by saying "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". That means an approved article in de:Wikipedia, which was ONLY TRANSLATED, is not a reliable reference? That means, the different language versions of Wikipedia are that independent that one has to start from scratch in every language? If that is so, I've just learned a lot about the wonderful idea of having a global encylcopedia... Maybe it's my bad, but I could not find a specific path to submit a translation. Again, I'll be glad to read substantial comments on this rather important general issue. Arigo (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

someone is messing with the scooby doo page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooby-Doo_%28character%29

look under his character profile 66.210.57.238 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this vandalism out. I see several editors are on the case, reverting the changes, and warning the anonymous user who keeps making them. If they continue, they will get blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Scooby Doo (character) is now semi-protected 1 month so that anonymous IP editors cannot edit it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Anachronist: I recently took a look at the page, and it doesn't appear to have been semi-protected. Am I looking at it wrong? Thank you.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

23:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checks Facts: Yes, try editing it while logged off and you'll see. Even if you try editing it while logged in, you should see a pink message at the top. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Now I see it @Anachronist:, thank you

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

00:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Who (or what) makes the home pages for Wikipedia?

Hi, the question just occurred to me to ask if there is a special committee who makes the front pages, or can anyone add information? Any information answering my question would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}.

23:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Checks Facts, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a bit of both, actually. There are talk and project pages (much like this one) dedicated to coordinating content on the Main Page. There are trusted users who do this regularly and have authority, but anyone can make suggestions. You can find links to the different projects for different sections (In the news, Today's featured article, Did you know, etc.) here: Talk:Main Page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop for your reply. Wikipedia teaches me more things every day, and it never ceases to amaze me.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

00:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the '(+x)‎' number next to contributions for?

I see numbers such as (+569)‎ next to my contributions, what do they mean? 0wl (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC) 0wl (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC) /. That is the number of characters that were added or removed. A + means you added 569 characters to the page. A - would mean it they were removed. 2017 RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that signifies how many bites were changed between the two versions. (*beat me to it*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:55, 10 February 2017

Thank you for the quick answers and replies! Ahh ok, that makes sense, cheers.0wl (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@0wl: Be aware that this figure only shows the net change in size, and may not indicate how extensive the change is. Large sections of the article could be changed, leaving the overall size almost the same.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Some views/skins of Wikipedia colorcode the contribs. If the number of bytes didn't change, the text is gray; if bytes were removed it's red, and if they were added it's green. That's what it looks like on my watchlist.White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition, if the change increases or decreases the page size by at least 500 bytes, then it is displayed in bold. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A super editor removed an update I had done but I own the copyright how can I contact them to explain?

Hi All, I joined yesterday and added a couple of things to two pages. One was removed as it may have infringed copyright on another site. I do own the copyright to the notes that I added. How can I contact the person who removed it to explain? Thanks DEditorwcn (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Editorwcn: You will need to license the material in a way that allows for reuse for any purpose. See WP:IOWN. You can leave a message for the other editor at User_talk:Wiae, per the note on your talk page. RudolfRed (talk)

It looks as if your user name is not permitted on Wikipedia because it represents a website, unless, of course, you are the sole owner of that website, which seems a possibility, and the only thing you have to be careful about (once you have formally released copyright) is to avoid advertising your website here. You could remove the copyright notice from the website if this is what you wish to do, but it might be simpler just to rephrase your contributions here. Dbfirs 22:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Editors who hold the copyright to web sites very seldom understand what is needed in order to copy from their web sites to Wikipedia, which is that it is necessary to release the content for use by all in the world under a copyleft. Most editors do not want to do this. Also, most copyrighted web sites contain non-neutral content that will be edited ruthlessly in Wikipedia if it isn't deleted due to copyvio. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply. I am the owner and one of the editors of WCN, but can change the username if required. Wiae has responded as well so I need to think and rewrite additions. Some of the features on my site are from experts and learned sources in their fields so need to know whether to know I can reference those sources. So far I have only removed some old links, a link to an octopus site and a copied a paragraph. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorwcn (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a self-published website does not count as a WP:Reliable source. If your experts have published the same material in other independent publications, then you should cite those, not the website. It would be best to summarise in your own (different) words what you are citing, then the copyright issue does not cause a problem. If you are the only person who will be editing with your username, then I don't think it will be necessary to change your username. Dbfirs 23:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I can think of quite a few super editors but none of them would describe themselves in this way. If anyone has told you they are a super editor then, take it from me, they're not. Thincat (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing Citation Links

Hi, I am new here and have a concern. I am trying to amend links within reference and citations in articles that are currently directed to my company website. I did not add these links in the first place, other users and contributors have and there are lots of them. I want to know whether it is ok to change the reference links, these links will be out of date very soon and therefore will no longer work. I am not trying to promote the website that I work for, nor am I trying to increase any external links, just wanting to make sure the correct links are in place. There hundreds of links that will be invalid and I am trying to change them before the redirect stops working. Can I do this?? I have been told that I am spamming, my work in editing these links has all been deleted, wasting my time. If this is not allowed, then that is fine I will stop doing it, but all these links will fail soon and I wanted to keep the pages up to date. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks User: Rachellebaxter Rachellebaxter (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rachelle! The reason I believe User:Thisisnotcam (who will now be pinged to this thread) left the warning ({{Uw-inline-el}}) at your talk page, is that in your edit to Mentmore Golf and Country Club, here, you didn't just change the existing URL in the citation, but also made the following change in the main text of the article "...by the website Top 100 Golf Courses" → "...by the website www.top100golfcourses.com". You also did not leave an edit summary in relation to your changes, which makes it much easier for others to understand changes made. For example, Thisisnotcam said in his or her edit summary upon the first revert "No need for the links". Had you left an explanatory edit summary, the user would have understood the reason for the URL change.

So my two suggestions are: do not change any prose text listing the name of the website in the body to refer to the URL, and when you change just the URL in the citation, leave a helpful edit summary—something you can copy and paste many times if the same change is being made, like "Change URL in preexisting citation (not placed by me). Though this link currently works, it will go dead soon. I am aware of the COI guideline and am solely fixing the URL already here, not adding it myself. The "COI guideline" I am referring to is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FuhghettaboutitFuhghettaboutit, Thank you for clarifying for me. I will not amend the text and will leave a note in the edit summary. Thank you for your help. I was just trying to make sure we were correctly cited and reference, but being a newbie, it is not an easy task. I just wanted to make sure that I was ok to change the incorrect URL's as the 301 redirect that we have in place at present will be removed soon and the thousands of links that are in place across wikipedia will be dead. I appreciate that some might consider this a conflict of interest as I work for the company, but none of these were added by us and it felt right that where we had been cited that these should either be correct or removed altogether. Many thanks again. Rachellebaxter (talk)Rachellebaxter (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome Rachelle. Done in a non-promotional manner, this is certainly a helpful task. I probably did not emphasize it enough. Using a transparent edit summary that acknowledges the COI but explains how you are avoiding promotion is probably crucial to being successful or avoiding problems in doing it. You have to understand the raging firehose of promotion coming at us all day, every day – that makes reverting apparent promotional edits, especially when unexplained, an easy call for many users.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Languages – only English pages?

Dear experts,

as far as I could see, only the language pages in the English Wikipedia bear the banner from Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. Is this coincidence, or does the Project imply, that only the 'language' pages, and not, for example, the 'язык' pages, should be part of the project? Would it be allowed to add the banner to non-English languages pages?

Best, Dont-you-love-it-when (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Dont-you-love-it-when,

welcome to the Teahouse. WikiProject Languages only works on the English language Wikipedia. You should not add their banners to pages on the Russian language Wikipedia. The Russian language Wikipedia is a sister website with their own community. They have different editors and projects. The Russian language Wikipedia currently does not have this project and people would not have any use of English language banners. I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Taketa,

thank you, that was exactly what I wanted to know!

Best, Dont-you-love-it-when (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with creating an article

I have been attempting to creat an article to include in the list of historical socities (Ireland). I have been practicing in sandbox, but someone appears to have removed it. Can you help. Ards Historical (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ards Historical, welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was renamed and mhas become an article. You can find it at Market House, Newtownards. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia articles, how should non-English references/ sources be used?

In English Wikipedia articles, how should non-English references/ sources be used? English readers may not be able to verify the references/ sources in languages they cannot understand. What are the Wikipedia rules on this issue? A ri gi bod (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear A ri gi bod, references in other languages are allowed. The guidelines do not make a distinction between different languages. The article needs to be in English, the references can be any language. When you use a reference in a different language, preferably indicate what language the reference is in. This can be done by using, for example, Template:link language. I hopes this answers your question. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, A ri gi bod. Welcome to the Teahouse. You are as stated above free to use foreign language sources, but if English sources are available, those should be used. We only use foreign language sources when there are no equivalent English sources. John from Idegon (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I confused about my "watchlist"? YES!

Hi again! I've delayed asking this question because I thought I should be able to figure it out myself, but, alas, here I am. I've got this page on my watchlist, and I do see some indications of activity here on my watchlist, but I swear I don't see all the changes here. It doesn't really matter to me for this site, since I look at it regularly, but I worry that somehow I'm missing changes to other pages on my watchlist. Am I just a confused newbie, or are watchlist notifications only sporadic? If I'm confusedd, don't be reluctant to tell me - I can take it! Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of deleted articles and "revdev" deletions, your watchlist should show all pages that have changed recently (depending on how the search parameter is set for you - I think it defaults to 7 days). There is a setting which shows or hides edits earlier than the most recent change: look for it on Preferences -> Watchlist. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually the default is 3 days. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. In addition to the responses above, be aware that by default the Watchlist shows you the latest changes to your chosen pages; it does not list all the changes to them. (I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at by "I don't see all the changes here.") If you want to change that, go to Preferences > Watchlist (as jmcgnh said) and tick "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent". --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: Also note that both Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and the top of Special:Watchlist have many options to hide specific types of edits. If "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" is disabled and the most recent edit is of a type you hide then you do not see an older edit instead, you see nothing. See more at Help:Watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! DennisPietras (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved