Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.
Contents
- 1 Cropping a picture for a userbox
- 2 Correcting error without source
- 3 JS problems...
- 4 Rajinikanth filmography
- 5 Adminship
- 6 Question Regarding References
- 7 When should we use block quotes in an article?
- 8 is this a source I can cite for wikipedia
- 9 Wikipedia editing school
- 10 Question
- 11 notability
- 12 Gadget or Plugin to Identify Who Authored a Word or Sentence
- 13 Can I just translate already existing articles?
- 14 I am auto-confirmed user
- 15 July 2016
- 16 16 July 2016
- 17 I was rejected for the post being too specific how can I fix this?
- 18 Time zone for edits
- 19 How to make a summary board?
- 20 Question from new editor
- 21 What is a reliable source
- 22 Contradiction in article submission review
- 23 How to find a user?
- 24 login problems
- 25 Featured article on a financial instrument?
- 26 Article keep declined.
- 27 July 2016
- 28 How do I add citations when a piece is used more than once without using multiple numbers?
- 29 What is the Edit Filter Log?
- 30 New Project
- 31 Using files hosted on other Wikipedias (not Commons)
- 32 Advice
- 33 What to Say to Author of Autobiography
- 34 Length of article
- 35 Deleted article - G5
- 36 Use of {{unreferenced section}}
- 37 Draft:Jimmy Lifton and IMDB
- 38 Adding a UK Company's details
- 39 Help with new article
- 40 Need some guidance please
- 41 How to deal with inappropriate user name, (well-done) COI editing without disclosure?
![WP teahouse logo.png](https://web.archive.org/web/20160717205040im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/WP_teahouse_logo.png/75px-WP_teahouse_logo.png)
Cropping a picture for a userbox
I'd like to make a userbox for Habitica users, but I'm having trouble with the picture for the box. Here's my rough draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myoglobin/Userboxes/Habitician
There is already an existing image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Habitica_Logo,_from_gamification_website_by_OCDevel.png), but the text takes up too much space in the UBX. I already got permission from the Habitica team to make this UBX, but when I try to upload a logo from their press kit, I can't since my userpage isn't an actual article.
Is there a way I can crop the existing image without uploading another? Thanks! Myoglobin (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Update: Turns out that the image I was considering cropping is also non-free, so I can't use it in the UBX. It was removed with this text: (You may not use a non-free image in an infobox. The image must be free. This image is licensed fair fair use--only in the location as licensed. F.U. images may not be used outside the mainspace (with a few (WP:NFEXMPexceptions))
How can I resolve this? Should I just plan on not using any image for the UBX? Myoglobin (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Correcting error without source
I have noticed an error in an article, but there is no secondary source that agrees with me. What are the next steps to correcting the article? I have already discussed the issue extensively on the talk page and filed a dispute resolution. Neither have been successful. Gordon410 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, if the issue is the obvious one, which is Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, then other editors would not call it an "error", because it appears that you have an opinion that is not backed up by scholarly sources but is original research. It appears that you want to offer your own opinions that are contrary to those of scholars, and that editors think are contrary to those of scholars. In that case, there isn't a whole lot that you can do with regard to Wikipedia. A better approach would be to try to publish your analysis in a peer-reviewed publication. If the area of dispute in question is different, please let us know what the area is. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- To add somewhat to that, the job of Wikipedia is to reflect what reliable sources have written. In a historical article, that means to reflect what historians and other scholars have written. It appears that the issue that the original poster has is not so much only with Wikipedia as with scholarly opinion, that he thinks that scholarly opinion has missed a point. It is sometimes true that scholarly opinion misses a point and needs correction, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to provide that correction. There is only an error in Wikipedia if Wikipedia misrepresents scholarly opinion. In this case the original poster seems to think that there is an error in scholarly opinion. That isn't the job of Wikipedia to correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
JS problems...
I'm trying to add some links to the top link page (where it says my username, talk, sandbox, prefrences, beta, log out, etc...) I want to add a link to my desk (User:The Pancake of Heaven!/Desk) and the RRTF task force main page (WP:RRTF); is there a way to do this via Javascript coding? (If you can give me the code too, that'll be great....) Thanks! → The Pancakeof Heaven! 10:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi User:The Pancake of Heaven!. Try the below in your common JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
$( document ).ready( function() {
mw.util.addPortletLink(
'p-personal',
mw.util.wikiGetlink( 'User:The Pancake of Heaven!/Desk' ),
'Desk',
'pt-Desk',
'My desk',
null,
'#pt-preferences'
);
mw.util.addPortletLink(
'p-personal',
mw.util.wikiGetlink( 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force' ),
'RRTF',
'pt-RRTF',
'Rick Riordan task force',
null,
'#pt-preferences'
);
});
- @PrimeHunter: Thanks! → The Pancakeof Heaven! 11:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Rajinikanth filmography
It is currently a FLC. But there haven't been many commenters, and I am not going to ask each editor to comment in order to avoid WP:VOTESTACK. Is there any way to get more comments to prevent the article from being archived? 08:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are requesting here. But Rajinikanth filmography starts with an extensive biography of Rajinikanth, which presumably duplicates, or possibly contradicts, the material at Rajinikanth. The filmography ought to be a filmography, its biographical content should be deleted, or merged into the content of Rajinikanth. Maproom (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Adminship
How I can make an admin? If there is any nomination someone nominate me for adminship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindopug (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Bindopug, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read about the process by which administrators are appointed at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. A prerequisite is that an editor has a decent amount of experience editing Wikipedia. Since you only started editing two days ago, I would suggest that you give it some time before thinking about a nomination. The majority of tasks that need doing on Wikipedia (most importantly, content creation) can be done without being an admin. Not being one hasn't stopped me from making a nuisance of myself, and I've been contributing for more than ten years now. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Question Regarding References
If I edit an article but cannot cite a single reference for the facts that I edit into it, should I omit the edit or leave it in the article anyway? Fix bi zed rut (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Fix bi zed rut. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, which means that a reader must be able to verify any controversial assertions in our articles. We do that by citing references. So, how do you know this information you want to add to the encyclopedia, except though what reliable sources say? It cannot be through your own personal experiences or personal research. That does not belong in an encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
When should we use block quotes in an article?
Does Wikipedia have a standard for when to use block quotes vs. in-text quotes?
For example, APA Style instructs authors to use a block quote if the quote contains more than 40 words.
Thanks!
Mark - Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Markworthen. Wikipedia's Manual of style pretty much agrees with the APA on this matter. Approximately 40 words is the cutoff point, although no one should battle about 38 words as opposed to 43 words. That type of dispute can quickly turn disruptive. Let it be. The shortcut is MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Cullen328! I really appreciate your fast response. :O) Mark D Worthen PsyD 04:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
is this a source I can cite for wikipedia
Hi I would like to know if this source is ok to use for citing a wikipedia article => http://www.mediasearch.com.au/celebrity/article/misslatinauastralia2015 (Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Australianblackbelt. That looks like a reprint of a press release to me, and if I am correct, it is not a reliable, independent source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I thought but then I saw that the writer of the article Carmine Pascuzzi quotes certain people=> Estela Tapia, National Director of Miss Latina Australia 2015 stated, "We have so many gorgeous and talented Latinas in Australia. Over the past few months we have been scouting around Australia for the most beautiful girls who are all deserving in representing Australia.'
Also => Gary Lee, Managing Director of the Pageant said that “Miss Latina Australia 2015 is a great platform to empower intelligent, passionate and talented young girls to make a mark for themselves. Through this contest they will make some amazing networks, connections and life-long friendships.’
I can see that this is content states a copyright warning at the bottom=> Copyright © 2009 Carmine Pascuzzi - All Rights Reserved (Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Those are the kind of standard, promotional, boilerplate quotations that are expected of people promoting such an event. If it is not a straight reprint of a press release, in my opinion it is highly likely to be a superficial rewrite of a press release. I see no evidence of independent reporting there. I am certain that the purpose of this content is to advertise this event, and that is not what Wikipedia is all about. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia editing school
I would like to become a better Wikipedia editor. Are there any courses or schools I could enter that teach this? Of course I know this probably does not exist, but the idea of setting an online school up seems useful. Thank you for your reply. Gordon410 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Gordon410. The closest thing we have to what you're looking for would probably be The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a course designed to help you edit in about an hour or so. Otherwise, there may be some third-party sites out there to help you, but I'm not too sure. JudgeRM (talk to me) 13:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- We also host the complete text of John Broughton's Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, which can serve as a sort of course on Wikipedia editing and behavior (though it may be a bit out-of-date in some respects). Deor (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Good question, @Gordon410:. Mostly we learn as we go along. Make a mistake, see it undone, ask in the article's talk page. Not quick, but it works. There is also a Wikipedia:Education program that encourages professors to include WP editing, often with the aim of writing a term paper online. Far as I know there isn't a whole course only about Wikipedia. There are also Edit-a-thons, mostly in big cities though I taught in one in Summit, New Jersey. They are only for one day but we do get studious people who learn quite a bit in those hours. You may also be near other Wikipedians and can get together in a Wikipedia:Meetup to talk and show each other how to do things. Sometimes it's not enough people to crowd a small dinner table; that doesn't mean you can't meet nice people and learn something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- We also host the complete text of John Broughton's Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, which can serve as a sort of course on Wikipedia editing and behavior (though it may be a bit out-of-date in some respects). Deor (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Question
Hello Everyone, How to review new articles? Tiger Gang Talk 08:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Tiger Gang. I see that you've asked the same question as MasterPiece2016, below, using the same wording. I'd already noticed that the two of you were interacting quite closely for new editors. Do you know each other? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry Not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger Gang (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK. It does seem remarkable that you (correctly) nominated Classtime for speedy deletion one minute after MasterPiece2016 created it, and are now asking identical questions here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry what are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPiece2016 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Cordless Larry's remarks are clear to me and it is a pity they are not clear to you. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just noting that you are both new and there are significant overlaps in your edits. For example, you nominated Office of the Status of Women for speedy deletion, and Tiger Gang notified the article's creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't just send them to WP:SPI? To be sure if they "is" the same person. 333-blue 10:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- WP:SPI, like many reporting forums, is backlogged. I would prefer not to see it used on idle suspicion. I agree that it does appear that they are playing games rather than trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and that they need a certain amount of patience as new users, but that there are limits to how patient we should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Robert McClenon, but I already opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarojupreti. There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor impersonating others / misusing templates (I didn't realise this when I opened the SPI). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SPI, like many reporting forums, is backlogged. I would prefer not to see it used on idle suspicion. I agree that it does appear that they are playing games rather than trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and that they need a certain amount of patience as new users, but that there are limits to how patient we should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm trying not to bite the newcomers, 333-blue, while also attempting to work out what is going on! Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry about that. 333-blue 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to be three school children from Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School User:Tiger Gang, User:MasterPiece2016 and User:Nepali keto62 having some fun, but clearly WP:NOTHERE. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry about that. 333-blue 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why don't just send them to WP:SPI? To be sure if they "is" the same person. 333-blue 10:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Theroadislong yes we are from same school. But user:MasterPiece is against us because he has less contributions than us. So he is trying to implcit us. Tiger Gang Talk 01:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tiger Gang...interesting? Adog104 Talk to me 01:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Please help us from being blocked. Tiger Gang Talk 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- To avoid being blocked, edit constructively, do not play games, discuss your edits on talk pages, and heed the advice of more experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
notability
Hello there, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia & finding it very confusing. I've edited here before, but never written an entry from scratch, & my edits have been accepted. I've tried to write an entry for Jude Cook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jude_Cook), & although it says on Tseung Kwan O's talk page “The NYTimes reviews is a sufficient source for the notability of Jude Cook” it has been rejected on the grounds of notability. Another editor felt that it wasn't notable because the novel had "meh reviews"; I found the reviews balanced, & many were very positive. And I thought, anyway, that the amount of coverage, & the fact the novel was published by major publishing houses in both the UK & the US, would qualify Cook as notable, whether the reviews were positive or negative. Please can you help me with the apparent contradiction between what is on Tseung Kwan O's talk page and the page being declined? Thank you very much. Celeryqueen (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Celeryqueen: Draft:Jude Cook is about the author, not the book; so it is the author's notability that needs to be established. This needs significant discussion of him in reliable independent sources. The first two references are to interviews with him, and so not independent; the third does not mention him; the fourth and fifth mention him, but without discussion. The last four are all about his book Byron Easy. You might find it easier to get an article about Byron Easy accepted. Maproom (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Maproom. The reason I included the third article is because it is about his band, as clarified in the text. I'm really confused here now. I will try to do as you suggest and do an entry on Byron Easy but surely it is an author's book that makes them notable?
Celeryqueen (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm pretty sympathetic to User:Maproom's reply to you and their detailed remarks on your references are helpful. However, for the notability of authors we have WP:AUTHOR. This says "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... In addition, such work must have been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". It should not be relevant to notability whether the reviews are good or bad. You can certainly have an article about a person and their works and suitable coverage about the person and/or their works should be considered relevant. However, despite what most people will tell you, notability assessments are largely subjective and everyone has their own opinion. You have been rather unlucky with some of the people who turned up to review your article. Thincat (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Gadget or Plugin to Identify Who Authored a Word or Sentence
Does anyone know of a tool that would allow me to highlight a word within a Wikipedia article and provide information about when and who added the content? Naturally one could deduce who/when the content was added by slowly working your way back through the page history, but that could take an eternity. Niubrad (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- "WikiBlame" may do close to what you want. From the article do "View history" then, quite near the top, "Revision history search". This takes you to WikiBlame where you can search for the word or phrase you are interested in. If the word appears several times in the article (or if it used to) then you will have to select your search carefully to avoid finding a wrong instance of the word. It can be a bit slow but quicker than working back! If that fails I go back to the first edit of the year, and back by years to find a time before the edit I am looking for. Then I go to the edit after 1 July of the right year, then April/October depending on what I found in July, etc. Hope this helps a bit. If anyone has a better solution, I'd like to hear as well! Thincat (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikiblame is the best option. It works better with a phrase than a single word, but I use this tool extensively.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I just translate already existing articles?
I'm from Republic of Moldova and our language here is Romanian. Many articles have no romanian variant or articles about my country have no english varinats. So, can I just translate the existing ones into the needed language and then link them? Freackindors (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be great if you could. The important thing, if you translate existing articles is that you acknowledge the existing article. Have a look at this link for an example of what I'm talking about. If you need further help you can ask here or ask me on my talk page (link). I speak some basic Romanian so I could help a little bit with the translation. Valenciano (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Confirming what Valenciano said, Freackindors, please look at WP:Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I am auto-confirmed user
Then, why my edit in this page Qandeel Baloch was shown to be as "Thank you for your edit, it will be reviewed shortly"? Rainbow Archer (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Unregistered, New | Autoconfirmed/Confirmed | Extended confirmed | Template editor | Reviewer | Administrator | Appropriate for* | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No protection | can edit; changes go live** immediately; no acceptance required |
The vast majority of pages | |||||
Pending changes level 1 protection |
can edit; changes will go live after being accepted by a reviewer |
can edit; changes go live immediately (if no previous pending changes remain to be accepted) |
can edit; changes go live immediately;*** can accept pending changes |
Infrequently edited articles that are experiencing high levels of vandalism or BLP violations from unregistered and new users | |||
Semi-protection | cannot edit | can edit; changes go live immediately; no acceptance required |
Articles experiencing high levels of vandalism or edit warring from unregistered and new users, and for some highly visible templates and modules | ||||
Arbitration 30/500 protection | cannot edit | can edit; changes go live immediately; no acceptance required |
can only edit if also Extended confirmed | can edit; changes go live immediately; no acceptance required |
Specific topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee | ||
Pending changes level 2 protection |
can edit; changes will go live after being accepted by a reviewer |
can edit; changes go live immediately;*** can accept pending changes |
No consensus for use on the English Wikipedia per WP:PCRFC | ||||
Pending changes level 2 with Semi-protection | cannot edit | can edit; changes will go live after being accepted by a reviewer |
No consensus for use on the English Wikipedia per WP:PCRFC | ||||
Unregistered, New | Autoconfirmed/Confirmed | Extended Confirmed | Template Editor | Reviewer | Administrator | Appropriate for* | |
Template protection | cannot edit | can edit; changes go live immediately; no acceptance required |
can only edit if also template editor | can edit; changes go live immediately; no acceptance required |
High-risk templates and modules | ||
Full protection | cannot edit | Articles experiencing persistent vandalism or edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts, and for critically important templates and modules | |||||
* See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy ** "Go live" means the edits will be visible to readers who are not logged in. In all cases, edits are always visible to readers logged into Wikipedia. *** When editing articles with pending changes that are not yet reviewed, Administrators and Reviewers are prompted to review the pending changes before saving their edit.
|
July 2016
What is ment by [Mark this page as patrolled] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPiece2016 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi and welcome to the Teahouse MasterPiece2016. The "Mark this page as patrolled" means that another editor has reviewed an article in question (whether that article is a user page, newly created article, talk pages, etc.) to be appropriate for Wikipedia. It's usual use is for checking that the content(s) of the article doesn't violate any possible speedy deletion criteria, anything that might be proposed for deletion in according to issues that maybe listed (for example WP:GNG or WP:NOT), or if a template is placed for the article to be improved. Adog104 Talk to me 06:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
16 July 2016
How to review new articles? MasterPiece2016 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, MasterPiece2016, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think what you're looking for is WikiProject Articles for Creation's "How to get involved" section. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, upon viewing your user contributions and seeing how new you are to Wikipedia, it doesn't look like your quite ready to review new articles. I suggest editing some already-created articles first to get accustomed to the environment, rules, and guidelines of Wikipedia. I suggest you don't rush in to things. In the meantime, I've left a welcome message with a few links to those rules and guidelines on your talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I was rejected for the post being too specific how can I fix this?
I created a post about The BlinkNow Foundation, which is a very well-known foundation that funds the Kopila Valley School, Women's Center, Home and new campus in Surkhet Nepal. The foundation's CEO is Maggie Doyne, the CNN hero of the year from 2016. The BlinkNow Foundation's work has been sorted in multiple articles and was in Floortje's documentary in the Netherlands.
The post was rejected since it only "applies to the school in Nepal". Is there anything I can do to make the post more relevant? Or is the scope still too small!
Thank you in advance!!
Kopila Valley School (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- We already have an article on Maggie Doyne with a section on the BlinkNow Foundation. Any additional well-sourced information about the foundation could be added there. And we can certainly have a redirect from BlinkNow Foundation to that section. --agr (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Kopila Valley School, You may want to change your username. Your current username suggests that it is used by an organization rather than an individual. See WP:ISU Gab4gab (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Time zone for edits
Why is all the time in UTC? Is it possible to change the time zone so that I can see when posts are made in relation to my time zone? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Gordon410, and welcome to the Teahouse! Lucky for you, there is a way to change that. While the method doesn't affect all times (such as those in a page's history), it does change the time on things like talk page posts. Also, this only affects the way you see times (not others), and only while you're logged in. Here's how you change the time zone shown for talk posts:
- Go to the Gadgets tab in your Preferences.
- Scroll down to "Appearance".
- Look under "Appearance" for a checkbox that says "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" and check the box.
- Click "Save", and you're done!
- There is a more advanced method of doing this which changes how it can look, but I'm not gonna go into that here. You can find that method here.
- -- Gestrid (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Gordon410. Let me try to answer the first sentence of your question. Wikipedia is obviously a worldwide project, with editors contributing in every time zone. We need a standardized clock for this project, based one one time zone. "UTC" stands for Coordinated Universal Time in French, and that is the modern successor to the old Greenwich Mean Time that I remember from my childhood. It is the reliable, standardized way to keep track of time on worldwide projects. Though some editors find it jarring, I like the constant reminder that, living in California, I am seven hours behind the time in London, where worldwide standardized time originated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Understandable. Gordon410 (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
How to make a summary board?
Hello, how do I make a summary board on the right ahead of a page like in almost all wikipedia pages? I do not know if you see what I mean. Thank you.
Robin Amnesty Thailand (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Robin Amnesty Thailand. I think what you mean is what we call an infobox. Basically, they give a condensed summary of an article off to the side. There are many different kinds of infoboxes, and each is custom-tailored to a specific topic. For example, there's {{infobox person}} for people, {{infobox film}} for films, and {{infobox company}} for companies. We also have other kinds of aids, such as navigational boxes or "navboxes". These help readers quickly locate related content, such as linking musicians and albums to a band. You can see some other items listed in our layout guidelines, which give a basic overview of how articles are generally presented. Don't worry if none of this makes sense at first; it can take a while to get the hang of Wikipedia's idiosyncratic templates and jargon. Just ask here if you have any questions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi Robin Amnesty Thailand. I have nothing to add to the excellent advice above, but having noticed the draft you are working on after seeing your question, I thought you might be interested in some feedback before you submit that draft for consideration to become and article. All of the sources you have cited thus far are of the organization, rather than reliable, secondary sources, about it written by third parties. Those are the types of sources that articles need to be predominantly based upon. You might look to a book search like this, a newspaper search like this, and a scholarly paper search like this for sources to use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Question from new editor
Hi I am Ayaz Mir, I'm new here I wanna edit some articles but I'm feeling difficulty bcs of editing I don't know how to edit the way Wikipedia article shown so I wanna ask About How to edit or Create an article or a page ? Can anyone will help me ? THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazMir (talk • contribs) 16:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Greetings AyazMir and Welcome to the Teahouse! From the Welcome messages posted at your talk page you might want to look at Help:Editing and New contributors' help page for assistance. Also when you create or respond to a message, please sign the message with ~~~~ (four tilde characters). Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
What is a reliable source
I have provided reference to three publications, all reputable, however in the space of an hour or so my submission was declined. These books each confirm some part of the content of my article. I do not understand what further verification I can give. Can you give me guidance?The lockleys (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, The lockleys. I presume that this refers to Draft:Coal Meters Committee? If so, you say that the sources "each confirm some part of the content of my article", but how is the reader to know which parts of the draft are supported by which source? Please see Help:Referencing for beginners, which explains how to use footnote references. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect that this draft is at least partly a hoax. It claims that the Coal Meters Committee was "formally appointed by Edward 1 in 1306". But according to this reliable source[1] it was "Founded in 1832". Maproom (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- ^ "COAL METERS COMMITTEE". AIM25.
-
- That doesn't look like a hoax, but like a claim by a modern organization to historical antiquity. Such claims, sometimes of questionable correctness, are common. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Contradiction in article submission review
I first received a notification that my article for the organization Family Promise had been accepted. Then I was notified that it was declined because "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia," but redirected to the article I had just created (which had been accepted). Please advise on how to proceed. Syndic.adelier 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syndic.adelier (talk • contribs)
- Welcome to the Teahouse. The problem was that the editor who accepted your draft and moved it to mainspace then made an erroneous edit on the draft page and resubmitted it, instead of tidying up the mainspace page. I have reverted that erroneous edit. Any further tidying up should be done on the mainspace article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
How to find a user?
I completed a request on Wikipedia Requests[1] and want to notify the requester, whose name is on the request, but not a user name. How does one search for WP users? Drdaviss (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
References
- Special:ListUsers might help. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Greetings Drdaviss and Welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to Ian Thomson's answer above, you can try ideas at How to easily recall a username Tip-of-the-day for January 18th. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you, Ian and Joe. Drdaviss (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
login problems
One of my laptops was stolen from my car about a month ago. I've since tried to edit wikipedia on another laptop (this one), but can't log in as myself (jweaver28). I get a message about preventing session hijacking. I'll admit that I edit on a desktop and another laptop, as well as a minilaptop that I bought after the stolen laptop incident, but IMHO the screen's too small, and the other laptop I use has disk space limits (plus my dog knocked off a key that I can't seem to find)....64.134.197.195 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. I'm sorry to hear that you're having problems logging in. You might be better off posting about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where it will get the attention of editors with more technical expertise. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Featured article on a financial instrument?
I am searching for an featured article on a financial instrument. (I have searched for "stock", "bond", "derivatives" but none of them are rated FA. I then looked at "gold as an investment"---it arguably comes close to a financial instrument. This again is not FA but was a GA candidate once. Have you seen a FA on a financial instrument?)Amgodbole (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Amgodbole. We currently have 4,789 featured articles out of a total of 5,194,643 articles on the English Wikipedia, so the chances of there being one on any specific topic are slim. The place to look is Wikipedia:Featured articles#Business, economics, and finance. Perhaps you could try to improve an existing article with the aim of getting it to FA status? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry Thanks for your response. I am thinking about whether I can work on one specific article (where I am currently the main contributor) but I think before that I need to better understand/learn what an FA article for a financial instrument would look like. Would a World Book Encyclopedia/Encyclopedia Britannica article be a good proxy or would they fail the FA criteria? (after taking a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Futures" I am unsure).Amgodbole (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry I did check Wikipedia:Featured articles#Business, economics, and finance. I did not find an article on a financial instrument among the articles here.Amgodbole (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's hard to say because I'm not that familiar with Britannica, Amgodbole. You mean this article, right? An obvious difference is in the sourcing - an FA article here would require very good sourcing, whereas Britannica don't appear to reference their articles. I suggest looking at some of our existing FA articles (even if they are in different areas), and the reviews that they received, to get a sense of what is expected. You could also seek advice via Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry Yes, I meant this article. While I have seen existing FA articles from other areas I have not seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance. Thanks for your help.Amgodbole (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Article keep declined.
Dear All,
My article keep declined and kindly advise how to improve to get approve by Wikipedia. I have provided references to proved that he was well known top leader for our country. Nanda kyaw (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aung_Zan_Wai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanda kyaw (talk • contribs) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Nanda kyaw. It seems clear to me that Aung Zan Wai meets our notability guideline for politicians as a former cabinet secretary in the government of Burma (Myanmar). He is also notable as an important witness to the 1947 assassination of the father of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi when her father was Prime Minister. I suggest that you mention his cabinet ministries more clearly in the beginning of the article, make it clear that he witnessed the assassination and testified at the trial of the assassin. Your third source is very solid. Sources in Burmese are acceptable as well. Perhaps 333-blue, who declined the draft, can comment further. This biography belongs in the encyclopedia with just a bit more work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think so, but only one is accessable, like Cullen said, just a bit more, and then, it is suitable for Wikipedia. 333-blue 07:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sources need to be accessible, 333-blue, but not necessarily accessible online. Accessible in a reference library is perfectly OK. What evidence do you have that the other sources are inaccessible? Our core content policy on Verifiability says: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Please reconsider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think so, but only one is accessable, like Cullen said, just a bit more, and then, it is suitable for Wikipedia. 333-blue 07:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016
How to keep articles in the nomination for speedy deletion policy? Tiger Gang Talk 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Tiger Gang. The answer to your question very much depends on which of the criteria for speedy deletion the article has been cited in the deletion nomination. If the article lacks context, then the way to prevent its deletion is to add context; if it has no content, then the solution is to add content; etc. Do you have a specific article in mind? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: yes, i have one name in my mind which created by blocked user. The name of the article is Shree Harikul. Tiger Gang Talk 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused, Tiger Gang. You nominated the article for speedy deletion, but you seem to be asking how the article can be kept. Do you want the article to be deleted or kept? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School, you seem to be re-adding the speedy deletion template after its removal. That's not the appropriate course of action. If a speedy deletion request is declined and you still think the article should be deleted, take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: The article should be delete becaue it is against copyright violation. This article was created by blocked user. Tiger Gang Talk 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can I ask where the text has been copied from, Tiger Gang? Also, please sign your posts as I have explained on your talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry If isn't copyright violation then it should be deleted because it is created by sockpupet of sarojupreti and this article was previously also nominated for speedy deletionTiger Gang Talk 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is it or isn't it a copyright violation, Tiger Gang? Not everything created by a sockpuppet necessarily needs to be deleted. If the article is good, then it should be kept. If it is a copyright violation, then that needs to be dealt with. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry yes, it is 100% copyright violation. It is copied from internet which is now deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger Gang (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, the appropriate speedy deletion tag would be WP:G12, Tiger Gang, but you do need to provide evidence. If the source from which the article was copied is no longer online, it might still be available via Archive.org. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article has been edited by more than 20 people since it was created, I can find no evidence that any of the content is copyrighted. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Theroadislong Cordless Larry It doesn't contains any cite in google also. It should be deleted. MasterPiece2016 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are free to nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, MasterPiece2016. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Already done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School (2nd nomination). Thanks, Theroadislong. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @MasterPiece2016: You really should not be blanking the user talk pages of other editors like you've done at User talk:Mybaobei unless there's a really good policy-based reason for doing so. When you blanked the page, you not only removed your posts, but also a post made by another editor WMartin74. Since your account was only created yesterday, you probably wasn't aware that this kind of thing is not really considered OK on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has quite a number of policies and guidelines, including ones related to using talk pages. So, I suggest you talk a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for reference. Talk pages are the primary way edits communicate with each other on Wikipedia, so knowing how to use them properly will help you avoid problems with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
How do I add citations when a piece is used more than once without using multiple numbers?
When recently creating my first wikipedia article, I ran into some trouble with citations. I used two sources, but each was used multiple times and so I used the ref tags for each one. However, this created 6 references with only 2 sources and showed a list of 6 when using reflist. How do I make it so that every time a source is used, it's number shows up (i.e. 1 for source one, no matter how many times it is used)? Thanks, MTwikiuser (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hey MTwikiuser. The first time you use a reference, give it an intuitive name, in this form:
<ref name="Dickens 1870">citation text</ref>
The next time you want to use that same citation, just use the first part with a closing slash (don't forget the closing slash):
<ref name="Dickens 1870" />
- For more information please see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. Note that you don't technically need the quote marks around the name you choose unless the name you pick has a space in it (like the one I used), but many people use them always. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, MTwikiuser. Everything that Fuhghettaboutit said is correct. But I always use a one word mnemonic, so I do not need to mess around with those pesky quotation marks. I usually use the author's surname, a keyword from the title, or an abbreviation for the name of the publication. For example, LAT is the Los Angeles Times in my mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
What is the Edit Filter Log?
I only recently discovered this tonight as I was looking through, and familiarising myself with, the WP:Warnings templates. I noticed that there was a template for warning users of 'triggering an edit filter', and now I'm wondering... what exactly is the Edit Filter? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, ElectrodeandtheAnode. The edit filter is software that scrutinizes edits for problematic changes, such as possible vandalism. It can take a variety of corrective measures depending on the circumstances. Please see Wikipedia:Edit filter for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your swift reply Cullen328. I've seen an IP User who is continuously appearing on the Edit Filter Log, who has been reverting large chunks of content without using their edit summary to explain why they're doing this. It appears that they're actions are vandalism as the content they're removing sourced content and not explaining they're reasons behind doing this – in this scenario, would it be worth using the subst:uw-attempt to see if this user will stop vandalising the page they are after this warning has been issued? My other question is, if they continue to trigger the edit filter after being provided with a warning, how do I get the IP address blocked? Thank you in advance for your cooperation. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hello ElectrodeandtheAnode. My understanding is that the edit filter warnings are given out by the edit filter software itself, but I am not an expert in this area. Have you tried to converse with the IP editor? If asking them to stop does not work, and the edits are truly vandalism, then try the escalating vandalism warning templates. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'll try and converse with them now and see if they'll stop. Thank you again Cullen328 for your swift and helpful replies. All the best. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Are the edits to a particular article? If so, you may request semi-protection. (How likely you are to get semi-protection will depend on the extent to which an administrator agrees that the edits are disruptive.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, Robert McClenon, they are. I'd never edited the List of WWE Network events as I haven't an interest in wrestling, but I saw a user who keeps reverting their edits. According to the Edit Filter Log they're unexplaining their reasons for reverting sourced content as well as removing references. I have undone one of their edits as they removed a lot of content from the page without explaining why they had done this. I've also left a message on the IP User's user talk page to see if they'll cooperate, but your suggestion about requesting semi-protection if an administrator does agree the edits are disruptive, could be helpful. Thank you for your suggestion. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hey ElectrodeandtheAnode. I noticed that you only partially reverted the IP's edits (another editor fixed this later), using the limited undo function. If possibly you're not aware, when there's more than one edit that needs fixing, you can perform a manual revert to any version of a page in its history. Just click on the date in the history you want to revert to (here it would have been the date before the IP's last edit) → click edit at the top of the page → save (leaving an edit summary of course). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
New Project
Thanks for the invite. I have a multilingual subject dictionary project that I would like to start at wikipedia. I have prepared the seed work and listed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/. I was wondering what happens next and is there another place I should be submitting the proposal? Soubanikhaled (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Soubanikhaled. What you have proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Quran Dictionary appears to be a new wiki, not a Wikipedia WikiProject. There's nothing to stop you from setting up your own wiki-based site, but I don't see how this could be hosted by Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Using files hosted on other Wikipedias (not Commons)
I'd like to know if it's possible to use a file hosted on a foreign language Wikipedia on EN.WP.
for example there is a file HU:Fájl:Z._Karvalics_László.jpg that's not on Commons and I'd like to use it in an EN.WP article.
Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 16:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is not possible. In order to use that image on English Wikipedia, you will need to re-upload it to either here or Commons. You can do such using Wikipedia:File upload wizard. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Advice
Hello,
I could use some advice from a more experienced editor of Wikipedia.
On a page I am working on, Suzanne Dando, there are some details in her personal life section, that I don't think should be included.
I would like to remove the section that "she had a long relationship with former footballer Andy Gray until it ended", as I don’t think it needs to be included, as a lot of celebrities have relationships that end and they aren't always listed.
I wondered if it might be possible to have some advice on this please?
Many thanks
GRT200 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, GRT200.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. As the content was unsourced I have removed it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- The article lists her as BEM, which has no appropriate meaning in the disambiguation for that acronym. Should that be MBE? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- BEM is correct—she was awarded the British Empire Medal before it was discontinued. ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, I will add that to the BEM disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's been there since 2005. ‑ Iridescent 07:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, I will add that to the BEM disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- BEM is correct—she was awarded the British Empire Medal before it was discontinued. ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article lists her as BEM, which has no appropriate meaning in the disambiguation for that acronym. Should that be MBE? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your help with this.
GRT200 (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
What to Say to Author of Autobiography
Most of the questions that I post here have to do with drafts that I declined at Articles for Creation, and I am asking whether other experienced editors agree with my decline. This question isn't about whether other editors agree, because I don't have any doubt about the rules. This is about what to point an editor to. I declined an autobiography of a non-notable person. The author then added more references to social media and asked me to re-review. I declined again, but my question is whether there is any particular policy or guideline, other than the autobiography guideline itself, that I should point out in a case like this, a non-notable person who resubmits an autobiography? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would refer the editor to Wikipedia:Notability (people), pointing out why the draft fails to show that the person is notable. Although writing an autobiography is discouraged, it is not forbidden, and if someone wants to try, AFC is the best place to do so. If the person is an Olympic athlete who competes in Rio, or a newly elected state or provincial legislator, we should assist them in getting a neutral, well-referenced biograph biography into the encyclopedia, because they are notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. The examples that Cullen328 gave are what I would suggest be called ipso facto notability, based on particular guidelines. I can't recall reviewing an autobiography by someone who was ipso facto notable. (I have reviewed draft articles on people for whom there was an unreferenced statement of ipso facto notability, and I have declined those but have noted that the person was notable, but that a reference was required.) I will point them to the guideline that you mentioned. Part of the problem is that some people don't listen. At least in AFC they aren't in mainspace. Part of the problem is that some people just don't listen, either about individual notability, or corporate notability, or conflict of interest, or what Wikipedia is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would think we'd get very few autobiographies written by truly notable people, because truly notable people are generally too busy to write autobiographies... But yes, I agree that if they don't have anything except social media, it's not suitable. Maybe they'll give up on writing about themselves and devote their time and effort to notable people. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:White Arabian Filly - What we more commonly see for notable people is conflict of interest biographies, written by someone working for the subject. These are usually declined either for notability issues (the person isn't ipso facto notable, and the article isn't adequately sourced), or tone (neutrality) issues, or both. It isn't always obvious that the draft is a COI biography. Sometimes it becomes clear after the decline when the author starts complaining that their employer needs the article approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would think we'd get very few autobiographies written by truly notable people, because truly notable people are generally too busy to write autobiographies... But yes, I agree that if they don't have anything except social media, it's not suitable. Maybe they'll give up on writing about themselves and devote their time and effort to notable people. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. The examples that Cullen328 gave are what I would suggest be called ipso facto notability, based on particular guidelines. I can't recall reviewing an autobiography by someone who was ipso facto notable. (I have reviewed draft articles on people for whom there was an unreferenced statement of ipso facto notability, and I have declined those but have noted that the person was notable, but that a reference was required.) I will point them to the guideline that you mentioned. Part of the problem is that some people don't listen. At least in AFC they aren't in mainspace. Part of the problem is that some people just don't listen, either about individual notability, or corporate notability, or conflict of interest, or what Wikipedia is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Length of article
What is an appropriate length for a Wikipedia article? Gordon410 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is discussed at WP:Article length. Rojomoke (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- An article can be as long as 10,000 words or more, if there are enough sources on the topic to provide for that much content. Undoubtedly there are articles that reach 20,000 words. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The recommended maximum length is around 100kB of text. There is no standard for minimum length, an acceptable stub could be as short as three or four sentences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Greetings Gordon410 If you look at the menu on the left-hand side of any page on Wikipedia, there is a link to Page Information. Clicking on that link gives you with lots of information about the page including it's total size as well as how often it has been viewed. There is also this tool - you just copy and paste the text into there, and it counts it for you. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted article - G5
Hi, a page I was working on, created by someone else, was deleted under "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Do i have any recourse or is the only option to create a new article for the same subject? Many thanks Eartha78 (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- This may refer to Rita Montero? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you think that the article was good, the best thing to do would be to create the article yourself. This would be a case where Requests for Undeletion should be able to get the article moved into your user space. You can't get an article undeleted into your user space for copyvio, or for a few other offenses such as being an attack page, but the purpose of G5 is simply to discourage sockpuppetry. Create the article again. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The page has been restored to Draft:Rita Montero. If Eartha78 thinks that there are no problems with it or anyone else, they can move it to mainspace again. Feel free to request it on my talk page if help is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Use of {{unreferenced section}}
When a section in an article has no references but does start with "Main article: xxxx", is it appropriate to add the {{unreferenced section}} template to it? (I've been adding {{unreferenced section}} to many sections of the article Norwegian language, but I'm wondering if the link to 'Main article' means that all references will be found there. Personally I'd rather not have to click through to many main articles to find references!) Thank you. --Hordaland (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Hordaland. I've edited your post slightly, to prevent the template displaying here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- As for your question, I agree with you that readers shouldn't have to click through to another article, find the material that is being summarised in the section of the article that have come from, and then look at the source. So, yes, I think that template is appropriate here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are quick! Thank you. I was just fixing up the formatting & got edit conflict.
- I'm glad you agree with my position. I'll go back to the article and continue adding the template to it.--Hordaland (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at that article, it might be easier to just use {{Unreferenced}} at the top of the article, rather than tagging individual sections when the majority of them are unsourced, Hordaland. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be easier. However, Template:Unreferenced states: "This template should only be used on articles that have no citations or references at all. Don't add this template to articles that contain even one general reference, parenthetical reference, or citation-containing footnote. ..." So I won't be doing that. Thanks, anyway. --Hordaland (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hordaland, You can use
{{Refimprove}}
though. -- GB fan 12:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hordaland, You can use
- Yes, it would be easier. However, Template:Unreferenced states: "This template should only be used on articles that have no citations or references at all. Don't add this template to articles that contain even one general reference, parenthetical reference, or citation-containing footnote. ..." So I won't be doing that. Thanks, anyway. --Hordaland (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at that article, it might be easier to just use {{Unreferenced}} at the top of the article, rather than tagging individual sections when the majority of them are unsourced, Hordaland. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Jimmy Lifton and IMDB
I reviewed Draft:Jimmy Lifton and declined it. A previous reviewer, User:GeneralizationsAreBad, had noted that IMDB is not a reliable source, and I declined it because I saw no material improvement. I then received the following question from User:Chad Berk.
Hi Robert, I really don't understand how to prove notability any better than I already have. Everything is linked and sourced to reliable sources. IMDb is a very credible site that will only credit a person if it is proven and known. Everything that is posted is cited corrected by the site. What more do I have to do?
Reviewers have long said that IMDB is not a reliable source because it includes non-verified user-provided content. Does anyone care to comment? Should the status of IMDB be reviewed? Should the author be advised to find other sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you do a simple search on wikipedia for anything being claimed like winning an Emmy for Kung Fu Panda: legends of awesomeness or anything else that is listed there, pages come up on wikipedia that show the information being shared is correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kung_Fu_Panda:_Legends_of_Awesomeness is you scroll down to awards James Lifton is listed there for the exact aware claimedChad Berk (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The IMDb is user-generated content and thus unreliable. See User:Rhododendrites/Chaney as an example of why we can't rely on the IMDb. The data is often correct, but it's too easy for hoaxes and errors to make their way into it. Actors with similar names will sometimes have their credits mixed up, people will transcribe credits incorrectly, and some production details will be guessed at by fans. See this interview with Michael Madsen for one perspective about the IMDb's reliability. Madsen says many of the films listed in his IMDb filmography were added by overenthusiastic, young directors who overstated his involvement in their film. Even if the IMDb were reliable, a database entry would not establish notability. This is a problem that also sometimes occurs with rock bands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, IMDb listings by themselves do not establish notability. Once notability is established by higher quality reliable sources, an external link to an IMDb page can be included, unless we have some evidence that the page is in error. Their official writing and rating credits are more reliable than their prose content, since they cooperate with Hollywood groups like Writers Guild of America and MPAA to verify the credits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, external links are always fine. And anything that's been verified by an external authority is reliable – but you have to watch out for the the stuff that isn't. As Michael Madsen said, you never really know who added or changed the content there, much like any other crowd-sourced database. Like Wikipedia, the IMDb often links to reliable sources, so it's a great place to start your research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, IMDb listings by themselves do not establish notability. Once notability is established by higher quality reliable sources, an external link to an IMDb page can be included, unless we have some evidence that the page is in error. Their official writing and rating credits are more reliable than their prose content, since they cooperate with Hollywood groups like Writers Guild of America and MPAA to verify the credits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Adding a UK Company's details
Just a thought .... I work for a UK company which has over 1000 employees. With directors authorisation, could I safely create a WIKI page for them and what safeguards would there be to stop angry ex-employees/competitors vandalising the page? I appreciate it can't be an advertisiment, only information and as a 'new' company (former very sucessful private partnership), anyone could add or change figures that came from public sources such as companies house or their other government auditors - which may be a killer for a private healthcare business.
I'd appreciate some advice on this or a pointer to somewhere else. As a new editor it's just a thought at how else I can share info with the world, other than my own personal stuff.
Many thanks
Dormouse7 (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Read the conflict of interest policy. No. You should not, with or without directors' authorization, create a Wikipedia page for your company. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please consult Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on this, Dormouse7. It strongly discourages you from creating or editing articles about your employer. Having to seek the authorisation of your employer only serves to heighten the prospect of a conflict of interest. If you are looking for something to work on, you could have a look through Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and, when you have a little more experience, Wikipedia:Requested articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- If there is an article about your company, and it is vandalized, then that can be dealt with the same as any other vandalism, by reverting the vandalism and blocking the vandal. You do have a right to report vandalism of an article that affects you, just not to create or edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Robert McClenon Sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly. I would only create such a page in the sense of being that company (I am a senior administrator), the registration would be as a company, not my personal one. In this instance I am representing the company, not being the individual I am at present. I am an employee but I'm wondering if it would be beneficial for 'my' company to be on Wiki and am wondering if I should suggest it to them (directors). It would in no way be connected to DM; it would be a professional/legally recognised company account.
DM (Dormouse7 (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC))
- Wikipedia's rules require that you edit as an individual, not with a company account, Dormouse7. Please see WP:CORPNAME on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, having a company account would go against Wikipedia's username policy, and it would immediately get indef blocked. As for creating a page for your company (which you could do with your personal account), that would be allowed but highly discouraged as a conflict of interest. It would be requested that you put the {{connected contributor}} template on the article talk page. If you were to be paid to create the page, it would be required that you put the the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on the article talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- The bit that you're probably not aware of, Dormouse7 (like most people unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia) is that Wikipedia does not contain company pages or company profiles. It contains articles about companies, (which is a rather different thing), which should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the company have published about it. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a company (or its employees, agents, or associates) say about it, and the company has no control over what goes in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that you don't need anyone's permission to write an article about them, except in the case of when you want to use a copyrighted image. In that case, you should request permission to use the image (not permission to write the article) before uploading the image. If you plan on asking your supervisor for anything, it should be permission to use copyrighted images (such as logos) and proof of permission, not for permission to write an article. If you plan on asking for permission for such images, you should review the licenses that Wikipedia accepts for copyrighted content. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- You ask "what safeguards would there be to stop angry ex-employees/competitors vandalising the page?" as explained above, genuine vandalism can be reverted.
However "inconvenient" information, that a company would rather not have publicized, such as court cases, investigations, redundancies etc. will be included, provided the information is from a reliable source, is presented from a neutral point of view and not given undue weight.
To repeat; any such article will not be the companies page, but Wikipedia's article about the company - Arjayay (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You ask "what safeguards would there be to stop angry ex-employees/competitors vandalising the page?" as explained above, genuine vandalism can be reverted.
-
Just as a note to @Dormouse7, you can request that an article be written about your company over at WP:RA and it will be created as long as there are sources that prove notability. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}
,(unless this is on my own talk page) otherwise I may not see your reply) 08:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it might be created if listed there, MorbidEntree, but it's far from certain. See #Request for Edelweiss Tokio Life insurance Wiki Page, further down this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Help with new article
Hi, I would like some advice about an article I have been trying to create about my employer. I recognize that this is a COI; however, I have done a lot of work that I believe results in a neutral and well-sourced result that would be a benefit to Wikipedia readers. I have already learned that my earlier efforts were not so good -- I did not have a good understanding of Wikipedia's standards when I first tried back in September 2015. So I can understand now why my previous attempts were rejected. I appreciate the patience of the Wikipedia editors who reviewed my various drafts, and have supported my learning about this.
But for my most recent submission, I thought I had learned enough, and modified my draft enough, that it would be sufficient. I removed some of the stuff with less sourcing, and kept the text very straightforward and true to the sources I did include. There are 10 sources; some of them (like the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Chicago Business) focus specifically on A.J. Capital, and are well respected publications. However, the reviewer still determined that the sourcing is inadequate.
I am hoping somebody can help me understand my best path at this point. From my reading of the notability standard, AJ Capital and our founder Ben Weprin both meet the standard. Am I interpreting it wrong? Have I written the article wrong? Is it worth it to keep trying to improve the article, or will it never be accepted? -KarenR678 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- When you ask about an article or draft article, it helps to link the page in question. Is it Draft:AJ Capital Partners? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Robert McClenon, yes, that is the article I'm referring to. Could you please take a look and perhaps offer some advice for improving it? I understand there are reasonable concerns about COI editing but I have really tried to adhere to Wikipedia editing guidelines on this. KarenR678 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- First, have you made the conflict of interest disclosure? Second, if required, have you made the paid editing disclosure? Third, I will let other neutral editors comment on and possibly improve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Need some guidance please
Hello, I've been editing for a couple of years. Of all the pages I've edited on, some of the most controversial seem to be the alt-med topics. In particular the tone on the Rolfing article has gone from a workable truce between strongly opposing sides, to a much more hostile situation. I believe this is partly because one of the strong voices on the "Skeptic" side, who valued good logic and politeness, dropped off and now there is more of an outright power battle. Over the past 5 months, the article content has swayed strongly to the Skeptic viewpoint. There's been hot discussion on the Talk page, including a Request for Comments, which has resulted in a wide mix of opinions and no clear consensus for how to move forward. Since I'm the only semi-experienced editor on the other side of things, I'm having trouble holding ground. I believe we may be at a point of needing to escalate to some sort of arbitration, because yesterday one editor largely rewrote the article without anything resembling consensus. I've reverted to the last version but I suspect this is just the beginning. Now that editor has called in reinforcements from the Fringe Noticeboard. I need ways to call in help from a neutral viewpoint. Can you offer any guidance as to the next steps? Thanks.Karinpower (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CANVASS. 131.142.152.179 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- CANVASS while ignoring relevant policies and ArbCom decisions. Where ArbCom enforcement applies, tread with extreme caution and be very familiar with all relevant content policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- The CANVASS comment is really not fair. I'm not seeking opinions that line up with my own, but rather trying to find out how to better use WP. The system is tilted in favor of certain perspectives; posting on the Fringe noticeboard isn't viewed as canvassing but in a sense it is. I don't think there is an equivalent place that I can post to simply ask for neutral opinions. It's actually quite difficult for newer editors to get support on how to navigate these tricky situations. --Karinpower (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- When it comes to fringe theories and claims, FTN is the noticeboard to use.
- When it comes to articles under ArbCom enforcement, anyone that's not willing to understand the relevant policies and ArbCom findings will find it extremely tricky to contribute. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- The system is tilted in favor of certain perspectives; posting on the Fringe noticeboard isn't viewed as canvassing but in a sense it is. That is true. Wikipedia is designed to give more weight to skeptical viewpoints than to credulous viewpoints, just as methodological naturalism is. This is intentional, and for the purposes of keeping inaccurate information off the wiki. While it is not perfect, it helps. If you have any doubt of this, I invite you to read a few 'controversial' topics on Conservapedia, then read about the same subject at a reliable reference library and see how incredibly inaccurate a wiki without such standards can be. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- The CANVASS comment is really not fair. I'm not seeking opinions that line up with my own, but rather trying to find out how to better use WP. The system is tilted in favor of certain perspectives; posting on the Fringe noticeboard isn't viewed as canvassing but in a sense it is. I don't think there is an equivalent place that I can post to simply ask for neutral opinions. It's actually quite difficult for newer editors to get support on how to navigate these tricky situations. --Karinpower (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- CANVASS while ignoring relevant policies and ArbCom decisions. Where ArbCom enforcement applies, tread with extreme caution and be very familiar with all relevant content policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
How to deal with inappropriate user name, (well-done) COI editing without disclosure?
I could use advice from a more experienced editor.
I came across a BLP article today which I feel presents two concerns, and I'm not sure how to deal with them as the editor who made some recent concerning edits does not have a user page.
Here are the concerns:
1) The editor's name is almost identical to a foundation which the BLP's subject established and which is described in the article. That's a no-no, correct?
2) Because of the similarity between user name and article subject, I assume there is COI editing going on. I have no problem with the tone of the article--I feel it presents facts in an encyclopedic way; I just have a concern with the apparent absence of a disclosure.
If an experienced editor could provide guidance on how to proceed, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Kekki1978. I don't understand your point about them not having a user page. All editors have user talk pages, which is where you can leave messages for them. If no messages have been posted for them yet, then you can start the page. It is probably worth posting about the case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard though. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kekki1978, inappropriate usernames, including those that seem promotional and imply shared use (such as the name of a company or foundation), should be reported at WP:UAA. Unless the account seems to be for promotion only, the user will probably be soft-blocked and asked to change username. If you'd like tell us which article you're concerned about, someone else might take a look. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Cordless Larry and Justlettersandnumbers. Thank you both for your responses. Cordless, thank you for explanation that anyone can start any user's talk page if one hasn't been created by that user yet; I didn't know that. Re. my concerns, I found two relevant templates that post a message to the user's talk page to bring the username concern to the editor's attention and to invite the user to explain and defend the current username, change the username, or create a new account under a different username. (These are subst:Uw-username and subst:Uw-coi-username.) I'm going to try to figure out how to use these in communicating directly with the editor. Thank you again for your assistance. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- In the circumstances you describe, Kekki1978, {{subst:Uw-coi-username}} sounds like the appropriate template to use. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Cordless Larry and Justlettersandnumbers. Thank you both for your responses. Cordless, thank you for explanation that anyone can start any user's talk page if one hasn't been created by that user yet; I didn't know that. Re. my concerns, I found two relevant templates that post a message to the user's talk page to bring the username concern to the editor's attention and to invite the user to explain and defend the current username, change the username, or create a new account under a different username. (These are subst:Uw-username and subst:Uw-coi-username.) I'm going to try to figure out how to use these in communicating directly with the editor. Thank you again for your assistance. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, yes, if someone could take a look at the article and the username, I would appreciate it, as this situation is currently over my head. Plus, I have a strong interest in some of the topics the article discusses and I would like to recuse myself. The article is Jay Ruderman and the username is Rudermanfdn. I'm now seeing numerous problems with the article: there are external links (instead of citations) throughout; I doubt the photo was properly made available under Creative Commons; a previous version of the article was deleted due to copyright violations (so perhaps there are current copyright violations?); ... If I proceeded I feel like I wouldn't address everything properly. TIA. Kekki1978 (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, thanks very much for addressing the concerns about the article and the username. It was helpful to see how you did it. Kekki1978 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kekki1978, inappropriate usernames, including those that seem promotional and imply shared use (such as the name of a company or foundation), should be reported at WP:UAA. Unless the account seems to be for promotion only, the user will probably be soft-blocked and asked to change username. If you'd like tell us which article you're concerned about, someone else might take a look. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
how will this question help u out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccamalleshpalya (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rebeccamalleshpalya, thanks for asking the question. I found it helpful to see how a more experienced editor handled something that needed to be done so that I (and others who read this) can do something like this independently in the future. It's not a question of helping me out, it's a question of helping Wikipedia out. And welcome to Wikipedia. Going forward, please sign your comments on talk pages, including this one, by typing four tildes, with a tilde being this character, "~", at the end of your entries. The four tildes will translate into your username, a date- and time-stamp, and a link that will enable others to communicate directly with you. There's a lot to learn, but your contributions are appreciated. Cheers. Kekki1978 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)