Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 873

Archive 870

Archive 871

Archive 872

Archive 873

Archive 874

Archive 875

→

Archive 880

‎Immediate Closure of an RfC (without time for "C's" to be made)

Re: Immediate Closure of an RfC (without time for "C's" to be made). The Teahouse is primarily where new or newish editors can come to ask general questions about editing. This discussion has moved way beyond that point and should be continued at another more appropriate noticeboard or a relevant talk page.

An RfC (Request for Comments) that I posted was closed (initially) within 90 minutes of being posted - perhaps even faster. The reason provided for closure was that the RfC did not utilize the appropriate template and/or formatting. It makes perfect sense that this should be pointed out to me as a new editor. If I was an editor with more knowledge I may have gone to the trouble to correct the error and insert the "rfc template" for the post in order to help the proposer (me in this case). But that editor did not and instead simply closed the discussion off, immediately. Next other editors (fewer than 4) came back in and even though the discussion closure instructions said to not to make any additional updates, more than one editor changed the reason for closure and commented WP:POINT(meaning that I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). Another editor also suggested that I was violating WP:SNOW (that my request for comments didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of either being answered or more likely leading to the outcome that I was proposing). (This last Wikipedia clause WP:SNOW in general seems rather dubious, as it presumes to know what Wikipedants and/or Wikipedia editors all seem to think in advance of any kind of discussion.) As the RfC was now closed, within minutes, I thought that it best not to simply revert and to sleep on it. The next day, today, I decided that what I should do is address the initial concern (that I did not use the template) and then fill out my arguments and my supporting documentation a bit. I also directly addressed the other suggested Wikipedia violations in my "Updated RfC". Unfortunately I feel as though a few editors essentially are trying to bully me to "sit down and be quiet" as within minutes, again, an editor had effectively closed the discussion. This time an editor came along and disregarded the Discussion Suggestions, deleted the RfC template and removed the RfC ID that the bot put in place. The following messages, some might characterize one of them as a threat, were left on my talk page: 1. Please read wp:tenditious, having had an RFC closed and then (virtually straight away) reopening the same one differently worded is not going to end well. 2. You might also want to read wp:point, please stop this now. 3. I have re-closed that section on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Per the previous warning by UserX, I'm telling you now that if you continue disrupting that page, you will be blocked. My question is how should one go about having a reasonable RfC (without seeming to be edit-warring or disruptive) so that the darn thing will stay open long enough for people to weigh in. Does it make sense to make an Administrative Complaint about the editors involved as their behavior clearly did not assume positive intent and completely disregarded the suggestions for the discussions in the second RfC as well as the instructioin not to edit post close for the first page. To judge for yourself regarding these RfC's please see this page. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard New York Times RfC and Updated RfC: New York Times Wcmcdade (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC) That was an obviously vexatious RFC; we are not going to deprecate using the New York Times as a source. Please don't reopen it yet again; as has already been explained to you, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is grounds for blocking. ‑ Iridescent 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Please consider that by your statement that the NYT RfC was vexatious, we would also consider the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence as being equally so. You also seem to speak for a group when you say that, "we are not going to deprecate using the New York Times as a source." May I ask who the group is that you are speaking for? Otherwise your comment seems to lack WP:AGF.Wcmcdade (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Oh, knock it off. You have your answer already, and this is not the Magna Carta. Bradv🍁 22:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Wcmcdade: My advice is to wait for the current RfC to conclude, and then start a conversation at WP:RSN and see if other editors agree with you that this RfC is worth having as a community. And of course, you should thoroughly read the advice left for you at WP:RSN and on your talk page. Bradv🍁 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC) So the RfC has already concluded even though it does not appear as such. That's how "tricky" folks are being. By removing the RfC ID, it is no longer listed for feedback and is minimized on the page. So the chances of anyone actually leaving a comment are slim to none. Also, I thoroughly read the advice left. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC) I meant the current RfC about the Daily Mail, which prompted this. Wait for it to conclude. Bradv🍁 21:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC) I see. Another editor also suggested that my RfC was about the Daily Mail. This is NOT about the Daily Mail. While that RfC did lead me to consider and ponder the nature of RS and periodicals, my RfC that was arbitrarily snuffed out, was only about the NYT. So I do not plan to wait for that discussion to close. I will pursue within the rules and spirit of the rules of Wikipedia the fairness of how my RfC's have been treated and edited - which to me so far seems rather shameful. Wcmcdade (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC) @Wcmcdade: This discussion has long past moved in a direction which is not really suitable for the Teahouse. There are other noticeboards which are more appropriate for this type of thing. WP:FORUMSHOP is not helpful in resolving things such as this and actually is often seen as being disruptive, tendentious or a bit of both. Perhaps you should take this to WP:RSN as suggested above since that's where disagreements over reliable sources are often resolved. If you try to continue discussing this here, another host is likely going to collapse this discussion as being off-topic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC) While Marchjuly's assessment above (that the whole thread is getting derailed fast) is probably correct, I still think the correct answer has not been given yet. @Wcmcdade: You should not have reopened an RfC immediately after its closure, even if you think the closure was premature or incorrect. Instead, if you believe the closure was incorrect, you should ask for it to be reviewed as appropriate, i.e. by contacting the closing editor first and by escalating to WP:AN second per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing. (FWIW I strongly recommend you do not pursue this.) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you for this direction. To be clear, instead of reverting any changes on the first RfC, I assumed positive intent and rewrote and utilized the template for the RfC. In my view I was addressing the concern that the initial editor had in closing it. And while I didn't think that it deserved closure, I was in agreement and could see that I had not used the template requested. So in opening an "Updated RfC", I thought that I had addressed the initial concern which was the template and the formatting. Secondly, I did not reach out to the additional editors (only the first editor) who closed as I felt that they'd really sort of broken the rules by editing the RfC after it had been closed. Since they'd kind of blatantly broken the rules, I didn't see a reason to reach out to them. It seemed as though they were not interested in conversation. Afterasll on an RfC (it's not a published article afterall) they could have simply had conversation with me in the discussion section. Perhaps next time I will reach out to more editors directly. Lastly, thank you for the advice on going to WP:AN that's what I will pursue next. Much appreciated.Wcmcdade (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Wcmcdade, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's important to understand that you're not always going to get what you want. For example, in October, I started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Interviews that faced strong opposition, and I withdrew it when it was clear that my opinion was different from the community consensus. Since Wikipedia is a community effort, we should respect this consensus even if we personally have different perspectives, because that's how the project as a whole moves forward. If you have ever participated in any type of group project in a school, company, or some other organization, the same principles of teamwork apply for editing on Wikipedia as well. Since the reliable sources noticeboard is a high-traffic page, discussions tend to be closed early when it is clear that the proposal would not gain community consensus. For example, earlier this year, there were two RfCs on the reliability of Fox News that were closed without extended discussion. The first one was withdrawn by the proposer, and the second one was closed by another editor. This is a common practice at WP:RSN, and you aren't being singled out for your opinion. I agree with Tigraan in that taking this issue to the administrator noticeboard would be highly inadvisable. When I clarified the RfC instructions, I wanted to give you the right answer so you would be better informed of Wikipedia's procedures. However, just because a course of action is available to an editor doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to take that action. Since The New York Times has a long list of awards, including more Pulitzer Prizes than any other publication, almost all editors on Wikipedia would oppose deprecating it as a source. This is more of a common sense judgment than anything else. If other editors agreed with your position, someone else would have already challenged the closure. Hopefully, this clears up some of the confusion you may have regarding Wikipedia's practices. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 23:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you for further clarification. I don’t want to discuss the NYT here, only the way in which an RfC is created on RSN and then the validity of the speed and reasons for closure. So you may understand, I’m deeply concerned about what I perceive to be as a sort of “shouting down” without critical analysis. It seems to me that an RfC whether about Fox News or the Encylopedia Britanica for an RSN would deserve some critical thought and expression. While I do not edit often, I probably have a few dozen edits under my belt and I fully understand that an editor does not always “get his way”. I think that my larger concern here is that what happened to my RfC, from my perspective, amounted to a new kid walking up to an established clique. The new kid looked around, thought about something they thought may have value and proposed a question. But instead of respecting the question or request in this case and simply allowing the idea to sit out there a while for people to ponder, think about it, intelligently respond with facts, and then perhaps vote on it. The observation/question was effectively laughed off and, oddly, squashed by a tiny group of editors (fewer than 10, perhaps fewer than 6 or 7) with extremely little critical thought or argument regarding the topic. Now for our beloved, shared Wiki, to me, this seems like unhealthy behavior. In fact, if I were a conservative journalist observing this, I might use this as an example of an elite, few, left-wing Wikipedia editors, at it again, demanding that their community tow the liberal line, or else. So it does not bode well IMHO, that editors almost appear afraid to discuss the possibility that the “institutional truth” might not actually be true. It kind of almost feels like when a certain President said he was running for office. You know, laugh him off. That’s ridiculous people. And then...look and see what happens when you DON’T take other people’s opinions seriously.Wcmcdade (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle

To revert a vandalism I always undo that version of edit and warm the user by Twinkle but can Twinkle be used to revert an edit?Denim11 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Denim11: Not directly, as the act of undoing is made by the standard "undo" button. However, the Twinkle panel (top right in desktop view, just left of the search bar) gives you quick access to the last diff of the the page ("last"), which is quicker than going through the history etc. From one revision, it also has some options ("since" [all diffs from one user], "since mine" [what it says], etc.). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan: but it is not revering the previous edit but I see in many user's contributions that they have reverted one or more edits by Twinkle.Denim11 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Denim11: Twinkle shows a panel above the latest diff of a page, with three options: revert (AGF), revert, and revert (VANDAL). Clicking one of those sends you to a confirmation popup. If you confirm, it reverts and opens the talk page of the editor you reverted in another tab. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you read WP:Twinkle/doc#Restore and rollback? - David Biddulph (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: and @A lad insane: I have read that and there it was told that if you open the latest diff of the page there are three rollback options but I opened the latest diff of the page but there wasn't any of these revert options.Denim11 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Many thanks A lad insane I have found it.Denim11 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Asking for a code

Can somebody give me the code which would make a floating funny cartoon picture on my user page. I have a floating cup of tea but i don't want something realistic to be floating there instead a clumsy cartoon or something. HardSunBadMoon (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Go to this, click edit, copy the text, DO NOT EDIT IT, create a new page titled something like User:HardSunBadMoon/floater, paste the text you copied from the other one, and edit the file name to whatever you want. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I already have that cup of tea on my user page.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@HardSunBadMoon:Take the filename and replace it. For example, this. The difference is that I changed the file name. Feel free to use mine if you wish. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thats great. Thanks a lot. Can you give me some more file names in your next comment so that i can have many choices?

HardSunBadMoon (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a specific image, but follow this link and search for images you would like to use. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 05:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

About Creating Sandbox

I have seen an article which is in horribly bad condition. I think i can improve that article to a great extent but the problem is that a whole reconstruction would be needed and i can't do that much large edits on an active page. Someone recommended me to use sandbox for this purpose . So can you tell me the step by step process of doing this. I can for sure help that B class page attain GA status.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the preferred method, if the article already exists, is to make edits directly to the article. You can do this a section at a time, and put a Template:Under construction notice on the page so that other editors know that you are working on it. Dbfirs 18:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Some guys on the page told me to make a my own version of the page and try to gain a consensus for it as they don't have full faith in my skill as im new.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't do the full rewrite of Grateful Dead that you discussed here, but take the good advice you were given in that section. The article is certainly not in a "horribly bad condition", but there is of course room for improvement. You should have a red link called "sandbox" showing at the top of every page when you are logged in - click that, and it will take you to User:HardSunBadMoon/sandbox. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have copied sections of articles into my Sandbox, worked there, made sure all the refs were in order, then pasted the section into the article as a replacement. If I felt that my changes were in any way controversial I also started a discussion at the Talk page of the article. I can see that you have already done the latter, but with wording that pretty much says "Hands off while I fix this." Not going to happen. This article has been around a long time, and there are a lot of avid Deadhead editors who will quickly reject anything you add or subtract that is not supported by good references. David notMD (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You appeared o the talk page of Grateful Dead, and instead of asking for advice or expressing an opinion, you immediately started giving orders. Predictably, this was not well received. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

How to post and also improve the article?

How to post the article and also improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvasuddi Bandi Raju (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sarvasuddi Bandi Raju and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have submitted your draft for review; that is exactly what you should do, and you will just need to wait for it to be reviewed. This will take some time as there are thousands of draft waiting for review by volunteer editors, so you will need to be patient. I will say, however, I'm not sure it will be accepted. Wikipedia is not a form of social media for people to tell the world about themselves or their career; this is an encyclopedia that is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that are notable as defined by Wikipedia. There is a policy on autobiographies that you may want to read in the meantime; you may also want to read this page that describes how a Wikipedia article may not actually be desirable for people. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

How to start a Guest Post in Wiki Pedia as a biggner

How to start a Guest Post in Wiki Pedia as a biggner when some body visit to the Wiipedia and make an individual account then where he will post a guest posts on certain topics or interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuj Kumar Kashyap (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Anuj Kumar Kashyap, we are an encyclopedia and we don't host random guest posts/musings/essays on any topic. You may choose to create a new article after reading WP:YFA.

On a sidenote, it looks very unlikely that you are here for any noble purpose and further spamming will lead to an indefinite block, as warned on your talk-page. ∯WBG^converse 15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

2019 Pro Bowl Logo

I'm Trying to upload the 2019 pro bowl Logo can you upload it for me please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hi 68.103.78.155 there is a place for such requests - see Wikipedia:Files for upload, however you should provide a URL to the site containing the logo. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

How to rename article

Hello,

I was recently editing Zoella, and I was wondering how to edit the actual article name. ‘Zoella’ now goes by her birth name, Zoe Sugg, so it would make sense to make this the article name, right?

Joesimnett (talk) 14:42 December 2018 (UTC)

Joesimnett, welcome to the Tea-house:-)

Our article titles are broadly dictated by WP:COMMONNAME which states .....Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)....

If you disagree as to the name most-used by reliable sources and feel it to be Zoe Sugg rather than Zoella, please open a discussion at Talk:Zoella per the instructions at WP:RM#CM.

I hope that satisfies your query! Fell free to ping me, shall you need any more help! ∯WBG^converse 15:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Joesimnett: Don't worry, anyone searching for Zoe Sugg will still arrive at her page because we already have a Redirect in place to help them find it. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

help

Hi i really need help i do not understand any of my assignment i have to present this wednesday i do not want to fail please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafiskabir000 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it about this [1]? Ummm... talk to your teacher? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nafixkabir000, but how can we possibly help you when we don't know anything about what your assignment is? If you want to tell us the specific things that are giving you difficulty, we might be able to help (though this page is really for difficulties in editing Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

From looking at what your classmates are doing, appears most of them are using their Sandbox (see menu bar, top right, of your User page) to work on drafting content they want to later paste into the article. This approach can be all new content, or you can copy parts of the article into your Sandbox, work there, then move the revised content back to the article. Either way, will likely involve adding new references, so you have to learn that process, too. David notMD (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

How to block a Wikipedia user?

Tell me how to block Orphan Wiki.Hamid331 (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Hamid331. You don't. What you should do instead is stop editing others user pages when they clearly do not want you to do so. GMG^talk 13:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Edits/behaviour like this [2] can get you blocked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

AND, Hamid332 now indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

History of earth

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

why cant i change the history of earth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howler2 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Howler2. I'm afraid I don't know what you are asking. Please make your question clearer. And please start a section if you are starting a new question - I added a header for you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Howler2: If you want to edit the page entitled History of Earth, there are currently no restrictions on you editing it. However, anything you add will be scrutinised as there are over 450 people who monitor changes to this page. Add nothing that does not improve the page, and always cite a Reliable source to back up anything you add. In the past this page has suffered vandalism, editors blocked, and the page protected from editing by those, like you, who are not yet auto-confirmed. But currently it has no such protection. On the other hand, if you really want to change the history of the earth, you could become a world tyrant, an eco-warrior, a scientist, or a major emitter of climate-changing gases or join the rush to cover some of the most biodiverse and sensitive parts of the planet in palm oil, to name but a few options. I'm afraid we don't give career advice here. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Needs updating - persecution of christians

This content needs to be updated as Asia Noreen Bibi has a different status currently.

"On 8 November 2010, a Christian woman from Punjab Province, Asia Noreen Bibi, was sentenced to death by hanging for violating Pakistan's blasphemy law. The accusation stemmed from a 2009 incident in which Bibi became involved in a religious argument after offering water to thirsty Muslim farm workers. The workers later claimed that she had blasphemed the Muhammed. As of 8 April 2011, Bibi is in solitary confinement. Her family has fled. No one in Pakistan convicted of blasphemy has ever been executed. A cleric has offered $5,800 to anyone who kills her.[292][293]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.99.63 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello anonymous editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't feel confident about making changes yourself, concerns about the actual content of a page should raised on the talk page of the relevant article, rather than brought here. So, if you have concerns or suggestions, you might wish to make your point clearly there. i.e.Talk:Persecution of Christians. You might also wish to ensure that content generally tallies with that at Asia Bibi blasphemy case. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I need help

i need help yo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafiskabir000 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nafiskabir000. If this has to do with your previous question above WP:THQ#help, then please check there for the responses which were given. I also responded to your post at User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed)#Need help request from Nafiskabir000 (talk), so please check there as well. If this is a new unrelated question, then you're going to have to be a little more specific about the problem or issue you're having so as to make it easier for a Teahouse host to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The volunteer editors here are not here to do your homework. Do you have a specific question? Such as, "By Wednesday I am supposed to do ______ and I cannot figure out how?" David notMD (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nafiskabir000: At risk of repeating what other hosts have already said to you, I would observe that you are an undergraduate university student of mechanical engineering. As such, I would expect far greater precision in your questions, and clarity in communicating what assistance you seek. If you are unable to do that simple task, how can you expect volunteers here to help you? You might wish to contact your course instructors, such as (UML MECH2960 or Ian (Wiki Ed), and seek further guidance from them. If there are specific matters regarding editing Wikipedia that you don't understand (having first read the relevant guidance pages - see Help:Menu), we will try to assist you as speedily as we can. Most of us here are pretty good at sorting out problems for newcomers, but I've yet to encounter any that are mind-readers. Finally, please remember to add your signature at the end of each talk page post. You do this very simply by typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). Your username and a timestamp then get added automatically, which saves us having to guess, or work out, who has posted what comment. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Message at your Talk. David notMD (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Botany, WCSP and biogeography

Hi. I've been working on a number of orchid-related articles, usually just incremental improvements and adding references. There is one area that's been a real hassle ... In the article lede, the plant species' biogeography is described. The World Checklist of Selected Plant Species (WCSP) is often an authoritative source. It, in turn, describes biogeography as a list of codes using the TDWG (Taxonomic Databases Working Group) geographical encoding system. For example, Dendrobium lindleyi's geography at WCSP (https://wcsp.science.kew.org/namedetail.do?name_id=58243 is the source) is listed as: 36 CHC CHH CHS 40 ASS BAN EHM 41 LAO MYA THA VIE

Getting hold of these codes (from the TDWG GitHub repository), decoding them from WCSP, then adding them to the article lede is not only difficult (the repository resides at https://github.com/tdwg/wgsrpd) and time-consuming, it invites transcription errors every time it is done ... which is potentially every botanical species on WP.

Its worth noting that a number of resources, ie other than WCSP, now use TDWG encoding.

This looks like something a template could handle really, really well.

My questions are: 1. Is there already something (a template for example) that does this? I searched in the template namespace, but couldn't find anything. 2. Is this something that would be suited to a template? 3. Is there likely to be any interest in making a template for this? 4. If Q 2 & 3 are affirmative, where should I go or who should I ask to progress this?

Any advice would be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Lemur (talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Prime Lemur, good question and I have no idea whatsoever (but someone else may). Consider also asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Prime Lemur: That's certainly an interesting question, and one that I imagine could prove useful to help interpret what's clearly a Reliable Source on plant distribution. I'm going to ping Plantdrew who is very knowledgeable in this area, and may be able to offer suggestions if something already exists. If not, you could consider asking at WP:SCRIPTREQ, but you would probably need to provide not only a very clear explanation of your needs, plus links to source material, but maybe also demonstrate a proven need from other editors at WikiProject Plants. As well as the pdf, I'd note that the 2nd edition of the TDWG codes (Brummit 2001) is available as an MS Access download here (with general information on the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions available here), and it might be that you could find some way of utilising the Access database to make your own off-wiki lookup tool, if needs be. Sorry I can't offer more help. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Prime Lemur: and Nick Moyes, actually Peter coxhead is much more familiar than me with the details of TDWG/WGSRPD distributions, as well as being more skilled in template coding. The GRIN taxonomy site also uses TDWG distributions, but writes out the regions rather than using short codes. Most plant articles have a link to GRIN in the taxonbar at the bottom of the article. Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Nick Moyes, and Plantdrew. I must admit I never thought of off-WP lookup. I'll have a think about where to from here. Fortunately I have a background in IT systems analysis and design. I'll keep exploring whether it's something that is more broadly useful (ie to other editors, rather than a toy for my use). Thanks for the detailed help. Prime Lemur (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Prime Lemur: I use a custom Excel spreadsheet to map the raw codes (as per WCSP) into text. (You can download it from Dropbox here.) We have experimented with Javascript-powered web pages for other conversions (some editors – now I think inactive – have used this page to convert a list of species obtained by creating a checklist in WCSP into wikitext). It would be straightforward to create a similar Javascript tool to convert WGSRPD codes, but there's always some justified reluctance to use a private webpage, for security reasons, and some people like to keep Javascript turned off. The ideal is probably to develop something at Wikimedia Toolforge. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding a new page, no "move" tab in the sandbox

Hi I tried to create a new page from a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242 The page name is Haplogroup Q-L804 (Y-DNA)

So I have edited in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arne_Solli/sandbox But I do not have a "more" drop down, so I can't move the sandbox to the correct page

Is the page that I want to add closed or locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arne Solli (talk • contribs) 14:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arne Solli, and welcome! In order to move pages, your account needs to be autoconfirmed. This will happen automatically once you've made at least 10 edits and your account is at least 4 days old. Just keep on editing for a few days, and you'll be able to move it yourself. Otherwise, it's also possible to submit your article for review as part of the Articles for creation process by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of your sandbox. Hope this helps! rchard2scout (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing Si Cranstoun discog

Dean Beatlesfan (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Tried updating the Si Cranstoun discog and the only citation I have is the information from the album cover. Why is this not acceptable? Bare with me I am new to this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Beatlesfan (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dean Beatlesfan, the editor who reverted your edit left you a message on your talk page. You could discuss it with that editor there or on the talk page for the topic. You might point out that the reference for albums for Si Cranstoun does list the album that you added. Schazjmd (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

How to avoid articles reading as advertisements when writing about a business or organization?

Hello! A few months ago I had an article rejected about my family's 150-year-old business in which I explained its history, its publications (it's a newspaper-publisher / media-group), and the awards it has won. I made sure to establish COI and removed most of the links from the article to make it seem less like an advertisement and more like existing newspaper-publisher articles but it was still rejected for reading as an advertisement. I've mulled it all over in the last few months since it was rejected and deleted and I wish to try again while I'm home from school but want to make sure I do it correctly this time.

So my question is aimed mostly at people who write about pertinent businesses and organizations: What steps do I need to take to avoid my article looking or sounding like a business advertisement while still capturing the essence, history, and pertinence of the company?

Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamishMc (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@HamishMc: If it's your family's company, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to write a neutral article about it, as you are obviously predisposed to view it favourably (consciously or unconsciously). That is one of the main reasons we strongly discourage COI editing. The other is that, as I'm sure you can appreciate, it harms Wikipedia's reputation as a reference work to have articles written by people closely involved with their subjects. Please consider dropping the attempt. If the company is notable, a neutral volunteer will start an article in time. – Joe (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Dsuz2018's question about saving

How do you save the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsuz2018 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

How and where do I know that my work or article is saved? Can I keep it private for just few or designated people to view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsuz2018 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Dsuz2018. Each time you clicked "Publish Changes" you saved the content of your draft to your sandbox. Although it is visible to everyone, nobody was likely to notice it until you clicked "Submit your draft for review" That drew attention to the draft, and if the reviewer were to accept it, they would move it to the title you entered when you clicked it. —teb728 t c 17:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyway of removing these 4 boxes in my edit screen?

Is there a way to remove this graph bar above my text as I type this? Imagine you are making a post to the Teahouse. There are a bunch of options to editing texts, etc. I was messing with some settings and this got turned on somehow. I wish to deactivate it. There are 4 boxes that are expandable. That is what I am talking about and wish for it to be removed.

Thank you!

Aviartm (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aviartm and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you talking about the "Advanced," "Special characters," "Help," and "Cite," buttons in the editing toolbar? If not, would you be able to elaborate in a bit more detail what exactly these look like? If you can, I should be able to answer your question but if not I'll request for someone who is familiar with the topic to do so. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello SkyGazer 512. I am going to link you what I am talking about. This is the imgur... https://imgur.com/a/LpwcAzK I must've flipped something on my settings but prior to whatever thing I turned on, the classical editing interface as become different. I can tolerate the highlighted text and all in the editing field (If there is a way to revert back, please tell me.) but my main concern is the 4 boxes at the top of the editing area. I do not want that there. Aviartm (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aviartm: Ah, I think I know what you did now; thanks for the elaboration. You seem to have accidentally installed the gadget wikiEd. Go to the Gadgets section of your preferences and scrolling to the "Editing" section. You should see that the option "wikEd: a full-featured integrated text editor for Firefox, Safari, and Google Chrome" is checked; uncheck it and then click the save button at the bottom. Is this what you were looking for and does the solution I proposed work? Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 05:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: Yes! That was it. Thank you for your assistance. It was a bit much and I prefer the original version. Thank you again! :) Aviartm (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Aviartm, glad I could help. I personally do think that the features WikiEd supplies, although helpful, are way too much for me to be able to edit comfortably. If you need help with anything else, don't hesitate to ask here again or leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks again @SkyGazer 512:! Aviartm (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like an ad??

I have an article about a leader in nursing ethics, but two reviewers said that it sounds like an ad. Might the article be better if it were shorter and ONLY talked about her firsts in building out the discipline of nursing ethics? Draft:Christine Mitchell MaynardClark (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MaynardClark. A well-written Wikipedia biography summarizes what reliable, secondary, independent sources say about the person. Your draft relies far too much on primary and non-independent sources. That type of source is acceptable only for mundane, non-controversial biographical details like place of birth, graduation date, and so on. The lead section includes the promotional phrase "award-winning" about some short films and the awards are mentioned again later in the lead. This is overkill. Then, when I take a closer look at one of the films that is mentioned, Code Gray: Ethical Dilemmas in Nursing, I was surprised that this woman is not even mentioned in that article. Plus, the film was nominated for an Oscar but did not win. So, it is misleading to describe it as "award winning". Checking IMDb, she is listed as an "associate producer", not as producer or director. Your link to "Freddie Awards" leads to Freddie Laker who established a travel industry award by that name. That has nothing to do with films about nursing ethics, so that link is misleading. Much of the content is unreferenced, and that is a major problem. In my opinion as an experienced editor, every paragraph should have at least one reference and every single evaluative assertion should be referenced. For example, you write "She has helped develop the field of nursing ethics, to which she has contributed significantly" but that extraordinary assertion is unreferenced. Another such assertion is "She is known for her role advancing clinical ethics consultations for morally difficult issues in hospital settings", also unreferenced. You need to provide references to reliable, independent sources that describe her that way. At least one of your references (I did not check them all) is to another Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article is never acceptable as a reference in another Wikipedia article. The "Publications" section is way too long, in my opinion, and should be limited to her most widely cited work, or publications which have been widely reviewed. These are my observations after a quick read through, but every line in this draft needs to be examined carefully, and all unreferenced content should be removed. Cullen³²⁸ 06:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts on Wikipedia's behalf. I think of "She has helped develop the field of nursing ethics, to which she has contributed significantly" as a topic sentence to be developed, not only by my efforts, since this observation is publicly evident. I have made some adjustments to the article. MaynardClark (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If that statement is "publicly evident", then it ought to be easy to provide a reference for it, MaynardClark. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we ought to be able to discover more than local recognition of the contributions, Cullen328, including (but not limited to):

• 2010, Living Legends in Massachusetts Nursing Award, American Nurses Association Massachusetts
• 2018, Vice President, Association of Bioethics Program Directors, whose membership is open to directors of U.S. and Canadian academic bioethics programs based in accredited universities or colleges meeting ABPD's criteria.

Just my $00.02. Currently it's a draft to avoid its being deleted. But I had not thought of this is (in any sense) as 'my' article (or focus) UNTIL I tried to help improve it with easily accessible biodata and other relevant information. MaynardClark (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

creating a page

looking for someone to create a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C1:4500:B57A:98EE:112C:E803:45A9 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello there and welcome to the Teahouse. If you would like to create an article, generally the best way to do so is by using the article wizard. Once you finish this, you will be instructed to create a draft which you can submit for review to become a "normal" article. Before creating a draft, however, please be sure that the topic is notable, all statements are supported by a reliable source, it is written from a neutral point of view, and most importantly, there are no copyright violations. This page summarizes all the key things to remember when creating an article, so I strongly recommend that you read through it. If you would like to request an article but don't want to actually create it yourself, you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but beware that the backlog is quite large there and it's more likely that you're article will be published quicker if you create it yourself as a draft and submit it for review. Once you've finished your draft, you can add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of it, and within a few months, usually just a few days or weeks, a reviewer will look over it and either accept or decline it. I hope this helps and good luck if you do decide to create an article.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Help!!!

Hello.. I am new and I don't know much about adding information or editing anything..But I want to contribute towards Wikipedia..So can I get some tips and guidelines?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpit1805 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arpit1805 and welcome to the Teahouse; we're glad that you want to contribute. A great place to start would be the Wikipedia Adventure, which guides you through screens which tell you important information and guidelines about Wikipedia. If you have questions about anything in specific, you are always welcome to ask at the Teahouse and us volunteers will try to help you out soon. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

resizing a picture on an existing page

On "Keith James Topping" I just tried to upload a picture I just took and succeeded but it is much too large. I see the "image size" line in Edit but whatever I put in doesn't seem to change the picture size. 17:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjtopping (talk • contribs)

 Done

This has already been fixed but you should not have put brackets around the file name. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

J.I.D

How do I edit some of the critical reception on DiCaprio 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahwarrior11168 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Josiahwarrior11168, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to answer your question without knowing what it is exactly that you'd like to edit on the article about DiCaprio 2. All I would say is that any content you add needs to be supported with a citation (reference) to a reliable, published source. Don't just add critical remarks you've heard online without citing where it came from. Ignore blogs, social media and so forth - use only respected music magazines etc. Should you need to remove content, then consider whether discussing the issue on the article's talk page first would be a good idea. Always leave an 'edit summary' explaining why you've made the edit you have, so that others will understand your reasoning behind any edit. Does that answer your question, or is there anything specific you were thinking of? If so, please supply a link to the relevant article, or we probably can't assist much further. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Flippin, Kentucky

I can’t seem to embed a link for a name that is not footnoted, but after an attempted insertion the butchered link pops up in a footnote, and all that remains of the name in the text is a footnote number that wasn’t there before.

Isn’t this the correct format?

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks, Charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLevelBoy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi BlueLevelBoy. Welcome to the Teahouse. You've not done at all badly for a new editor, so well done. However, you used <ref>http://sites.usdaughters1812.org/flippin1812/|Thomas H. Flippin</ref> to create the reference. That doesn't work (the vertical pipe character shouldn't be used - just put a space after the url to create a hyperlink from Thomas H. Flippin) - indeed many of the references in that article aren't as well-constructed as they could be, and some are repeated three times, when, ideally, you should only cite the source once, and then re-use the citation. But let's not fuss about trivia - three repeated references are far better than none at all!

May I make two suggestions? Firstly, do have a read of Help:Referencing for beginners, which teaches you the basics of citing sources. Then I'd suggest you look for the "cite" button in the editing toolbar, and click that and then simply fill in the relevant fields in the template that appears. If you've chosen to use our more WYSIWYG editing tool (Visual Editor) you can generate some citations automatically from just a hyperlink, ISBN or DOI number or even a Google books url. Using VE's automatic citation generator, you get this much more helpful citation: <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://sites.usdaughters1812.org/flippin1812/|title=Thomas H. Flippin Chapter USD 1812|website=sites.usdaughters1812.org|access-date=2018-12-09}}</ref> which looks like this, when used.

Later, as you grow in confidence, you might wish to know about how to use a single reference more than once. Don't worry if this seems daunting right now - just ignore this bit. But, to reuse a reference, we need to give it a unique name and then 'call' that name up again. To do this we use the "ref name=" field - unfortunately this isn't available in Visual Editor, so I always revert to the source editor to work on our markup directly. (Not as easy to start with, but so much better when you get stuck in to editing regularly). There's guidance on how this is done at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations.

If it helps to know: I'd been editing here for many months before I discovered that we actually had a 'cite' button. Instead of faffing around for ages trying to type wikimarkup, I suddenly found I could simply enter the key reference information via a template. It made life so much easier! I hope it does for you, too. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

@BlueLevelBoy: As you can see in this guide, you would really go with <ref>[http://sites.usdaughters1812.org/flippin1812/ Thomas H. Flippin]</ref>. Without the space, the "|Thomas" portion reads as part of the web address. You might want to use Template:cite web for a more complete citation (you don't need to fill out all the fields, just one of each type that you can, like author, title, url...). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! BlueLevelBoy (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Image

Old celluloid film rolls - less coding is needed to add this image to an infobox than was needed to add it to this page. Explanation below.

Hello, what's the best way to add an image in a infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celluloid Film Fan (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Celluloid Film Fan, and thanks for your question. The best (i.e. easiest) way is to add an image that is already available with the correct licence. You can search for these at Wikimedia Commons (see this link). If you can't find one, but assuming you do have an image for which you own the copyright, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons yourself. (But you may not upload screenshots, other people's photos, or images you've found on the internet).

Having got the image you want to use, edit the article (via the Edit source Tab) and look at the top of the page where the infobox template will be found. You'll see a line saying "|image = " and another saying "|caption =". (Note that some infobox use "|photo = " and "|photo_caption=" - but the effect is the same) Simply add the filename to the "|image=" line without any "File:", double square brackets, captions or anything else. Just the file name, usually ending in .jpg So, for the celluloid roll image I've just added, in an infobox you'd simply want to add "|image=Old celluloid film rolls (5201105455).jpg" (without the quote marks, of course). One good way to work out how to do anything on Wikipedia is to find a closely related page which has already done it, open it with the source editor, and look at how the wikimarkup has been used. Copy that style, and you can't go far wrong. For anything else, you'll find more guidance and links to follow at: Help:Pictures. Does this help you? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes! Thanks for the tip and great choice of a sample image! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celluloid Film Fan (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

edit article option disappeared

I'm not sure if I'm missing something but when I go to a subjects page the "edit article" option is missing now. I have the options to edit other parts of the article, but not the article itself. What am I missing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celluloid Film Fan (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

never mind I think I went blind for a minute. I found the edit source on the tab on the top right corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celluloid Film Fan (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing an image

Hello. Is it possible to collapse an image? So that viewers need to click "[Show]" first in order for the image to appear. I've looked at Help:Collapsing but it only talks about tables and none about images.

Thanks! AdaCiccone (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi AdaCiccone. I've seen some images (usually a screenshot of some type) used in infoboxes which can be collapsed, but I'm not sure how that's done or whether that's what you want to do. Unfortunately, I cannot remember any examples at the moment, but perhaps someone else can provide you with some.

FWIW, my personal opinion is that images are supposed to be contextually relevant to the reader's understanding of whatever's written in the article; in other words seeing the image improves the reader's understand of the corresponding article content to some degree. So, collapsing an image sort of seems like admitting that the image is not really needed in the article in the first place. I realize that some people may collapse tables, etc. for formatting or aesthetic reasons, but that too in my opinion indicates that the relevant information is probably extraneous and not really needed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Of course, I'm just speaking in generalities here and there may actually be some good technical reasons for collapsing some things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)