Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 806

Archive 800

←

Archive 804

Archive 805

Archive 806

Archive 807

Archive 808

→

Archive 810

Manual web cite

Okay, I've gone in frustrating circles for a while just trying to figure how to replace an obsolete link (footnote 7 on Osmosis, citing source for "osmosis can be made to do work"). The current reference is a link to a press release from 2007 about a Norwegian company planning a pilot project. I want to replace that with a link to a recent Hydro-Québec page about the same project and its successors over the years.[1] A better reference may exist, but I don't have a better one. I'm more than tired of this already so ideally I'd like to put the URL in the hands of an automated tool, then Preview to see if it needs cleanup, but I don't see a "Cite" widget in my browser, neither mobile nor desktop, and I haven't yet figured out how to do it all manually. Visual Editor seems to want to turn my URL into a numbered external link numbered 1, instead of a new reference in the list (so I was scared to publish that change. What I'm most afraid of is creating mistakes that make it harder for future visitors or editors, e.g. wrong info or slightly broken format.) - Egmonster (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Egmonster and welcome to the Teahouse.

I can't help with the visual editor, but if you use the source editor here are the steps: (I'm going to assume you've already opened the source editor on the Osmosis page)

1. We're going to add a reference so click after the closing ref tag on the Statkraft ref that's already in the article to select the insertion point.
2. In the bottom panel of the editor there is a "Cite your sources" label in front of a clickable button with ref tags in it. Click on the button.
3. In the top panel of the editor there is a "Cite" button. Click on it to expose the pulldown list of citation templates.
4. Click on the pulldown list of citation templates and choose "cite web".
5. A dialog box opens up. In the box labeled URL, paste in the URL you want to cite
6. If you click on the magnifying glass icon next to the URL box, it will look up the URL and fill in the dialog box based on what it can parse from the source
7. In this case, it can only find the title. It's up to you to fill in the rest of the fields, as best you can. You should be able to figure out how to fill in the website field and the accessdate field.
8. You can click on the Preview button if you'd like to see what it's going to look like.
9. When you're satisfied, click on the Insert button and the editor will insert the cite web template

Neither of these URLs feels like a proper secondary source, so I'd probably leave them both in there for now. Let us know here at the Teahouse if there's anything else we can do to help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I just add, Egmonster, that when I'm adding references from books, websites and journals, I tend to switch over to Visual Editor and paste in the url/ISBN/DOI or whatever and get the tool to automatically generate the reference. I then insert and click edit to add any extra fields I need. At the present time the one really big flaw (which is being addressed) is that you cannot allocate your new reference a simple name of your choosing. As you've noticed, VE automatically allocates :0, :1, :2 etc. So I then switch back to Source Editor, find the code for the reference I've just added, and go to <ref name=:0> and change it to a single, logical word, e.g. <ref name=Osmosis>. (You can use multiple words, but you have to ensure you surround them with quote marks. e.g. <ref name="Osmo Research Paper"> Don't be scared of using the VE tool in this way. You were nearly there. Were you to mess it up, you or another editor would easily be able to revert it by going to View History for that article, then finding your latest edit, click 'undo'. I think you were on the right track. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I determine/change the e-mail address that I have registered with Wikipedia?

I have been an editor for some time. A person on TH said it was confusing that my user name had no relation to my signature. I completed the form to change my user name and realized that I probably no longer have control of the e-mail address that I used to register for Wikipedia. Sorry but I cannot find out in the Help pages how to determine what e-mail Wikipedia has for me or how to change it. Thanks. Nicodemus (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:Preferences tells you your registered e-mail address (if any) and allows you to change it. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

About translating article

There is an article in some languages, but it's not in English. I would like to translate it. But the thing is, that I can only edit the article in one language (not english). How to make it English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janinana (talk • contribs) 11:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Janinana welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing the article you want to create here is about Arvydas Anušauskas. If your command of the English language is not sufficiently good to create the article yourself, you have a number of options, outlined at Wikipedia:Translation. My thoughts would be (assuming the article is very definitely noteworthy) include:

• Leave a note on that article's talk page, asking any English speakers to consider creating an English version here;
• Leave a note here at Wikipedia:Requested articles and hope someone will eventually create it;
• Leave a note requesting assistance at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania;
• Create the very simplest version (stub) that you can (with key references supporting just the key facts to establish notability!) with your limited language skills and hope others will pick up on it. (See this article I created in my schoolboy German, assisted by Google translate.Others have now made it quite a big article.
• Create a draft and submit via Articles for Creation.

Note that each wikipedia has it's own rules for Notability and has criteria for different subjects, too, such as WP:POLITICIAN. Be aware that if you translate an article directly from another language wiki, you must credit the editors of that article. Again, see Wikipedia:Translation for how to do this. Simply using Google translate is not sufficient to make an article of suitable quality - it still needs human input. I would also advise you create a userpage here, introducing yourself and your editing interests. By declaring your limited language skills, and stating you welcome assistance, you are more likely to garner support for any editing errors you might make. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

adding to wiki page

how do i add info to my own wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78bn (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@78bn: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is a Wikipedia article about you and you would like to see a change made to it, you may make an edit request on the article talk page. You should not directly edit the article, as autobiographical edits are highly discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you meant your own User page, just start writing. Should be about your intentions as a Wikipedia editor (not a profile). Look at other editors User pages to get ideas. David notMD (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know which wikipedia article has the most languages?

I know the Jesus article has a whole bunch, but does anyone know of any articles with even more languages? Is there a list somewhere of articles with the most languages? Airgum (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably the Wikipedia article. Vexations (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Airgum. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Languages and Special:MostInterwikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Finland, huh? Who'd have thought it? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter! Appreciate the help.

Cordless Larry Yea, that's the article I least expected to be written in the most languages. Have a theory on why Finland of all articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airgum (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Airgum: Probably one or a few Finnish editors creating articles in as many languages as they can. I examined a small Wikipedia language, Dinka language of Sudan with 69 articles. din:Pinlɛn has five words (I guess "Finland is country in Europe" without knowing the language) and a flag with no caption. It was created by a Finnish IP. There are many other small countries at Special:MostInterwikis so I guess others are playing this game. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Interesting reead. thanks! Airgum (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, like Monty Python sang, Finland is the country where we want to be. Pony trekking, or camping. Or just watching TV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Addition to the 27 Club

Please add Alan Christie Wilson of Canned Heat to the 27 club. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.106.3 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP, Alan Wilson, is already added to the 27 Club under the name Alan "Blind Owl" Wilson. NZFC^(talk) 21:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

revisuion history

When it says immediately remove unsourced material that may does that mean from gthe main page or all revisions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bludpuppy (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Bludpuppy It seems that you received an answer to your question on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick J. O'Rahilly already, and the admins are discussing its deletion there. Plus you have added an admin help request on your talk page but have not added a question below it. After you place your question under the admin help text then change the parameter from "no" to yes" and an admin will respond to your question. The welcome section on your talk page has some great links that you can read and become accustomed on how to edit. Another great place to learn is by taking the Wikipedia Adventure. Also, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages, the Teahouse and pages like the articles for deletion page with four tildes: ~~~~ Coryphantha Talk 01:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Stuck with an Editor

First I have to admit I am a new contributor to wikipedia. Long time Reader, first time contributor.

Hi, I have been trying to update some stale test data for a high school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acton-Boxborough_Regional_High_School We have added the changes and tried to follow the process, vetted changes on the talk page. Removed any opinions, etc.

Twice, a user has threatened to have us blocked and gives us a terse (rude) explanation of our transgressions. His intention seems to assert control through intimidation and not to teach. Obligingly, we try to take his advice. Again our edits are blocked and our now vetted changes are undone.

I was enjoying the process of adding content and wanted to contribute more to the community, however I feel like I am being expelled. This experience is taking away my desire to contribute. Care needs to be taken when dealing with new contributes, and threats of being banished are very discouraging and intimidating. We are just adding 3 test results I would be afraid to contribute any more work if the process is so painful for such obvious additions.

How do we make progress on this or should I just delete my user account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhiggins234 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The editor you have a disagreement with is an extremely experienced, long-time editor at Wikipedia. It's not him - it's you (although he is not hindered by an excess of tact). You did make clear that 'you' (you and your husband) have no conflict-of-interest with ABHS - good - but you have been trying to add information not supported by references, including, initially, this sentence: "The Acton-Boxborough Regional Schools continue their long history as an exemplary school district." Digging deeper into the exchanges, you repeatedly reversed John's deletions of your added content, which brought on a standard-worded warning of a temporary block. The purpose of edit-warring blocks is to allow tempers to cool. The key disagreement is that John does not consider the reference(s) you provided as sufficient for Wikipedia. Additionally, from him: "I have no objection to the reporting of the test scores... I also object to the comparative information, as the [Wikipedia] guidelines for school articles discourage making comparisons. Feel free to replace the test results." Other editors would have done the same. I personally regret that your initial dive into Wikipedia was so troublesome. I recommend you put down this particular topic and see if there are other articles you have an interest in editing. If you are adamant about editing the article, put in the scores, but not the ranking even if it is true and citable. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And I went to the article and removed all the comparative claims for the 2010-12 test scores as too old and not appropriate for Wikipedia articles about high schools. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Mhiggens234 added 2017 test score results in a manner that I consider neutral point of view and not promotional or bragging. Hope this settles the discussion. David notMD (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Mhiggins234, two things. Although I realize it is common not to, you really should read the agreement you made with Wikipedia when you registered an account. It clearly states that accounts are for individuals. You AND your husband are not allowed to use the same account. As you might guess, school articles attract a lot of kids, who sometimes think that the article on their school belongs to them. Your royal "we" was very off-putting for that reason and also because "we"s are not allowed to have editing accounts. Individuals are. You will need to decide which of you is going to use this account going forward. This isn't an egregious violation of username policy, but you cannot do it. Frankly if it hadn't been for your use of "we" repeatedly, no one would have known. Since content decisions on Wikipedia are made through consensus formed by discussion, representing yourself as "we" is problematic around here. Second, your communication style makes it difficult to work with you. Please realize that although you are working on just one article, most editors don't. I've touched approx. 250 separate articles this week. So....article talk pages are for discussing content of that article. Please keep any discussions you have there threaded, don't start repeated new sections, state your case concisely, and address any counterpoints in the same manner. User talk pages are for discussing other issues, such as but not limited to, editor behavior. It's best to keep conversations in one place. So if someone leaves you a message on your talk, reply to it there. If you leave a message on someone else's talk page, assume they will answer you there. There is a thing called a Talkback template that you can leave on another user's talk page to let them know you've answered them on your talkpage, but it's not necessary you leave one for experienced editors as most will add your talkpage to their watchlist if they leave you a message. There is a lot of minutia to learn in order to edit successfully here. One is to assume if another editor reverts you, especially when you are new like yourself and do not know much of the minutia yet, assume good faith that they do know what they are talking about and approach discussion with them in that fashion. Everything here is (in theory) (eventually) peer-reviewed, so getting your additions reverted are a fact of life. Don't make it personal, as it isn't. I work on a whole lot of different articles, for a variety of reasons, and frankly, I do not take as much time as I probably should for niceties. There are many editors here that deal with interaction just like me. If that is troublesome for you, you are probably going to have problems here. I'm not rude, just straightforward. If you want a hug, probably you should go see your mom or your pastor. I give all my hugs to my kiddo. Here, I come to improve this great encyclopedia. If you give me the impression that you are trying to get free promotion here, I am not going to be your friend. There is a big problem on Wikipedia with people using it for free advertising (and trust me, schools, even public ones, do promote themselves). If you want to see what I think of that, take a peek at my userpage). Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. John from Idegon (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Uploading logos

I would like to upload two logo files to the Northland Pioneer College wiki page. The editor says I am not a confirmed user yet. I have made more than four edits. The files I want to upload are the college logo and seal. They are not copyrighted but are the property of the college. I am the Director of Marketing for NPC and have the rights to use the images on behalf of the college.

• NPC Seal

• NPC logo

Can someone help me get these images onto the page? I want them in the right side box. Top should be NPC-Seal.gif and at the bottom should be NPC-Logo.gif. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Ann Hess — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahess74 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahess74, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages and at the Teahouse with four tildes: ~~~~ to help people know who they are talking to. Best wishes. Coryphantha Talk 18:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've commented out the actual images, as using them here is a violation of copyright. Fair use images are only allowed to be used in very specific situations, and this is not one of them. John from Idegon (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I

Help how do I create a page I forgot how to. Huff-Slush 19:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Huff slush7264 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huff slush7264 (talk • contribs)

Hi Huff slush7264, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to create a completely new mainspace page, the easiest way to do so is to search for the term, and then click on the dead link in the text: "You may create the page [PAGE LINK]." Alternatively, you can type the page in the URL by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAGENAMEHERE, but remember to replace whitespace with underscores. If you want to work on an article a bit before moving it to mainspace, do the same thing but create it as Draft:PAGENAME instead of PAGENAME. If you do it this way, then once you've gotten the article to a point where you think it's ready to be published, you can submit it for review via articles for creation (please note that this may take a while), or move it to the mainspace yourself. Before creating an article, it is highly recommended to read WP:Your first article and the notability guidelines. Hope this helps, and please let me know if you have any other questions!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't try to create a page in mainspace until you have learned how to provide references. As you were told in response to your question at #How do I get my article submitted above, you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners and take notice of what it says, and please don't keep submitting drafts which aren't properly referenced. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability

If someone's on itune and has lots of online published articles about him, and written interviews online, is he notable? Just want to check before I create the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayabks (talk • contribs)

@Nayabks: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Merely having music available on iTunes does not necessarily make one notable, though articles in independent reliable sources may do so, if they show the person meets the notability guidelines as WP:BIO.(there are also more specific guidelines for some career fields like musicians, politicians, etc.) It is difficult to say more than that without knowing who it is you are talking about. I would note that if you represent this person, you will need to read about confict of interest.

I would suggest that before you dive right in to article creation, which is probably the hardest thing to do successfully on Wikipedia, that you take some time to learn about how things work here and what is looked for in articles. You may wish to use this tutorial as well as read Your First Article. You will also be much more successful if you first make small edits to existing articles in your area of interest, which will help you learn about editing. Once ready, you should use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for an independent review by another editor, so you can get feedback on it before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards. Please keep this in mind. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Actually that's the issue, he's not on big news websites, because they don't cover rappers there unless the rappers are extremely popular. However, he is notable and people walking down the street do stop to take photos with him in Pakistan. We're a third world country, and sources like BBC would never cover the notable rap starts of here, because that still is too small of a topic for them, considering they are an international body. However, he has approximately 65K subscribers on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkIiT7UVrf0IJgqLbe8KJGA) I'm a big fan of his new song that he's made to bring reform in the country. He's everywhere on the local music websites, channels, interviews. People review and react to him on youtube as well. My point is, he most definitely is notable.

On creating the page myself, I've read the matter and I have made 10 edits, waiting to become an auto-confirmed user. I do understand how Wikipedia works and what kind of a process editing here is, will read thoroughly about creating the page once I become an auto-confirmed user. If you just look at his youtube and let me know if he's notable enough or not. You can also google "Chen-K" to clearly witness that he is.

Thank you! Nayabks (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nayabks: If this person is a musician, then they must meet one of the notability criteria at WP:BAND. This person does not have to be written about by the BBC, they just have to have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicates how they meet the notability criteria. That can be Pakistani media or any reliable source. His YouTube subscriber levels are not relevant to his notability. It is not difficult to game subscriber numbers(for anyone), and whether they have 65,000 subscribers, 65 subscribers, or 65 million subscribers, it doesn't matter if they are not written about in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look into it. I don't agree you on that, and will actually like to go through a process where wikipedia would now consider authentic youtube subscribes as a sign of notability as well. There is a class of people in this generation that chooses to be independent of other media and broadcast themselves. But you guys also have a point here that the final stage of notability is when a person gets published, however a live encyclopedia like Wikipedia should be aware of anybody who's on any level of notability. I really appreciate the guidance mate, thanks again! Nayabks (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about checkuser

Hello wikipedIa :)

I move around a bit as a truck driver and on my down time I enjoy reading various articles here and fixing minor issues whenever I see them — but I’ve noticed that sometimes my IP is blocked by one of a handful of administrators based on “checkuser evidence.” Now, I understand what that means and why the system is in place (to keep the site free of sockpuppets); but I’ve been trying to figure out exactly what the issue was with some of my stops... I wasn’t able to track down a related sockpuppet investigation or piece anything together by looking through the contributions and action logs of the blocking administrator.

My question: is this normal? I thought that Wikipedia had an established system in place for explicitly requesting an admin to use those privileges to address a specific issue related to an editor, with behavioural evidence like similar editing patterns or activity on particular articles etc.? What I’ve seen lately, looks more like checks being conducted for no reason. I’m pretty interested in how these things go, since again, I move around truck stops all over the country (and very often the IP is blocked). I’d like to create an account, but I am worried that I may be branded a sockpuppet or sock puppeteer simply because I chose the wrong stop. Thanks in advance for any clarification etc.!

Respectfully, Trucker Toby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.68.148 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello anonymous IP user (Toby). Welcome to our Teahouse. I can't explain how checkuser works, or why you've experienced those particular issues, but neither can I explain why you are so concerned about creating a user account. To be frank, that is the best way to go, if you're moving around a lot. I've edited in England, Wales, France, Germany and Switzerland, and maybe even Canada someday soon. The simplest way is to create and login with an account, as you suggest, and all your edits will always be associated only with you, irrespective of any issues with any other IP address. Unless an editor experiencing the sort of issues you've reported had something to hide, I see no reason why they shouldn't register and create a user account. I'm sure in your case it would be the best thing to do. Sorry I can't give you a fuller answer. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I can understand Toby's concern. He fears that if he registers an account, and an admin with checkuser power finds that he frequently edits from IP addresses that are also used for malicious edits, it will reflect badly on him. (I think he is mistaken; but I don't know enough about how checkuser is used to be certain.) Maproom (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, his worries are very much misplaced. We get severe disruption from school IPs, and our advice to individual good editors there is to register for an account. The user can always log in via that disruptive IP address as normal without there being any association with the other problem users (providing they do themselves edit in an appropriate manner - and Toby sounds like he's made of the right stuff.) This is very definitely the way forward for him. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'm revealing any secrets (and I'm not a checkuser myself, so don't have access to them) when I write that, as far as I understand the tool, an IP address match is only part of the evidence available in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The second part of the technical evidence is the User-Agent (roughly: what browser version you use). But the more important thing is that checkusers "do not go on fishing expeditions": to run a checkuser on users A and B, you need behavioral evidence linking the two, so if (logged-in) user A sometimes edits from an IP matching B's, B's actions will not cause a checkuser verification of user A if they do not seem closely related to A. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

citing aources

Is there any automated tool to add reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispgatoglitz (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, use the Cite tools in the toolbar above the edit window, then choose the source type in the template drop down. The pop-up is almost self-explanatory!--Petebutt (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And how to do that in android? Crispgatoglitz (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that Cullen328 regularly edits from an Android device, so he might be able to offer some advice here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Crispgatoglitz. I recommend using the desktop site for serious editing on Android devices. Personally, I use citation templates to create references because I want to have complete control of how a reference is presented. But all the various automated tools work just fine on Android devices through the desktop site. You may be interested in an essay that I wrote, Smartphone editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

getting articles published faster

i will like to find out how i can get my articles published faster and more importantly edited by a peer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk25sweet (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kk25sweet. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Okojie Peter Arebamen. That article cannot possibly be approved in its current form, because it is unreferenced. Please read and study Your first article, and edit your draft to bring it into compliance. Please also read our notabilty guideline for association football players. You may be able to get some assistance at WikiProject Football or at WikiProject Nigeria. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What does dmy mean?

Some arricles have a “Use dmy” thimg. But does that do anything? HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 18:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back HorsesAreNice, good to see you again at the Teahouse.

The template simply puts editors on notice of the preferred date style - Day Month Year - in the article if they open the article for editing. It is not visible to regular readers and has no visibility in the rendered article. It does not, all by itself, enforce a date style. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There are bots and automated tools that recognise the template and fix dates that don't match it. Same with the ENGVAR templates. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 @HorsesAreNice: It's basically a heads-up that an article (intentionally) uses the day, month, year ordering of dates and that folks shouldn't "correct" those to other date orders (e.g. month-day-year). It also means new dates added to the same article should use the same date format. (Imagine how confusing it could get if an article uses 12-7-2018 to refer to 12 July 2018, but also uses 12-6-2018 to refer to 6 December 2018.) There's a similar template for month-day-year orders. It's basically the calendrical equivalent of metric vs. imperial measurements or British vs American (vs Indian vs Canadian vs Australian etc.) English. Neither system is itself wrong, though preferences are strongly geographically linked; mixing them up in one article on the other hand creates a whopping mess.

If a subject has a strong affinity with one over the other(s), the affiliated system should be used (e.g. miles on American highways; British English on British political parties; stuff like that). If no such affinity exists, whichever system is used by the first major article contributor should be used. (For more info and exactly how "first major contributor" is defined, see MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:RETAIN. AddWittyNameHere 18:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Then who adds the date? HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 18:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I see we're all falling over ourselves here...

Ambiguous all-numeric date forms are always deprecated. Neither 12-6-2018 nor 12-7-2018 (or even 12-31-2018 which is, strictly speaking, not really ambiguous) should appear in an article except in cases where it can't be avoided in a URL, a title, or a quote. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

True, but plenty of folks do add them anyway and it's a lot easier to fix them to acceptable formats if it's at least clear whether they meant 6 December 2018 or 12 June 2018. But you are right that I could have used better examples and should probably have noted that point. AddWittyNameHere 18:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User:HorsesAreNice The date on the template itself can be added by the editor who placed it there or a bot will come along later and give it a date. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Frantz Manufacturing company

We would like the world to know about our unique offerings. Please search "The Frantz Manufacturing Company" and it shows what we would like to do as well. How do we go about doing the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanatUSDI (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DanatUSDI, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer to your request is "Please find a site where publicising yourself is appropriate. Wikipedia is not such a site." Wikipedia is an encyclopadia, which summarises what has already been said about a subject. Promotion of any kind (which means "telling the world about something") is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting an article

Hello,

I am trying to request someone write an article regarding Shaun and Delylah Tara. I do not have any experience in writing articles of this nature and I am far too emotional about it to write it subjectively. Would someone be willing to write an article for them? I have been all over Wikipedia trying to figure out how to submit this request, if this is the wrong way to go about it, I apologize.

JMSS2018 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)JMSS

Hello, JMSS2018, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is one of the questions we quite often get, that there is no really good answer to. The notionally correct answer is to post a request at Requested articles, and you can certainly do that; but the truth is that many requests simply do not get picked up. Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers, who choose what they want to work on, so simply putting a request in a list is not necessarily very attractive to one of them. You might get a better response if you find a WikiProject that is relevant to the subject - check that the WikiProject is active (not all are) and post a request at it's talk page: the advantage of this is that people who read that page are already interested in the subject.

There are a couple of things you could do to make your request more attractive to somebody. One is to write it in a way that engages the reader's interest. I don't mean hype it up, but explain why you think it would be interesting to research and write such an article (not why you think it would be good to have such an article! Everybody requesting an article automatically thinks that, so it's not really a draw). Secondly, you could do some of the leg work. Writing a good Wikipedia article starts with the sources: you shouldn't write what you know, but what the sources say. So if you were to find some reliable published sources about the subject (eg major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers), and cite them in your request, again, it might make it more attractive for somebody to pick up. See identifying reliable sources for more on that. --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try the mentioned suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMSS2018 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Title change of a page I created

I created a page named ndufaf8, but it should have been titled NDUFAF8. How would I go about changing this title? When I search NDUFAF8, the ndufaf8 page comes up, not allowing me to neither delete the incorrectly-named ndufaf8 page nor create the correctly named NDUFAF8 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adas2-9939-5190 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adas2-9939-5190, you can use the "Move" function to move it to its correct name. I have fixed this one already but it quick and painless should you need to do it again. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Overly detailed, poorly cited essay included in page - how can I fix this?

Hi there, I'm a relatively inexperienced user here, however the page about my hometown strikes me as needing a lot of work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware,_Ontario

The history section includes a very long, overly detailed and poorly cited essay. Reading the history tab, it seems most of the page was written by a person who 'put this history of Delaware together for my grandchildren'. While the content of the essay is interesting, I don't think that it really belongs in an encyclopedia.

I'm hoping this is the right place to get some guidance on how this section should be properly edited, or if it should simply be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezakhiago (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the section. Some of the material was taken from a copyrighted source (and not a reliable one, either). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did you determine for sure that it came from a copyrighted source? There was a tag up that it may violate copyright but I wasn't able to determine if that was true or not. Tezakhiago (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector to find and Duplication Detector to confirm. It's not 100%, and (as you'll see on the talk page), I found that the section may not have been a copyvio. Still wasn't good for the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't use Visual Editing on this page--why?Artatra (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Update...Problem resolved.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artatra (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to use the visual editing function on this page, but it doesn't seem to be functioning. Is there any reason why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_translators — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artatra (talk • contribs)

@Artatra: It doesn't appear to be a specific issue with that page, but visual editor itself. I'll post something at the technical village pump about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: The creator of the page did something and it appears to work now. Thanks, Artatra (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

All be please to join

Been waiting so long for that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minas12345 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Minas12345 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that you have not asked a question about editing Wikipedia. That's what the Teahouse is supposed to be for. This is another in a sequence of edits you have made that do not appear to serve any useful purpose. Again, I say straighten up and fly right! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Any possibility that Minas12345 and Mikepipo are sockpuppets or tag-team vandalizers? David notMD (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not here to edit a wikipedia, dozens of useless edits. Shushugah (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot edits may be appearing when they should be filtered out

I was looking at Recent changes and I noticed an edit from User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable. However, I checked and the "Human (not bot)" filter was clearly active. Therefore, I'm not sure why the edit would appear in that case, and I've never seen such a thing occur before. Unfortunately, the edit quickly disappeared off Recent changes, so I technically have no proof, but I am sure I actually saw this happen. It's pretty minor anyway, but I am just asking this to check if someone knows why this sort of thing would happen. Diamond Blizzard (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please re-review this article.

I have been working on the articles about national anthems of Bulgaria, and Shumi Maritsa is one of the articles that I greatly improved. This is my contribution to the article. This is the condition of the article before I improve, and this is the condition of the article after having been improved by me. I have rated the article C-class. Can someone asses this article to see if it is viable for the B-Class? Thanks.

Another article that I have improved is Mila Rodino. Compare the conditions before and after. --Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael Welcome to Teahouse. Based on the Content assessment criteria, of Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, Shumi Maritsa falls under start to C and definitely no B class. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: What information should I add so that it reaches the B-class article? Thanks. Compare to the smaller article about the national anthem of Lithuania that attained WP:GA. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael Hi the assessment was done wrongly by a user in 2007 - see HERE who has been blocked indefinitely and no longer in active - see here . I have reassessed the article to be C and could be arguably a start class. Content assessment criteria does provide information what is needed and what is lacking - pls see Criteria (open the window pls), Reader's experience and Editing suggestions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I don't think you should remove the GA tag, there Talk:Tautiška_giesmė#GA_Review have been a discussion about the GA status. Please do not remove a good article without consensus. I think that you have a very high standard about assessment. Taustika Giesme qualifies for B class in my opinion. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael Discovery of the neutron is a GA article example, I dont think Tautiška giesmė as achieved such. on Tautiska giesme talk page has not consensus of assessment standing and that thread was on 2007. You are welcome to contest and open a discussion. It is not I have a high standard, but mainly follow the guidelines for it is not only the length, but the depth, sources, manual of style and many other things which required an article to achieve certain standard to assess as GA, although other might disagree with my assessment. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

How to delete? Can't find delete option

Hello, i was trying new article wizard and created Draft:Draft by Pansy by mistake. Help me delete it. I can't find delete button. thanks in advance.Copecpansy Copecpansy (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Copecpansy:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Deletion is only done by administrators, other editors can request it by adding certain tags on top of pages. You can nominate your own pages for deletion by adding {{db-author|rationale=explanation here}} on top of the page (I have done that for you already). You'll find more information about this and other "speedy deletion" rationales at WP:G7. If you have further questions about article creation or Wikipedia-editing in general, please feel free to ask here anytime. GermanJoe (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. it is deleted now. Copecpansy (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Lunar Eclipse on July 27, 2018

Hello! The page Lunar eclipse is semi-protected, so I can't edit it. But I noticed there is no one who has put the total eclipse from 27 July (today or yesterday, depending on where you are) so if any administrator has got a picture of the eclipse, I'm asking any you to post that image showing the eclipse.

- Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Biscuit-in-Chief. If you click on the padlock symbol at the top of the article, it will take you to WP:SEMI, where there are instructions on how to request edits to a semi-protected article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Oh, never mind, I can edit it now for some reason. But thank you anyway :-) - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to create a page for SOUNDOME

Hi Wikipedia,

I want to create an entry for SOUNDOME. Its my creation, and I dont want to be talking about myself. How do I go about getting someone to write a neutral entry?

Thanks,

Tom Watts, SOUNDOME.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundomelive (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Soundomelive. There are a few things you need to know:

1. Articles don't get written on Wikipedia just because a person/company/organization wants to have one. Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics - those have attracted significant attention from the world at large over a period of time. We consider writings from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. If your product has not already received significant coverage from multiple, unaffiliated writers, then it will not be considered worthy of inclusion.
2. Wikipedia is not a place for you to publicize your product/work. It's not a place for something or someone to become notable - as previously stated, it is for topics that are already notable.
3. Writing about your own work is considered a conflict of interest. It is not prohibited outright but highly discouraged, due to the inherent difficulty in writing from the required neutral point of view. Please refer to Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide to learn why this is the case.
4. Wikipedia has a policy about account names. One of its rules states that an account name may not represent a company, organization, website or product, which unfortunately yours does. An account can be blocked from editing on these grounds alone. You can prevent this from happening by requesting a change of username.

I'm sorry this message isn't more favourable. Best of luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User page blanked and account blocked. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dinu Li page

Hi everyone - Vicarage bobby (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Nick Moyes kindly gave me advice about reworking this page - which I have done, so it would be great if someone was happy to remove the critical template at the top of the page (I don't feel it's in the right spirit that I should do this myself!). I have reduced the Intro and Life sections to the bone, less than 200 words, I don't see how I can make it shorter.

Now the only bit that now actually describes his work (processes and themes and subject matter, i.e. the reasons why he should even be in Wikipedia in the first place) is headed 'Selected Work' and is less than 500 words. After thinking how best to clearly describe his recurring processes and themes and subject matter, I decided it was most efficient to describe a small, representative selection (six) of his (many dozens) of artworks. I have avoided any art-jargon. Here's hoping it now meets with approval! All the best Vicarage bobby (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Vicarage Bobby

IMO, descriptions of Dinu Li's work far too detailed. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Butthurt Lithuanians.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My edit on some articles was reverted by a Lithuanian. Summary :

• The first edit, on which I put in the anthem of the USSR alongside the anthem of Lithuania that indicates a prove that at a certain point, [Tautiška giesmė] is used as the anthem of the Lithuanian SSR, was reverted. I think the revert had some political motiffs.
• The second edit, on which I change the photograph of the young Jonas Žemaitis to a more recent photograph in 1953, was reverted. Again, the revert had some political motiffs.

These changes were done by Ke an. Please resolve this problem.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The better place to take this up is at the Talk pages of the two articles. You could invite Ke an to the discussions. Be aware that Ke an has made hundreds of edits on many articles related to Lithuania. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael: Wikipedia is a collaborative project and treating your fellow editors with respect is not optional. So, please, drop the childish nationalistic insults and, if you have a disagreement with Ke an, talk to them about it. – Joe (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: "Be aware that Ke an has made hundreds of edits on many articles related to Lithuania." Remember Philip Cross? --Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD:, Is it a Wikipedia for racists' discussions? Sorry, but I have self-esteem and will not tolerate that $%#$@^. No discussions are possbile that way. -- Ke an (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken page history?

Something is weird about the page history at national vaccine information center, I can look back at past diffs as usual, but when I try to view a past revision of the page, the infobox still shows up as it does now, see here [2]. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Tornado chaser:, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am assuming you are asking about the display of "mission" and "slogan" in old article versions? A view of logged article versions in history uses the actual version of transcluded templates in the article (it's likely a lot faster this way). These two parameters have been removed from the infobox template a few months ago (see history of Template:Infobox organization). So the article's history view treats them - according to the currently used version - as unknown parameters and omits them. GermanJoe (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Thanks, I didn't know these parameters were removed, that also resolves the content dispute at nvic. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

corrections

It has come to my notice that in the thumbnail reference to my Wikipedia biographical article (is "thumbnail" the right term for the brief summary that comes up from a Google search?), a reference has appeared to my death! "Died: 2018" . I am not dead! I can find no way to edit this error - please help. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angolkarmester (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should have read our policies and guidelines about editing with a conflict of interest and not writing an autobiography. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Angolkarmester, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you are Howard Williams (conductor). The Wikipedia article makes no claim of death.

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You should be able to use this link to bring up the feedback form, and then just click on the 2018 and tell them you're very much alive. It may take more than a few times, so maybe bookmark it into your calendar for a daily reminder. [[3]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding sort feature to "What links here" to only show pages in article space

I took a look at the July 2018 DAB cleanup project and noticed that most of the links that appear when you click on What Links here are talk or user pages. See [[4]] for example. It would be easier to see and fix the DAB errors if there was a way to filter out everything else. I wind up cutting and pasting into Excel, and sorting to group the talk, user, wiki, etc. pages together. Is there a better way? Right now, there are three filters - allowing users to hide transclusions, hide links or hide redirects. How about hide/show namespace as a fourth option? Is there a better place to make a feature request than the tea house? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Timtempleton The top of WhatLinksHere has a namespace selection box. If you don't see it then how are you accessing Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Doh! Didn't see that - got stuck in the filters section. Thanks. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing links to incorrect articles

Hello,

Is it acceptable to remove a link if it points to the wrong Wikipedia article ? I couldn't find a general answer in the guidelines, the help desk archive, or the teahouse archives.

For example: The Papal conclave, 1362 article mentions participant Hugues Roger but points to Hugues Roger, a 20th century sprinter. Evidently, these are two different persons. Is it OK to simply remove the incorrect link, or is there a more preferable solution ? (except for writing a completely new article)

thanks, Kwakeroni (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kwakeroni: good catch! Looking at the pages that link to Hugues Roger, 7 of the 9 articles that link there actually refer to the cardinal, so it seems like it would be a good idea for that article to be created. There is no obligation for you to create it, of course, but what I'd do is change the Wikilink to one that points to a plausible article title, such as Hugues Roger (cardinal). It would be fine just to remove the link as well, though. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Write the link as [[Hugues Roger (cardinal)|Hugues Roger]] to produce Hugues Roger. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

There are articles on Cardinal Hugues Roger in the French, Italian, Norwegian and Polish Wikipedias, so yet another option would be to use the {{ill}} (interlanguage link) template. This will produce a red link but also a links to the article in other languages, giving readers at least the possibility of reading about them, and encouraging editors to translate the article into English. Like so: {{ill|Hugues Roger (cardinal)|lt=Hugues Roger|fr|Hugues Roger|it|Ugo Roger|no|Hugues Roger|pl|Hugues Roger}} → Hugues Roger. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I took Joe's suggestion and changed the links on the 7 articles. Maybe I'll find the time one day to translate the French article. Kwakeroni (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)