Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 702

Archive 695

←

Archive 700

Archive 701

Archive 702

Archive 703

Archive 704

Archive 705

Modules in templates

What is the syntax for connecting one module to another using "module=?"Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Gaarmyvet. Whilst we'd like to welcome you to our Teahouse, I think maybe your question might be a bit too technical for this help forum, and that you would be better off repeating it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It has a facility to search its archives, although I couldn't find anything there that helped me understand your question any better. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Gaarmyvet, if you are talking about info box templates, I may be able to help. John from Idegon (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you want and it probably depends on the used templates if it's possible. Can you give an example of what you want to achieve? I guess it's about nesting infoboxes and not about a page in the Module namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, my question was poorly put. I have a draft on a man who was an elected official and a soldier. I need to merge {{infobox military person}} into {{infobox person}}.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The page in question is at User:Gaarmyvet/sandbox#Walter B. Russell Jr..--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gaarmyvet: Those infoboxes support an embedded module.[1] Note | embed = yes to tell {{Infobox military person}} that it's embedded as a module. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, thank you. My brain was fried last night and I took a break.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem submitting draft for review

Hello, I am trying to submit my first draft article for review, but I'm having problems. When I click on the 'submit your draft for review' button a pop up appears telling me to 'press the save changes button at the bottom of the edit box'. However, I can't find the save changes button. I suspect I've done something wrong, but I've no idea what! The draft is in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HCornish/sandbox , any help would be much appreciated! Thanks HCornish (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You've done nothing wrong;, but by contrast the people at the Wikimedia Foundation have confused the issue by changing their software without considering all the consequences. The button that used to be labelled "Save changes" is now labelled "Publish changes", but not all of the various instructions that refer to the old name of the button have been changed. The "Publish changes" button doesn't "publish" the draft to article space, but in this case just allows the draft to be submitted for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't change the template, but I have left a note at Template talk:User sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! That makes sense. I think I have submitted it successfully this time HCornish (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad it worked, thanks to David's help - just pinging Whatamidoing (WMF) to re-highlight the fact that so many help pages, tutorials and graphics still need changing and that this is proving confusing to new editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I need help with references...

So I knew how to do it a little bit ago, then it fell away. I know how to make the little number in front of the words, and the reference at the bottom of a page, but how do you make them connected, in the way that if you click the number it brings you down to the reference at the bottom, and if you click the arrow on that, it brings you up to the little number?

DrChicken24 (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)DrChicken24

Hello, DrChicken24. You don't have to make the number or the reference at the bottom of the page. You simply put the whole text of the citation between <ref> and </ref> at the point where it is used and the software does all the rest. I prefer to use the citation templates (such as {{cite web}}) for the citation itself, but that is not mandatory. Please read referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the OP already knew how to do that, according to this edit, so perhaps we need a clearer explanation of the question. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Updating a picture of Sean McVay on his page. Can someone help me compete this task? I truly would appreciate it.

Hello,

Before I begin, I want to apologize if this is not where this question belongs but I just figured it will be okay since the Teahouse is a place where rookies come to learn.

I just have a request and I hope someone can help me with this. or lead me to the right area where I can re-ask this question.

Okay....

The Los Angeles Rams' head football coach Sean McVay is having a stellar rookie year. As someone who respects McVay for turning a struggling franchise around in just one season, I would like someone to upload a recent Rams picture of him on his Wikipedia page.

Here is his Wikipedia page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_McVay

The current picture on there is when he was the offensive coordinator for the Washington Redskins in 2014. I believe that the picture needs to be updated as he is the current head coach of the Rams and is doing an excellent job securing the teams first winning season in over 13 years.

I am not verified on Wikipedia to do that and don't know the whole copyright rules. I would just like an updated picture of him in a Rams uniform. Is that possible? I truly would appreciate that. Any questions, feel free to let me know.

Nate7bodnar (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nate7bodnar, the problem (and the reason so many photographs on Wikipedia are of poor quality) is that material published on Wikipedia needs to be re-usable for any purpose—including commercial use—and many professional photographers don't want to release their work under these terms. (Not only does it mean the photographer won't get royalties for future use of the picture—and royalties is what they rely on to eat—but it also means the photograph could in future be used on SeanMcVaySucks.com or whatever, and the photographer wouldn't be able to object.) Unless you can persuade the owner of the copyright on a current photo to release it—or take a photograph yourself at a book-signing or something similar—we're very limited in what we can do in these cases. I know it's not what you want to hear, but because material on Wikipedia is reproduced so widely elsewhere, we need to be very careful about respecting other peoples' copyrights. (Photos published by the Federal—but not state—government are automatically available for re-use, so if he ever gets photographed at a White House banquet, military function etc, the official photos will be usable and you can crop them to just show his face.) ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Extensive edits to inadequate article

I would like to completely edit an article, to the extent that it is much more accurate and complete and will end up considerably longer. What is the best way to go about this? Should I simply start editing the existing page, or would it be best to start from scratch and have the page replaced? The article is a biographical article about a scientist and physician (Robert O. Becker) who made much more impact than is currently indicated.Patricia416 (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Patricia416: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are probably different ways you could go about doing what you would like to do; if it were me, I would draft the changes in my sandbox first and then propose them on the article's talk page for other interested editors to weigh in on first(by inviting them to view my sandbox). If you are using a computer to edit Wikipedia, there should be a 'Sandbox' link at the top right of the screen.

You could also simply be bold and make the changes, but you would need to be prepared for them to be examined by other editors after the fact instead of before.

If you haven't already, you may wish to read Your First Article which might help you. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Many editors have contributed to the article over seven years, so I wouldn't advise you to replace the whole article without consensus (using the talk page as explained above). If you do decide to edit the article directly, and have the patience, I would make just a few of the most important changes first, and see what reaction you get from anyone watching the article. Dbfirs 22:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In support of D's recommendation. The Becker article has been contentious, as can be seen by past edit history and discussions in Talk. Suggest you read all the Talk first, then edit the existing article section by section, adding valid references as you go. Adding more to the list of published works is NOT a way to improve this article. David notMD (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly – many editors have been involved in the Robert O. Becker article, and have strong views about it. They have not all agreed with each other. But if you propose removing the entire article and replacing it with your own version, it's likely that they will combine in opposing you. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, you have just joined Wikipedia, and this is the first article you intend to edit. So I will double down on my caution - instead of starting with changes to the article I now suggest you start a new section in the article's Talk, and propose what you intend to do there. And if you do end up changing the article and another editor reverts your changes, do not blindly re-revert. That pattern is called edit warring, and can get your warned and even temporarily blocked from editing. David notMD (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both! Your responses are very helpful, and I will heed your advice.Patricia416 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

False sock puppet allegations.

I'm currently defending myself against a fake report made against me alleging sock puppet abuse. I know I'm innocent and it's just a case of a disgruntled editor seeking to be disruptive. However, I wondered if there was any advice on how to defend against such attacks. (It's my understanding that false claims made against someone with little or no evidence are considered to be personal attacks.) Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims. Dolphin (t) 03:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for trying, but that is already the very first place I was guided to when I initially received this: investigation notice. I was actually hoping to get some more in-depth guidance than what is provided there, (which isn't much). Huggums537 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I realize nobody else has responded to this query anyway, but I thought it would be a courtesy to let others know the investigation just closed in my favor. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This seems a little backwards, doesn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_school The article for public schools is called 'state schools', a term which, evidenced in the lead section, is only used in England and Wales. I feel the article should be moved to 'Public school'. Thoughts?

TheTechnician27 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello TheTechnician27 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's not so easy. The term "public school" is overloaded, so that page is a disambiguation page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make State school a disambiguation page too, but then we would have to find a new title for this article. Maybe Schools funded from taxes? We could then cut out some of the convoluted explanations. Dbfirs 15:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is consensus that State school is the primary topic for public school and should be moved there, then the disambiguation page can be moved to public school (disambiguation) (which currently exists and redirects to public school).MB 18:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we would get consensus for that move. I was suggesting that both terms are ambiguous, but I can't think of a good alternative title. Dbfirs 09:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, excuse me. I was educated at an English public school which was founded in 627 AD. It is not a state school and never has been. That meaning of "public school" is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in UK, and may be also in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. "Public school" and "state school" are ambiguous terms. They mean different things in different countries. There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for either. Remember: It's all about the readers. Narky Blert (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what I said, though I've no public school background. Perhaps you intended a shorter indent? Dbfirs 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Narky Blert:, you're an Old Peterite? Nthep (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

How about "Public education"? I see User:Kwamikagami went ahead and merged Public education and State school in 2010. See talk at Talk:State_school#Merger proposal --Waddie96 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "private school" is reasonably unambiguous, so it's just the opposite that needs clarification. "State-funded school" might work, regardless of what "public" means to a particular reader. (Though there may be private schools with partial govt funding.)

— kwami (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone has erroneously, perhaps mischievously, deleted content

This question has been answered multiple times and the discussion is going nowhere

Hello everyone. Could someone assist with this: 10:26, 4 June 2017‎ 92.2.35.233 (talk)‎ . . (6,125 bytes) (-23,084)‎ . . (removing copyvio content added by user Fairchristabelle. stolen from http://englishessaypartners.co.uk/data/documents/William-Lever-and-Edith-Rigby.pdf) (undo) The "stolen" content is, in fact, my own work - I am both researcher and author. I think this edit may well be the work of a vandal FairchristabelleFairchristabelle (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC) You are presumably referring to this edit by the IP, in which case it can in no way be described as WP:vandalism, nor as mischievous. You had been warned earlier about copyright violation, and the process for donating copyright material was explained to you on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC) I have removed some more material from Edith Rigby, as a copyright violation of https://upclosed.com/people/edith-rigby/, which was added to the article subsequent to the original posting above. Fairchristabelle, please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Maproom (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC) I've restored that content – I see the page it was copied from says "The contents are available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license." My apologies to Fairchristabelle. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC) In fact, the statement at https://upclosed.com/people/edith-rigby/ makes clear that it is republished from the Wikipedia article, rather than the other way around. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Just to be clear, an acceptable reason for restoration is that it originated with Wikipedia. Had it gone the other way, it would be a problem, as CC BY-SA 4.0 is not an acceptable license.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC) What I do not understand is how can I be accused of copyright infringement by using a piece of original research (that's research undertaken by me) that has multiple, primary sourced citations? Where is this "warning" that I'm supposed to have received? What in God's name are you people about? FairchristobellFairchristabelle (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC) As I said, on your user talk page. If you haven't found it yet, it's at User talk:Fairchristabelle. For the benefit of other readers, the URL to which the IP referred in the edit summary (http://englishessaypartners.co.uk/data/documents/William-Lever-and-Edith-Rigby.pdf) is not currently available, but it was archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20170227064121/http://englishessaypartners.co.uk/data/documents/William-Lever-and-Edith-Rigby.pdf. I see that Fairchristabelle has readded the material which the IP had previously reported as a copyvio, so I have tagged it accordingly, and it can be investigated or Fairchristabelle can donate the copyright if they are the copyright holder. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Fairchristabelle, we can't just take your word for it that you are the author of that paper, and I would hope that you could understand why that is the case (I am reminded of On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog). If you are the copyright holder, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to donate the material. However, please note that it is often not appropriate to use material from an academic-style paper directly in a Wikipedia article. For example, an academic paper usually contains original research and analysis, whereas an encyclopedia article should just summarise the existing literature on a topic (perhaps including the academic paper in question). See WP:NOTESSAY on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Whose word would you take? I am the owner. Copyright registration within five years of first publication creates a legal presumption of ownership and validity. While copyright registration does not prove ownership of copyright, this legal presumption of ownership and validity constitutes a prima facie proof (on first appearance). Who is supposed to "donate"? My name is Maurice J. Halton MA PhD - I am the author of the paper/article entitled "William Lever and Edith Rigby An examination of the evidence relating to the burning of Roynton Cottage at Rivington, Lancashire on Tuesday 8th July 1913" If anybody needs to know if I am willing to allow Fairchristobelle to cite my research, just email me [mauricehalton@gmail.com] I am pretty sure that we are going to fall out big time TTFN Fairchristabelle (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Fairchristobelle (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC) The problem is that anyone could be claiming to be you, Fairchristabelle. How would you like it if that was the case? This is why we have the copyright donation process, which includes checks to ensure that are are who you say you are. I provided a link above, so if you want to donate the materials, then you can do so by following the instructions there. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Just to clarify: permission is not required to cite your research, but it is required to use large parts of it word-for-word. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC) The other problem is that anyone could be claiming to be anyone. My contribution has many cited sources - what we historians call "primary sources" - which are usually acceptable to our academic peers. Antiquarians and amateurs like you are evidently confused by such originality. Do you want me to ask the various libraries, archives and museums if I can quote them as contributors? What exactly do you want? More to the point, what do you not want? What do you consider to be "my research"? FairchristobelleFairchristabelle (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC) As previously stated, Fairchristabelle, there's no need to get permission to cite or selectively quote sources, but you can't copy large amounts of text from a source that is subject to copyright, without that material being donate as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. On the research/analysis point, I will give you a brief example. The text of Edith Rigby, before it was blanked, contained the sentence "However, although Roynton Cottage was luxurious – even palatial – compared to the homes occupied by most of the inhabitants of the small industrial towns it overlooked, when measured against Sir William's other houses, it was relatively frugal". Now, that is expressing an opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which isn't allowed. Opinions have to be attributed to their authors, so a better way to report the information would be to write "According to Maurice J. Halton, although Roynton Cottage was luxurious – even palatial – compared to the homes occupied by most of the inhabitants of the small industrial towns it overlooked, when measured against Sir William's other houses, it was relatively frugal". It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but an important one. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC) "... you can't copy large amounts of text from a source that is subject to copyright ..." if I cite myself, would that be copyrighted copyright, or an infringement thereof? Can I look at myself in the mirror? Can I, in fact and logically, copy text from myself? By the way, I think I have worked out who you are. FairchristabelleFairchristabelle (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Citing and copying are different matters. You can copy text from your own work, as long as you provide proof that you are who you say you are by following the simple instructions provided. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC) By the way, another issue with using this source text is that it appears to be self-published on your own website, Fairchristabelle. See WP:SELFPUBLISH on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Really? Citing and copying are "different matters"? Gosh! And "this source text is that it appears to be self-published"? What about all the sources that have been cited [you can read I suppose], and what about the whole article that was published in the Bolton Evening News in June 2013? If I undertake a piece of original research - in my capacity as a Doctor of Philosophy and therefore properly referenced and cited - do I need to get some local antiquarian to validate it? Am I who I say I am? I ask again, what exactly do you want? I give you: Can you tell me what is wrong with this citation? (in your own words, of course) FairchristabelleFairchristabelle (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC) References What's wrong with it is that it links to a "Sorry - We can't find that page" message. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Yes, well the citation is as follows: Halton, Maurice J. "New light shed on 100 year-old mystery of one of Bolton's most notorious historical events" The Bolton News [Bolton] 13 July 2013:[accessed 28 Jan 2017: http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10530886] My question was "Can you tell me what is wrong with this citation? (in your own words, of course)" Engage? (take your time) For what it's worth, Cordless Larry, I'd suggest disengaging, this user does not want to be helped. This is the teahouse, where we try to minimize conflict, so I'll engage with this user on their talk page instead of here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC) A question for Floquenbeam - what do you think it's worth? what do you think your snide remarks are worth? FairchristabelleFairchristabelle (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you serve tea at the tea house?

I want some tea73.74.141.157 (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello 73.74.141.157, A lad insane has poured you a cup of tea! Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Happy editing!
-A lad insane talk 01:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Facing deletion after several revisions

It seems as if the page I have built has been targeted. I'm unsure what to do to counteract this, the page that I'm speaking of is Accelo. It was deleted once again even after making serious changes. I'm unsure how to contest this at this point, frustratingly this was deleted by the hand of only a few people claiming that the article was cited using biased and non-independent sources (which is completely false). Additionally claiming that the depth of coverage was unsuitable which is of course also false. Previously I had this same article removed due to it sounding overly promotional, after cutting the fat completely and only maintaining unbiased sources and strictly necessary information the page is taken down once again. I would appreciate feedback on how I can do better in the next version of this page or any other page I write in the future. The deletion page for Accelo

Indycould (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Indycould, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am unable to read the deleted content, but several different editors have considered that your topic, as submitted, does not merit an entry in an encyclopaedia. If Wikipedia were a trade directory, then it would welcome such information, but the policy here, as befits an encyclopaedia, is to accept articles only when the topic has been written about extensively by independent WP:Reliable sources. If you can point to some such sources, then perhaps your article might be reconsidered, but you need to be aware that most editors here will be inclined to delete content that looks like advertising. Dbfirs 23:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Indycould. I'm sorry you're having a difficult time here; but looking at your contributions history, it does rather look as if you're here for the purpose of promoting Accelo, rather than helping us to build an encyclopaedia. My suggestion would be that you read Your first article and WP:GNG carefully, and then spend some time looking for references where people who have no connection whatever with Accelo have chosen to write at length about it, and been published in reliable places unconnected with Accelo. Several of the people who commented at the deletion discussion were of the opinion that such sources do not currently exist, so you have your work cut out.

If those people are right, and you can't find such sources, then my advice would be to give up. If you are interested in improving Wikipedia, then find something else to work on; but if you're only interested in promoting Accelo, then I suggest that you are never going to have a rewarding experience here.

If you can find such sources, then you can try creating a draft. If you yourself are connected with Accelo, you should declare your conflict of interest; if you are employed or in any way compensated by the company for doing this, then you must declare this fact, or you are in contravention of Wikipedia's terms of service: see WP:PAID. Then, you should forget every single thing you have ever known about Accelo and write your draft based solely on what those independent commentators have said. --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not so much targeted as not meeting minimum standards to be included. The review process was extended to allow for others to see what the situation was, and the conclusion was to delete. Part of the problem may be your not understanding what Wikipedia defines as independent sources. The COI and PAID issues mentioned above are EXTREMELY important to Wikipedia. If you have any connection to the topic of an article that should be stated either on your own Talk or the Talk of the article, preferably both. Especially if you are paid or otherwise being compensated by the company. David notMD (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I need my protected Page unprotected as I have various references and genuine links

My page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonu_ke_titu_ki_sweety , was getting rejected again and again, I talked to one of the administrator and they briefly elaborated me that my film have to be released in order to get my wikipedia page alive, so Now as my film is recently released can I get my page to be unprotected so that I can resubmit it to the community and get the page live, Please Unportect it, I have some genuine links to get it unprotected. --Anmol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmol.gan93 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Anmol.gan93, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I don´t think being released is an absolute requirement, it certainly increases the chance that there will independent WP:Reliable sources to base a WP-article on, like reviews in newspapers. Just existing is not enough. There must be independent sources that writes about this film in some detail.

Two things: According to these sources the film will be released in February: [2] [3]. And if this is your film, you are strongly discouraged to write an article about it per WP:Conflict of interest: "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Anmol.gan93. Please understand that Sonu ke titu ki sweety (which has now been deleted) was not "your arrticle" - nobody owns a Wikipedia article, and especially not anybody connected with the subject. If Wikipedia ever has an article on this film, it should be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the film have chosen to publish about it: Wikipedia has little interest in what the producer, director etc have said about the film, and no interest whatever in what they want to have said about the film. In addition to the links Gråbergs Gråa Sång and I have alredy given, please read about promotion, conflict of interest, and notability. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My article was rejected. I need help rebuilding a strong one with your expert advice

Hello,

This is regarding my 'Draft: Bhavya Sachdeva' which when requested to move to article was rejected and the stated reason was

"-This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

This is to certify that, I, Bhavya Sachdeva attempted to create my own Wikipedia page as an Indian Television, Actor owing to the fact, the audiences have started looking me up on google(thus in turn wikipedia) and are unable to find appropriate or factually correct information about me.

All the information provided in there is factually correct and I, Bhavya Sachdeva, have personally edited it. I am currently working for a televsion series,'Woh Apna Sa' on the channel 'ZeeTv' which is broadcasted on Indian cables connections and overseas as well.

I am well aware that this is my first attempt and I might not have the knowledge to draft an article which comply with the standards of Wikipdeia, I, therefore request you to assist me in this task.Bhavyasachdeva08 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bhavyasachdeva08, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that you are making the same mistake as many people do, in assuming that Wikipedia has anything whatever to do with promotion. If Wikipedia ever has an article about you, it should be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection whatever with you have chosen to publish about you. Wikipedia has little interest in what any subject says about themselves, and absolutely no interest in how they wish to be portrayed. People are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves, because it is likely to be difficult for them to write in a sufficiently neutral manner. Please read WP:NACTOR, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing stubs tool

Is there a tool that helps you determine what type of stub an article is, or something of the sort; instead of spending minutes searching through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types page? Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Nikolaiho and welcome to the Teahouse! If you are looking for a tool to make it easier to add categories/search for them by keyword(s), I would suggest giving HotCat a try. If that is not what you mean/you have tried HotCat and it isn't what you meant, please do let me know. Hope this helps somewhat. --All the best & happy editing, TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor, sorry I was being unclear. I didn't mean adding categories, I meant adding stub tags to the article. Thanks! NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: User:Epicgenius/stubtag or User:MC10/stubtagtab.js. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer reviewed and scholarly history sources?

According to WP:SOURCES, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Right now I am working on an American city article that will have a substantial History section that will be WP:SPLIT off. What databases/places have these "academic/peer reviewed" history sources? --Buffaboy ^talk 13:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Buffaboy. That passage may be slightly misleading in the way it's worded. For example, in medicine articles specifically, our guideline on medical sourcing differentiates not so much between peer reviewed and non-academic sources, but between primary front-line studies and things like meta-analyses and textbooks.

In my experience with history topics, books are often some of the best and most comprehensive sources available. It's usually good to do a quick check on the publisher and author to make sure they're reputable, and to keep in mind that more contemporary works are to be preferred over older ones. But having said that, it's perfectly possible to promote a page to Featured Article status without using a single peer reviewed academic source. I should, know; I've done it. GMG^talk 15:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that many of those books will have been subject to peer review in some form or another though, GreenMeansGo. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Uh, I guess that depends on how strictly you're using the term, but yes, if they're from a reputable publisher, there should be some level of editorial oversight. Although in the context of WP:SOURCES, books seem to be grouped under "other reliable sources". Personally, probably the most academic thing I've been want to use on history topics is the occasional thesis. But I would say as a rule to prefer reputable books published in the last few decades if possible, and don't stress terribly much about how many peer reviewed journal articles you may have at hand. Nothing beats a good old library card. GMG^talk 17:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo Thanks, and with books I guess it's just a matter of determining how close the author is to the subject as well. In the FA review of Arlington, Washington, the reviewers were concerned that authors of slightly older books were too close to that city as citizens, they wanted outsider/historian sources instead. Buffaboy ^talk 13:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Buffaboy. I got some fairly similar feedback at this FA review regarding period newspaper articles as references (I've since had a name change, FYI in case that's confusing). Certainly the closer a source is to the subject (both in relation and in time), the closer it gets to being a WP:PRIMARY source. The thing is, you can use primary sources in articles, you just... use them exceptionally carefully. So it might be fine to use them for dates, places, people... in other words, fairly uncontroversial things that are unlikely to change across time. But you wouldn't want to use them for major or potentially controversial claims, or things that are not likely to be temporarily true.

Beyond that, if they are used, it's often important to qualify the statements, rather than saying things in Wikipedia's "voice". So for example in that same article, I cite newspapers of the day (literally the day) for the number of goods that sat idle in the harbor because of the civil unrest, but I don't say it as fact. Rather, I say it as "what the newspapers said", so that readers have an idea of where the information is coming from. In cases like that, primary sources may be all that is available, since modern day books are unlikely to be concerned with how many head of cattle were sitting idle on a ship, even though that information may be useful to illustrate the economic problems caused.

Especially with history topics though, if at all possible it's beneficial to back up claims with two or sometimes more sources, especially if a significant period of time has elapsed, and you will often find that these sources can vary, sometimes wildly in the story they tell. In cases like that, the best thing we can do is say something like "Sally (1944) said X, while Tom (2001) said Y".

Hopefully this was somewhat helpful and not just a waste of time. Feel free to ask further if you'd like, or to stop by my talk page. GMG^talk 13:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that was an interesting explanation. I'll see how that relates to the Buffalo article soon enough. Buffaboy ^talk 14:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Buffaboy. Individual publishers have their own websites that feature content from the journals they publish. Some of the major ones include Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Elsevier and Springer. There are also some databases that include content from a range of publishers (sometimes after a lag of several years from publication), such as JSTOR. Some of these sites also include electronic versions of academic books. Beyond that, Google Scholar is a helpful resource for finding sources from a variety of academic publishers (although it also includes less reliable sources). One of the problems you are likely to run into is that accessing these sources often requires an individual or institutional (i.e. university library) subscription. Presuming that you don't have one of those, one way round that might be to investigate the Wikipedia Library. I hope that helps - do ask here if you have further questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Buffaboy ^talk 13:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see Elsevier in the above list. They are responsible for an entire bogus journal. Maproom (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but they're a major publisher nonetheless. Obviously, individual sources should be judged on their merits. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How to handle contradictory sources?

First timer here, so please forgive my ignorance. I'm researching the poet William Somervile for non-Wikipedia related reasons, and I noticed a discrepancy. His death date is given on Wikipedia and by various 19th century sources as July 19, but his tombstone (which I have seen in person) and some other sources (including Britannica) give July 17. I'm assuming the tombstone date is the accurate one, but I'm not comfortable just changing it in the article without some kind of explanation. When something like this comes up, is it necessary to explain in the article about the differing sources? Or can the edit just be made? (And how should I cite it? The most compelling source is the tombstone, but I've no idea how you would reference that.) Literarylizbeth (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Literarylizbeth and welcome to the Teahouse. Normally, Wikipedia discourages original research, but the date in our article is not referenced, so I would just go ahead and change it, citing the Britannica reference. If anyone disagrees, then a comparison of sources can be discussed on the talk page. Dbfirs 14:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Citing Comic Books

Hello, I have been trying my hand at working on Comic book character articles and I have come across a problem that I need help with. Right Now I am working on the Fictional Character Biography and I noticed that some of the sources that I am going to cite have information that necessitates its reuse multiple times throughout the article. However, I don't know how to do that without it being continuously listed in the reflist (it should only be listed once). I looked at the "Cite comic book" template page and I doesn't work the way I want it to work since the citation is not numbered nor does it appear in the reflist like I want it to. I was just wondering how I should go about doing it the right way?Paleface Jack (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once ~ GB fan 18:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How to change?

Hi,I'm Omega68537. How to change the color of words? Another question-- AFC reviewers,there are more than 2700 AFC submissions that are pending review now. The backlig level is now "Extremely backloged". What will you do to reduce the backlog? ~Omega68537(talk)Omega68537 13:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To answer your first question, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

When users ask how to change the color of words, they sometimes mean how to make blue text with a link. See Help:Link#Wikilinks for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To sort of answer your second question, Omega68537: who are you asking? Wikipedia doesn't have an administration department to assign work or take on jobs: it is an assemblage of volunteers, who work on what they choose. If you have a suggestion for reducing the backlog, I'm sure the guys at the Village pump would be keen to hear it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Dead man = "living person"

The biography of RICHARD E. CUNHA states he died in 2005, age 83. Why then does the article start with a template referring to a "biography of a LIVING PERSON"? This might be an error!104.152.249.30 (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the template. Thanks for notifying us. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

incategory:"2005 deaths" hastemplate:"BLP sources" and similar for other years finds many articles if somebody wants some work. Please verify they are not living or recently deceased, and consider using {{Refimprove}} instead of {{BLP sources}}. See Template:BLP sources#Usage. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer badge???

Is there something that I could put onto my profile to show that I can review pending changes, like the (this user is an administrator on Wikipedia (verify)) templates? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, my bad, I found it (guess i should check twice before asking) The Verified Cactus 100% 01:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to create page on the topic Polygalatenoside

After editing in sandbox how to create the page?Monoonejoy (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Monoonejoy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is already a box at the top of your sandbox with a "Submit your Draft for Review!" button on it; you can click it to submit your draft for another editor to review, however I would not do so yet, as the draft will need to be more extensive than one line. If you haven't already, you may want to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cropping a free license image for use in wikipedia article

HI,

In the past, I have been able to link images with free licenses from WikiCommons for Wiki biographies. Currently, I want to crop one image of two women scientists that exists on Wikicommons, in order to separate, and and obtain close up portraits of each person for their wikipedia article: Marina Elliott and Becca Pexiotto.

I initially downloaded their image photo, edited and cropped it into two separate images, and tried to upload to Wikicommons. I ran into difficulties doing that. I am not sure the best way to get each cropped individual image into each woman's Wikipedia biography.

Please advise

MauraWen (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen. I'm not sure exactly which image you're talking about, but in general freely licensed or public domain images uploaded to Commons can be cropped, etc. as needed. If you're having difficulties doing it yousrself, try asking for help at c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Instead of cropping an image in Commons, you can display it cropped in an article. See the two images at Barbara Grace Tucker for an example. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Templates for poorly written pages

Hello! I've stumbled across a questionable page (specifically Carl Esbeck), and I'm wondering which templates I should use to label the article for improvement. I cannot improve the page itself, so any help is appreciated. Thanks! Ｒａｎｇｅｄ Ｒａｎｇｅｒ (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've improved the article slightly. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ranged Ranger. This article is a mess, isn't it? I reckon it's bad enough that the main problems should be resolved by removing text rather than just flagging it. I suspect that the biography section, which is a long quote consisting of the majority of the content of the subject's university profile page, counts as a copyright violation. I will look to deal with this shortly. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

references issues

I'm sure this one is probably common but when it comes to notability issues, what if this person is a writer or author with a dense body of work? is he only accessible to wikipedia if he's expressly written about in NYT?? Pescobosa (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Pescobosa and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since you're only posing a hypothetical question, we can only give you a general answer. The "dense body of work" a writer has created is not, all by itself, something we can use to write an encyclopedia article about the writer. Someone else, independent of the writer, has to take note of that work and write some in-depth coverage before we would have something that Wikipedia would recognize as notability. It need not be the NYT, but it needs to be more than just local press. And Wikipedia is still very wary of accepting as reliable many types of newer media: blogs and other forms of online content that tend to be the product of individuals rather than organizations. Yes, this is a limitation, but no acceptable alternative has been found to insisting on reliable, independent source. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for someone to add the IPA context

Hello,

I am looking for someone to assist by adding an IPA translation for these 3 English Wikipedia articles Ivan Cankar, Boris Pahor and Janko Prunk, which all have an audio file of their name pronounciations. My other question is : Does the IPA context remain the same on all translated Wikipedias and does it get added to Wikimedia Metadata or does it have to be uniquelly IPA defined for each language Wikipedia ?

Thank you. 193.189.170.154 (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Gender issues in anime

In some recent anime, eg. Nanachi in Made in Abyss and Kino in Kino's Journey, there are differences of opinion on how to refer to characters who either display no gender, disguise their gender, or who use non-gender specific language to refer to themselves. Some contributors suggest using the plural pronouns (they, their, themselves, etc) in preference to he or she and other alternatives are: avoid using pronouns wherever possible, use he/she, him/her. The Chicago-Kent College of Law proposes a number of work-arounds. Does anyone know of any precedents in Wikipedia where this issue has been resolved? Ozflashman (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ozflashman. You might want to try asking this at WT:ANIME since the editor's in that WikiProject might be able better answer your question. This very question might have even be previously asked by someone else, so check WT:ANIME's talk page archives first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WikiProject Anime and manga. Ozflashman (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a redirect page

This has come up before and it will again, so I want to know how to do it instead of someone doing it for me.

There is a redirect page from Abraham Lincoln Brigade to XV International Brigade. I want to rename XV International Brigade page making it the Abraham Lincoln Brigade page, but cannot do so because of the redirect page.

I don’t want to get into here a discussion of whether that is a wise rename or not. I'd like to know the process, if someone will kindly inform me. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You need to read WP:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

does anybody know the name of the american whose participation in fast and furious resultyed in an 80 page judgement on how badly they broke our constitution and led to sequestration?

does anybody know the name of the American that received an 80 page judgement from the F.I.S.C. on how badly they broke our constitution and led to sequestration? 68.113.38.132 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think IP is talking about this ATF gunwalking scandal which is also know as Operation Fast and Furious. NZFC^(talk) 19:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Questions like this are off topic here, IP. You may want to ask at the Reference desk. We answer questions on how to edit Wikipedia here. Thanks, and if you have any questions that are in the scope of what we can help with, please come back. John from Idegon (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

document evidence

This is a really niche point. The entry for a particular person has the spelling (European accents) at variance as to how the family of the person write their surname.

I have a document that confirms how the name is spelt but it is not a published document for me to cite. How can I prove that the name is not spelt correctly, using this document, so that it might be changed? Heysford (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Heysford. It is very helpful to mention a specific article when asking such a question. The general principle is that Wikipedia summarizes what published reliable sources say about the topic. If published sources about this person spell the name in a way that you consider wrong, then so too will Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I do get that. The document I have was produced by the family of this person but I am no longer in touch with them. Again, I realise this is terriblt niche and the times just a circumstance occurs is very rare. Can I provide a scan of the document to be verified by a senior editor? Heysford (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Best way to explain technical term contained in a quote

What is the best way to offer a brief explanation of a technical term contained in a quote?

This question arose when I was editing Intersectionality, a B-class article about a rather dense academic topic (theory). One of the quotations contains the term "hegemonic structures", a phrase most readers probably have not seen before. We have two articles that provide insight into the term's meaning, Hegemony and Cultural hegemony.

I initially wikilinked "hegemonic structures" to hegemony, but then I wondered, "Should I link from within a quote?" The person quoted did not intend their term to be wikilinked. I therefore added an explanatory note at the end of the quote.

Section: Encouraging paralyses in attempting perfection. Sentence containing quote: They also say that intersectional philosophy encourages a focus on the issues inside the group instead of on society at large, and that intersectionality is "a call to complexity and to abandon over simplification... this has the parallel effect of emphasizing 'internal differences' over hegemonic structures."[67][a]

Is this the best way to accomplish my goal of helping readers understand an esoteric word or phrase? Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Markworthen, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are right, you should not link from within a quote. Brackets or explanatory footnotes are the way to go here; you can place wikilinks in either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Awesome - thanks so much Finnusertop. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

British

I recently noticed that in the opening line of the article for an actress, it said she was English. While technically correct, her nationality is actually British so I changed it. It was quickly changed back by someone else. I checked other articles for British people, and all of them I looked at say "English", "Welsh" or "Scottish" as opposed to British. But someone from the United Kingdom is of British nationality. Our passports list our nationality as such, for example. But wikipedia seems to go with the constituent country as opposed to the nationality as a whole - why? It would be like opening the page for an American and the opening sentence saying "This man is an actor from Florida". Or a "This lady is a Texan politician". But in both those cases, it lists the person's nationality first and then says more precisely where they are from later. Why is it different for British nationals? Stenun (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stenun, please see WP:UKNATIONALS as this has been discussed many times before. Please note we do not enforce uniformity because there is such disagreement about this discussion there isn't a hard and fast rule on which is right. If you feel it should be changed, please take it to the talk page of that article, don't keep trying to change it back as it can result in edit warring and nobodies wins. NZFC^(talk) 21:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Stenun. There has been much discussion on this. See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Changing an existing UK nationality and the rest of that article. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)