Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 225

Archive 220

←

Archive 223

Archive 224

Archive 225

Archive 226

Archive 227

→

Archive 230

My article was rejected for bad sourcing, yet I see many accepted articles with no sourcing at all

Hi all,

My article was rejected for bad sourcing, and while I can certainly see how it could be improved in that regard, I am a bit flummoxed as to how some articles get in with no sourcing at all, or sourcing that doesn't even pass the smell test. There will actually be notes that say "if this is not proprerly sourced or notated, it will be removed."

Shouldn't those articles never be accepted in the first place? Or is my editor being particularly harsh? Given that his specialty is not medicine and my article is on a prominent surgeon, should I be asking for a different editor to give a second opinion?

Curious, not (yet) furious.

Francois.96.56.50.162 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Francis and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't see any sign of a draft article you've created anywhere. Did you use a different user account or log in on a different computer? This makes it very hard to judge your contribution, which I'd be happy to take a look at. Thanks for staying curious rather than furious!  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Francis. This is a volunteer project and we have over 4.5 million articles. Some go through Articles for Creation review (which is fairly new), and others have just been plunked into the encyclopedia without any review. Many editors, myself included, spend a lot of time improving poor quality articles, and deleting hopeless articles. We delete thousands every day. Many more remain, which will be deleted when we get around to it.

Pointing out that some older poor quality articles exist on this encyclopedia, while true, is not a good argument for creating brand new poor quality articles. Instead, we either improve or delete the older articles, and create good quality new articles. That's how we build this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the below elsewhere today, as my Eddy Kenzo article was declined. Apparently, from what you say above one solution here would be for me to wait for the other person's article to (Lord willing and luck flowing) be deleted some day in the sky by and by, and then resubmit mine... However, I don't really care enough to continue wasting my time and energy for a topic I selected just because it came to hand at that time (and had not been written about before!) so I'm off until such time as something else strikes my fancy. "Heh! A couple weeks after I submitted this article to be reviewed, someone else posted an (as I see it and as indicated by the multiple problem notices placed on it later) apparently unreviewed and not as well prepared article. Mine was then declined when someone finally got around to looking at it on the basis of "one already exists." One of the things I really dislike about Wikipedia - but not wishing to devote my life to working up through the hierarchy, have no chance at all of changing - is how if you try to do things according to the rules you tend to get spat (change the second letter) on for various minor quibbles and not allowed to proceed until everything is absolutely perfect according to the arbitrary decisions and opinions of the insiders with power, as they choose among and interpret thousands of often contradictory rules and guidelines. Yet ninety percent of what is on the site was posted without review and is largely shlock (while the other ten percent is pretty good to excellent). Sure, someone then comes along and posts a "please improve" on much of the shlock, but so what? It's still there, is never addressed by the original author or the pious reviewer (who spends their time on their own interests and telling others what to do) and is often in such poor condition that improving it would be harder and take far more time than scrapping it and starting over - which as noted here cannot be done unless I wanted to simply cut out the other person's article and paste in my own, an idea that leaves a poor taste in my mouth and would probably incite even more trouble of other kinds. Ah well, I had my exercise in editing for the first time in some years. This not being my primary interest, but just something I like to put my bit into once in a while, I am not going to spend more hours trying to make this right. If anyone else wants to pull him/herself away from her/his own editing interests and marking things for corrections that will almost certainly never be made, please feel free to do the "improvement" work on the other article yourself using my material, or delete it, or whatever you feel like. Cheers and felicitations!" DanCooperPara (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello DanCooperPara. Your experience here is valid, and if that is true, then my experience is valid as well. I have been involved in saving, improving and expanding hundreds of articles here, and involved in deleting hundreds or perhaps thousands of lousy articles. You don't need to "wait" for anything. If you think an article doesn't belong, take action to get rid of it. I am a slow moving old man, so I am active at Articles for Deletion, which is a one week debate process. But we have speedy deletion for total garbage too. And so on. If it is really bad, act to delete it.

Improving mediocre articles ought to be "no big deal", and in most cases, it isn't. Simply edit the article to make it better, one edit at a time. If you start an article and find that there is already a mediocre article about the same topic, then simply take the reasearch you have already done, and use it to improve the existing article. No need to delete the poor article. Transform it. The previous contributors don't own it, and you can start with the first sentence, and make it better. And go through every sentence and paragraph. Don't like the structure? Then restructure it. Be prepared, of course, to defend your edits. If you are working in a highly controversial areas like abortion or the Crimea or gun control or Chinese border disputes or Obama, you may get some push back. But there are literally millions of articles where your policy compliant efforts will be uncontroversial and deeply appreciated. Just do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi DanCooperPara and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to hear about your disappointing experience with article creation. The reviewer was quite correct in declining the submission as it was a duplicate topic. That said, the existing article is tagged for both referencing and notability issues. A quick look at your draft shows some good sources that might solve those problems. A lot of the work involved in Wikipedia is in improving on the work of others and I think that your contributions to the exisiting article would be a great improvement. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And please note that other stuff exists is not an acceptable argument at Wikipedia - Arjayay (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I said my piece, and was simply quoted back the Official Company Line as usual. Will repeating it make things get better and/or already be perfect? I guess we'll see, or rather you will. (If it's so incredibly quick and easy to fix all these things, why don't all y'all just do it at the time? *wink*) Have fun hanging with all the insider 'contributors' who putatively do not own anything, like the ultra-high-poster of minor geographic name changes who used his insider status and knowledge of all the locales and buttons of power on Wikipedia to blockade undisputed, factual information that had been reported in local and regional newspapers and references for years from being included in the Adrian Dix page some time back, only getting pushed aside in the end because the whole thing got into the news media, thereby giving both Dix (who fully admitted the info and would probably have far rather have it simply included) and Wikipedia itself black eyes. There are a lot of decent people I've run into on Wikipedia, and I have no reason to doubt you are among them, but sadly I have met far more of the other kind. I particularly loved the fellow in question's demand - backed up by other Wikipedia power holders - even after giving up on claiming that the factual information should not be included because it was "political" (as what would not be in an article about a politician, one might ask) that nothing be added until the entire article was re-written and expanded to his liking, but of course with none of the work being done by him. Me, I'm (once again) sick of trying to jump through hoops to meet other people's specifications and desires, especially when I would get further if I was the kind who just ignored them or went around them. At least this time I don't have to "disappear" since this name is not actually trackable back to me like my previous one. (And honestly, knowing me, I might end up coming back yet again at some point to twiddle grammar; fairly sure I won't be writing any more articles, though, not that THAT's anyone's loss!) DanCooperPara (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I remove dead references?

I don't know how to remove references that lead to deleted websites. Thank you.

DrainPub (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Link rot. In short, if they support a statement, try to find another source for that information. Failing that mark it with the text {{deadlink}}, which appears as , but do not delete it, as archives like the Wayback machine can probably find it. If, however, it is just an External link, in the External links section, these can be deleted. Arjayay (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I need your opinions

On the Lauren Spierer article, I put the timeline of the night she disappeared in the article. I put the times established by surveillance footage in bold and the times established by witness statements in regular font. Several times, the times have all been bolded or unbolded by other editors thinking it was a mistake. I noted it above the timeline what the times in bold mean, but if wikipedia editors are missing it, I have to assume the regular reader is missing it too and assuming it is a typo. I'm wondering if I should use colors or some other type of distinction to make it clearer. Does anyone have any ideas? Bali88 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bali88. The Manual of style discourages the usage of bold type for emphasis. Please see MOS:BOLD for the details. Use of a colored font would also not comply with accepted style. If you feel the need to differentiate, try italic instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure if the "emphasis" rule is specifically referring to this type of situation. I'm assuming by emphasis they meant the type of situation that you would otherwise use Italics (example: You're angry at me??? I should be angry at you!"). A timeline is sort of an atypical usage, I doubt they're talking about emphasis in that way. If I would use italics...would italic numbers show up well? 5:10 vs. 5:10? It feels like it might be a lateral move:not enough distinction to really help the reader but just enough to look weird. I was considering doing a table with background colors in the boxes. People are unlikely to mistake that for a typo. I'm just wondering if that would be the right choice for a timeline. Bali88 (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bali88 First, I want to state my bias up front. One of my pet peeves is that people over use things like bold and italics. I think they should be used very sparingly. But with that in mind, after looking at the timeline I think that your use is one of those exceptions that prove the rule. I.e., I think it works as you did it and definitely adds to the presentation. As you said italics wouldn't work here and IMO there is lots of value in distinguishing between the two sources of info. However, I would definitely not start mucking around with colors, I think that would be overdoing it. I don't think you should infer that average readers are missing the emphasis either, it seemed clear to me. In similar cases like this, where there is a recurring type of change people make to an article that I have to keep undoing what I do is to document the decision on the Talk page. Say here is what I did and why. Then if someone disagrees they have a natural place to debate with you and in your edits when you revert you can make the revert comment refer to that Talk page section. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll keep it as is for now and address this further if the problem continues. Bali88 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I also think bold works well in this particular situation. If people keep on changing things without understanding what is intended then, as well as or instead of explaining on the talk page, you could put in WP:HIDDEN text beside each time to draw attention to what is going on. Obviously other editors may not think bold is suitable but at least they will realise that a distinction is being made. Thincat (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Problem

I still have not resolve the infobox issue I have for VxWorks. A line item "working state = Current" shows in edit mode but not in read mode...? ThanksRobpater (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It shows in read mode for me - note that it doesn't appear in the same place in the "live" version of the infobox as in the editable version; it's about the second or third visible field. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you still can't see it, you may need to bypass your cache - Arjayay (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I can see it nowRobpater (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I've modified that page as there was no reason to have two of the same infobox there. So, I condensed them into one infobox. Also note, that infobox is under discussion for a possible merge with {{Infobox OS version}} which may change the parameters a little in the future. I found the stacking of the logo and the screenshot hard to visualize so, I modified the template being used to put the screenshot at the bottom of the display. I think this change is a great improvement and would be happy to discuss it on the template's talk page if anyone doesn't agree. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Questions around a draft article about an organization

Hello TeaHouse !

I've written a draft for an article (currently in my sandbox) about an organization. I have been extra-careful so far, only adding information & activities I could find elsewhere than on the organization website. Now, I'd really like the opinion of fellow editors on 2 matters:

1/ Is what I have written so far in agreement with wikipedia policies ? (Comments on the text itself are also welcome... I am no native speaker so I would appreciate to be informed if my text does not make any sense :o)

2/ How much could I use the organization website ? It is really tempting to use it as they have lots of publication about their activities... But I am afraid to fall into advertisement then and to have that kind of box on the top of my article, once it will be published.

Thanks a lot for your help ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, your English sounds fine to me and the strongest clue that you're not a native speaker is that your sentences are grammatical! The draft looks good to me as it stands but you are right to be cautious. I have found articles on UN (and EU, etc.) organisations can get sent to WP:AFD for notability reasons because the references are either "passing mentions" or are from non-independent sources (such as the UN itself or UNESCO). Newspapers aren't interested in the UN (unless there is overspending, etc.). So, as a tactic, why not try and include something like this, even if it needs to be forced in a bit? The source is independent and the coverage is sufficiently extended. So, try looking for books and academic journal articles that have been written by outside observers. You can include UNEVOC website material when it is purely factual and non-controversial (as you have already). However, purely as another tactic, why not leave this out until the article has survived a couple of weeks as a full article? It will be right after it has become a full article that people will be looking at it to see whether it meets the WP:Notability guidelines. If there are too many UNEVOC internal references, casual readers may concentrate on these and not realise there are external references as well. Best wishes and good luck. WP ought to be having these sorts of articles and our coverage is presently not strong. Thincat (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comment and your tips, Thincat. You have well summed up the difficulties of those organizations regarding wiki-notability. I had not seen this book you've linked... it will be of a great help to fill the gaps. That should suffice to go through the review :-) Thanks again ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is a published work with few notable resources appropriate for an article?

Hello, I have a question about creating an article about a series of books. These are not widely-known books. There are a considerable number of works which reference this book and give some information on it, but I don't think these sources are what would be considered "notable" by Wikipedia, i.e. they are not academic journals or popular news publications. It seems to me that a book would have to be rather popular for it to be written about in sources like this.

Does this mean that an article must be only about very popular books? Is it not appropriate to create a Wikipedia article about a published book which is not popular enough to have been written about academically? Even though there isn't much information from "notable" sources about a book like this, I would think it would at least be of interest to have a page which discusses the simple fact that the book exists, who wrote it, and the topics it covers without expounding much on the content.

As a collection of knowledge, is Wikipedia reserved only for popular knowledge? 99.53.73.112 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. We have guidelines about the notability of books which you will find here. Hope that helps.--ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @Ukexpat:. Is there a list of criteria that admins use to determine whether a referenced published book is "notable" enough to be a valid reference? I ask because I have seen an article for a book, in a very similar situation to my own, which had numerous references of books which contained "sufficient critical commentary" yet were still dismissed and the whole article deleted. Do the people who decide whether to delete an article follow a set criteria or is it up to the whim of the person at the time whether or not references are "notable" enough?

I am talking about criteria #1 in the link you posted, which states non-trivial published works, including "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." This is not specific as it seems not all "other books" met this criterion. Sorry if there is already another page about this...I'm having trouble navigating wikipedia's help pages. 99.53.73.112 (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a page about reliable sources too. Also note that admins do not determine notability - they are just regular users who have a few extra tools to keep the place running smoothly. Questions of notability are a matter for consensus among the community, by discussion in an appropriate forum.--ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Ukexpat: for that link, it is somewhat helpful, although it does not discuss what should be considered a notable book or not. It does discuss in depth scholarly sources and news organizations, but the only criterion it really lists for published books is that they not be self-published. Does this imply that it is really just a "majority rules" determination of what should be considered a notable published book? 99.53.73.112 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we use the guidelines at WP:NBOOK but to determine whether those guidelines are met, we use reliable sources. If there is a dispute, the community decides whether the sources cited (a) are reliable and (b) demonstrate that the book meets the guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your help @Ukexpat:, though unfortunately I feel I've hit a wall of circular reasoning. WP:NBOOK lists as a criteria that an article about a book should have sources including "published books," and so we go to reliable sources to determine if the published book can be counted as a "reliable source," but the only criterion mentioned is that is should not be self-published. So we go back to WP:NBOOK for further criteria, but then again must reference reliable sources to determine reliability. By that point I'm dizzy! This seems to imply to me that "can't be self-published" is not the only criterion for determining whether a published book is a "reliable source," but rather it is left up to the community (i.e. the majority) to decide whether a book is "reliable" even if it is not self-published. This is enlightening, thank you! 99.53.73.112 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I must not be explaining it clearly: for a book to merit an article about it on Wikipedia, it must be notable. We have guidelines that we use to indicate what notable means. But it's not enough for the text of an article to indicate that it is notable; the text must be supported by reliable, third party, sources that show that the book meets the guidelines. The book itself cannot be used as a source to demonstrate its own notability. Guidelines and policies are open to interpretation, so any dispute as to whether the book is "notable", ie meets the guidelines, or whether the third party sources cited to support notability are in fact "reliable", as defined on Wikipedia, are resolved by discussion. --ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is determined by a number of factors, including the reputation of the publisher and the author, the credentials of the author regarding the specific topic, and the context. We expect much more rigor from a source on a medical topic than a pop culture topic. The most common way to establish the notability of a book is to cite published in-depth reviews of that book by professional book reviewers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me try a different slant on this. Evidence of publication is not evidence of notability or even significance, since anyone can publish a book.

To illustrate this, it's possible for someone to write and then "self-publish" a book - and thus the book is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards - but the book itself subsequently becomes notable by Wikipedia's standards because other, "reliable" sources write about it. So for example The Land of Lost Content (book) is notable but not reliable, just like Histories (Herodotus). Presumably there are some reliable sources that are not notable, too - which would be the opposite. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples of newspapers which were indisputably notable but utterly unreliable include Der Stürmer and Weekly World News. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And of course the Daily Fail, I mean Mail.--ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

new articles

Hello all. I wish to create new articles coving topics not present here however I am unaware of the minimal requirements that need to be met regarding content and sourcing. SanamBh (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SanamBh. Please start by reading Your first article and also A Primer for beginners. Feel free to ask specific questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:42 is good too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are all good pointers. However, I want to add that it sounds like you are a new editor and IMO it's better for new editors to work on editing existing articles first and then create new articles after you have some experience. For a few reasons, first I think that editing existing articles is something we need more of than new articles. There are so many articles out there that need work, better references, better flow, less POV, etc. Of course new articles are good as well but there aren't that many really important topics that don't already have an article. Second doing some editing will get you experience on all the things you need to know to create a new article but in a more digestible fashion than jumping in and creating a brand new article. Also, editing existing articles will get you familiar with what is already there and will make it less likely that you might try to create a new article on a topic already covered with a slightly different name. If you look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal and scroll down to "Help Out" there are subheading with lots of articles that need specific improvements. Also, once you do some editing User:SuggestBot is a great tool for finding articles to edit that match your interests. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Help to remove watermark

I request some user to remove watermarks from images on Shaina NC as I have nominated it for GA and I can't remove watermarks from mobile. Abhi (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You can ask at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop for assistance with this. Make sure the copyright is appropriate for Wikipedia; watermarks often suggest that it's not. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yunshui. I have placed request there. Abhi (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. If you read the upload description at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shaina_NC_Family_2.jpg it has some rather specific conditions accepted under OTRS at Commons. Fiddle Faddle 15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

??? I have uploaded around 1000 images on Commons with watermarks. Sometime I cropped to remove watermark, sometime someone removed watermarks on images they liked and many are still with watermarks. For the first time I am requesting watermark removal because I have nominated article for GA. Abhi (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Quibik did it. Thanks everybody. Abhi (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Tim (Fiddle Faddle) was replying to my suggestion that the watermark might indicate a copyright issue - I put that in as a generalism, but the Bollywood Hungama images used in the article do seem to have the correct (albeit very specialised) permissions, so nothing to worry about there. Yunshui ^雲_水 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File edit summary

How do you write an edit summary in a file page? Thanks. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 04:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Edit summary#File upload summary have what you need?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Creation of an Actress-related article

Chernobyl86 (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)I'm Chernobyl86 and I am wondering about if Wikipedia could create an article about the actress Stephanie Leigh Schlund, the actress who portrayed Cashmere in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire?Chernobyl86 (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Chernobyl86 and welcome to the Teahouse. If Ms. Schlund has been written about extensively in reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles, film reviews, etc., then you could make an article yourself. Try reading this page: Wikipedia:Your first article. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

She is listed in the article List of The Hunger Games cast members, but not in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. This suggests to me that it is a relatively minor role, and unless she has other more significant credits it might be difficult to justify having an article spefically for her. So your first task, should you choose to accept it, is to check the list of requirements at WP:NACTOR to confirm whether she is "Notable" (in the special Wikipedia sense of the word). In particular, can you justify how she meets the criterion to have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (my emphases) --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time.

KateMcKinnonTucson (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox vs. Sub page - which is better & why?

Hello,

I'm trying another article (this time for an association), but decided to start the article as I had done before, which was in my sandbox - is it ok to do this instead of creating a subpage? I marked {{userspace draft}} in my sandbox and when it is time to submit the article for review, I will remove this userspace draft tag - Please advise if this is correct.

It seemed easier to create the content in the sandbox and then submit for review - does it not? what is the subpage's purpose anyway? I created a test/subpage but I still don't get it so it just sits there on my userspace, - is it ok to go to the sandbox (it is also a subpage of the user space) - I can then ask editors to take a look before i submit my article?

Also - I tried to find my old message about creating the sub page but it is gone (nine days ago) - is there a time limit to answer questions in the teahouse? Thanks in advanceAdBCWi14 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AdBCWi14. A sandbox page is just an easy to remember name for a type of user subpage. You can use your sandbox page for any type of experimentation or article development you wish, as long as the ultimate goal is improving the encyclopedia. Active editors often have many user subpages, because they are working on several projects simultaneously. To start a new user subpage, just type a slash (/) after your user page URL in the box at the top, add a nickname for the page after the slash, and hit enter. You will be asked if you want to start a new page with that name, and when you do so, an edit window appears. Just start editing. But if you only need one page, just use your sandbox.

Old Teahouse questions get archived. You can search the archives using the search function available on this page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Found it!— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute with another editor

I am a new editor to Wikipedia, and for the past week, I have been having an ongoing and possibly escalating dispute with another editor, who has been engaged in an edit-war with me over a minor edit to the Muslim conquests article and has been repeatedly attacking me with claims of my Wikipedia "falsifying" information and sources.

I admit that I was deeply surprised to receive such a message - of being reported to an administrator - as my first one on this site, and I have become not a little disillusioned. I do not wish to seek other solutions, but someone recommended me coming here for possible advice, and so here I am. I could not help but notice that this user has been engaged in very serious disagreements with various others as well over similar issues, such as the Talk:Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent most recently, and it honestly concerns me a little that his behaviour, both unnecessary and unusually aggressive, is allowed to continue, seemingly unnoticed or disregarded by most. Torontas (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

tournament logo copyright or not?

The non-profit I work for has soccer tournament logo's created once a year, we pay a Dad to create them but do not copyright them? How do I put them up correctly on the page? jenbreckJenbreck (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jenbreck. Copyright is not something you do: it's something that is. Those pictures are copyright unless the owner has explicitly placed them in the public domain (relinquished all rights in them). The copyright owner is probably either the Dad who created them, or your club (which I'm guessing is Utah Youth Soccer Association), depending on their agreement and your local laws. To use the logo in Wikipedia, the copyright owner must explicitly release it under a licence at least as liberal as CC-BY-SA: see donating copyright materials for how to do this. Some logos are used under the non-free content criteria, but I do not believe that the logo of a subsidiary event to the subject of an article would meet those criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I show I have been granted permission to use photographs that aren't mine?

I remember reading about a procedure that needs to be done to prove the status of a photograph's copyright. I can't remember where I saw it to get back and read the details. Could you please help me with this? Thank You. Also, am I signing properly by just putting four tildes at the end of a talk page or do I need something else with it? Jet 18:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. You must communicate the permission to Wikipedia as explained at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jet. Your signature should include a link to your user page and one to your talk page. You can change how it looks by going to Special:Preferences and changing the box that says "Signature", and then checking the box that says to treat the above as Wiki markup before you scroll down and save changes.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jet1950: - Are you thinking of Commons:OTRS. The copyright holder will need to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the format at Commons:Email template. Please bear in mind that the OTRS volunteers are usually backlogged so it may take a little while. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If the photos are on a website, Jet1950, then the copyright holder can place a statement underneath each photo saying that it is freely licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (most commonly) or another acceptable Creative Commons license. Then, the photos can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons immediately. Just be sure the copyright holder reads, understands and agrees to the terms of the license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page

I created a page for a politician, S.J. Jung, that was recently deleted due to alleged promotion. I went through my article and spent hours trying to making it objective and really thought it was. However, the page is again not there. Once it is deleted is it not possible to re-do? I would really love for my article to be up and I would like to now exactly what is wrong with it.

Thanks in advance for your help.SJ4Senate (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@SJ4Senate: Normally, if you ask the deleting administrator, they will place a copy in your own userspace. When that happens you can work on it to your heartls content and ask reviewers from WP:AFC to tell you what is wrong with it. If that is what you want to happen, after you have asked the deleting admin and they have handed you the userspace copy, ask me on my own talk page for help and I will do my best to help you. If the politician is genuinely notable then we want an article on them here. If, however, you are using the article as their political platform then the article will be deleted again. I perceive form your username that this may be the case, and that you are promoting S J Jung. Fiddle Faddle 15:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@SJ4Senate: Just to expand on Faddle's comment about your user name. User names which appear to be promotional are in breach of our user name policy. Your user name appears to be promoting support of a political candidate and is therefore not permitted.--ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello SJ4Senate. As an unelected candidate, Jung fails our notability guideline for politicians. The proper time to write an article is if and when he wins the state legislature election. Since it seems you have a conflict of interest, please use the Articles for Creation process after any such victory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

subject notability: cultural differences problems and rare theorical background

Hallo,my draf:Anton_Milenin has been rejected because the "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". This is my first page in English Wikipedia, and I am writing on a Russian director living and working mainly in Italy. All the sources I have found directly linked to him are in Italian, but quite relevant in Italian theatre publications, and I would like to be sure that the rejection is not related to lack of relevant sources because of a language/cultural problem (that is: for an Italian theatre professional, someone cited by XXX is an interesting artist, but for an English professional the name XXX can mean very little...). The page on Italian Wikipedia didn't meet any problems, but maybe there are different parameters. If this is the problem, how can I solve it? Main question is about how can I point the notability of the subject. In fact, he is one of the few theatre directors using a technique called "structural analysis of text" originated by successors of Stanislavskij at the MXAT and GITIS (two main schools in Moskow directly related to Stanislavskij work) ... This is the reason of notability for this person in the theatre field, but I had no idea on how I could write it. All the theorical books about this technique are in Russian and there are no traces in wikipedia about it, except the Hermeneutic page wich I included in the "categories", and that is in fact quite general. I also cited the Italian articles in which the technique is explained, or those written by actors telling their experiences through this technique. How would you suggest to make this reason of notability explicit? Shall I go in the technical details, explaining what this technique is? Or shall I write a Wikipedia Article about it so that I can link the person page to the technique page? Or is it enough if I add this peculiarity in his biography, as I wrote it to you? Thanks! Silandcoreng (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Silandcoreng. Let me say first of all that it is acceptable to use Italian and Russian language sources, as long as the sources are reliable and give significant coverage to the topic, namely Anton Milenin. When I look at your article about someone active the last ten years or so, I see several sources published in the late 1990s. How could they give significant coverage to this person? I read one source and found it didn't even mention him. The text mentions a review of his work in La Repubblica, but I don't see that review cited. Far better to cite five solid sources than 20 mediocre sources. So start by trimming your sources back to the high quality sources that devote significant coverage to Anton Milenin, and limit the draft to summarizing what those sources say about him. And nothing more. Not a shred more. The article can be expanded later. This is a biography, not an article about an acting technique. Your task now is to establish without a doubt that this specific person is notable, by the standards of English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability in only one language.

Hi, I recently came across an article, TSV Großbardorf to be specific. I noticed all the references were in german, and I can't find and sources in english. I think I read somewhere in wikipedia that it isn't notable in the english wikipedia but may be notable in another language. I couldn't find it again so I asked here to clarify if it is true. Thanks! TheQ Tester (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi TheQ Tester. In regards to sourcing and notability, sources do not have to be English to establish notability, as mentioned at WP:GNG.

As for notability guidelines across the various language Wikipedias, those differ. Other language Wikipedia's may be more harsh on their notability guidelines, or more easy-going; something having an article on one version of Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that it meets the notability guidelines for the others. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the other way around, on the English WP we don't care what language the sources are, the notability rules don't take language into account at all. If the article is based on in depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources the subject is notable, regardless of the sources being in German, Japanese, Ibo or Gujarati. The English WP's purpose is to collect the world's notable knowlege and write about it in English, not to collect only the knowlege already written in English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What does a CSD log do?

Hello! What does a CSD log do? I have created one for myself, but I actually don't know what is it. How can I operate it and is it automated? By the way, I already have Twinkle on.I thought that CSD log was a request for CSDs. XP. Anyway, after you reply, PLEASE either ping me or mention me or leave me a teahouse talkback. Thanks! Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an automated list of articles that you have nominated for speedy deletion. You don't have to do anything with it as Twinkle will automatically update it. Valenciano (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So it doesn't count files and categories? Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 07:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

want to add two header rows to a two-column format

Hi,

I'm trying to set up a double column to show the name of an office-holder in one column, and the years of service in the second column. I've found out how to do that.

However, I would also like to have two header rows that span both columns, to have the name of the office in the top row, and some detail about the office in the second row.

Is this possible to do (without much knowledge of formatting)?

Here's what I would like it to look like: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat. I looked at the code for those columns, though, and there seems to be a lot of data built into them, so I can't just use them as a template.

Thanks!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. It sounds like you want the below which uses colspan="2". See more at Help:Table. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

HI, PrimeHunter. Thanks for the response. However, I'm not sure a table will work, because I want to list several officer-holders, like the example of the US Supreme Court justices. That article displays 3 or 4 columns side-by-side. Is it possible to have 3 or 4 tables side-by-side? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:You can put tables side by side by essentially putting those tables within another table. A simpler way to do this, though, is to use the col-templates, as the Supreme Court Justices example does. See the example usage for an idea of how it works. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I initially asked about using columns. But, I still don't know how to have a single cell at the top of a two-column display, the same as the Supreme Court justices example does. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the code I used above. If this is not the table layout you want then please explain the difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that example, but again, is there a way to have three or four separate tables lining up side-by-side, as in the case of the US Supreme Court justices, linked to above? It is possible to do it with columns. I don't want it to be a single table, because the years for different office-holders don't correspond. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is my sample table from above copied to three columns with code at the example usage link in SuperHamster's post. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

Thanks! I'll give it a try! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

How to have "stub" and "needs inline citations" tags removed from a page that has been improved

Hi! I have been working to improve the page on English guitarist Oliver Thompson. I am wondering if I have added enough material to have the two notes on the page removed, or if what is required is that another person besides myself work on the page. I haven't noticed anyone else doing so, but I'm a fan, and I'd like to see the page look nice.

Oliver Thompson

Can anyone recommend how I might improve the content that I have already added, or is it appropriate to ask for someone else to add something, or to ask Wiki to remove the "This needs to be better" tags?

Thanks! I'm pretty wet behind the Wiki-ears. KateMcKinnonTucson (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kate, and welcome to the Teahouse. The general answer to your question is that when you think that you have fixed a problem, you are welcome to remove the tags from the top. However, I'm afraid that despite your work, you have not fixed the problem with referencing. The fact is, that not one of the six references in Oliver Thompson is acceptable. Four of them are to Wikipedia articles: Wikipedia is inherently unreliable (because anybody may edit it); so while it is very much encouraged to link to other articles, they may never be used as references. The final two are just to listings: they may or may not be reliable (I haven't checked), but they do not say anything substantial about Thompson. What you need is reliable published references, independent of the subject which have written at length about him: reviews or articles in major newspapers, or in websites with a reputation for fact-checking. Without several of these, not only will the article not be satisfactory, but it is likely to be deleted, because those are required to establish that the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). One minor point - when you do find some better references, they should be formatted with bibliographic information, and should not appear in parenthesis in the text: see Referencing for beginners for more information. Sorry. --80.177.170.180 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will work to correct what you suggest immediately.

KateMcKinnonTucson (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

May I ask what you think of the references now? It's my understanding that parentheticals are OK and I actually prefer them, if so.

I am not sure if the quote I included from one of the interviews with Ferry is appropriate, and if so, I should inset it, in italics, as I would if I were writing an article.

Thank you again for your time.

KateMcKinnonTucson (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen references in parentheses like that. It's probably better just to remove those and leave the reference information. But you will still not be finished. We need a title and preferably other information such as a publisher, or the name of the magazine or newspaper if there is one. If you use just a URL, it is possible that at some future date a person looking for the information will not be able to simply click on the link and it will be gone. Adding as much information as possible helps us deal with that possibility.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I see I missed one of your other questions. There MUST be a reference immediately after the quote. In my opinion, the quote from Ferry is too long. Include what is really essential. Definitely don't quote the person asking the question. Just reword that part in your own words, saying something like "Asked his opinion on ... , Ferry said," followed by some sort of formatting for the response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I went back through my recent contributions and found an article with a formatted quote. If you click on "edit" you can see how to use this particular formatting. There are others.

Nile Rodgers ... is a really brilliant rhythm guitarist. I must also mention Neil Hubbard, Waddy Wachtel, Phil Manzanera, John Porter, David Gilmour, Mark Knopfler and Johnny Marr – the list goes on – all of whom have played wonderful things on my records.

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

References

--ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. And I shouldn't have left just a URL up there, even though it was random and had nothing to do with the quote. I should always show a properly formatted reference.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My article rejected for 3rd time for inadequate sourcing

It's unclear what's inadequate from the rejection message. The first two times it was rejected on the grounds that I was using YouTube for sourcing. As I tried to explain, I was not. There is a difference between links used for sourcing and links used for illustrative purposes. I made it a point to only use YouTube links to SHOW examples of what I was referring to in my text, not as evidence for the veracity of my text.

It seems to me, assuming that the latest rejection is for the same reason, that wikpedia editors are not making this distinction, perhaps because that's how the rules have been set up. I can understand why that might be in a mass writing exercise like wikipedia but if the YouTube links provide images of what I'm referring to or describing in the text, then it seems to me that that is good for the article, not a deficit.

I'm actually an experienced editor and author in the print venue so I'm not coming to this untutored. I understand that wikipedia has special requirements but I don't have a lot of time to be playing around with this stuff. I'd like to put the article on Yun Mu Kwan karate up because there is little to be found on wiki about this long lost style of Korean karate, and not a lot of detail, frankly, on-line.

The style is one of the original five Korean "kwans" which formed the basis for modern taekwondo but it faded early on when it's founder went missing in the Korean War and was reconstituted later by other practitioners under a different name: Jidokwan (for which there is already a wiki article). This later style traces its origins to Yun Mu Kwan and itself disappeared as a distinct style when taekwondo was established as a uniform Korean system in the mid 1950's. So there's reason to give a full historical account.

However, I am growing increasingly frustrated with the resistance to clearing the article. After all, once it's up there, others will be editing it in any case. So what's the problem? If you think there's insufficient documentation for what I've explained about Yun Mu Kwan in the article, you have only to google the Web and you'll find extensive mention of it. But, because it went extinct, rather like the dodo, there's no one around to give it a full history anymore.

I have been trying to do that by piecing together the mentions of it I have come across on the Web as well as what I know about it first hand which is reasonably solid (since I trained in the style for five years -- the old system left many remnants -- and knew many of its mid-twentieth century adherents). I just don't know what else wiki editors want from me than that.

S. W. Mirsky 22:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC+9)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Swmirsky. It is difficult or impossible to verify the copyright status of most YouTube videos. Wikipedia is much stricter about copyright than YouTube and many other websites. We do not link to any exterior site that is not verifiably copyright compliant. That's policy. So, your first step is to delete any and all links to suspect sites such as YouTube, unless you can show the reviewer solid evidence that the copyright status is legitimate.

Most blogs are not considered reliable sources unless they are by professional journalists under editorial control, or by academic experts. We are looking for high quality reliable sources, so please remove the blogs. Sources need not be available online, by the way. It is OK to fully cite reliable paper books and journals, in Korean as well as English.

Many of your paragraphs make sweeping assertions about various things without any references at all. How do you know these things, and how can a reader verify them? If you know based on your personal experience studying for five years, then we call your summary of your experience Original research which Wikipedia does not publish. So please remove everything from the draft which is based on your personal knowledge.

Your article should summarize only what high quality reliable sources say about the topic, and nothing more. Strip everything else away, and polish what is left. Then, you will have an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To add to what Cullen328 said, if you end up with no content or almost no content after following the steps above, then it's likely that your topic isn't notable. If that happens, then you can maybe merge or redirect the article to a broader, more notable topic. There are also alternative outlets for these things, such as a personal website (there are many free web-hosting services) or perhaps a specialized wiki on Wikia. --Jakob (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Two rejections now - helpful but conflicting advice; where do I go from here?

I'm trying to get an article published about a new business process that I have seen in use to great effect. This is my submission, but clearly I'm just not up to Wiki approval. Just not sure where to go next! Can you help, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Opportunity_Lifecycle_Management Bertiewolf Bertiewolf (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bertiewolf. I think that the reviewers have given you excellent advice. Start by identifying the reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the specific topic of "Opportunity lifecycle management", and format those references properly. Eliminate all blogs, dictionary definitions, promotional sources and other low quality sources. Then, rewrite the draft in plain English, eliminating all business jargon and marketing speak. The article should simply summarize what those high quality sources say, and nothing more. Format the article properly. Take a look at several of our designated Good articles to get an idea of what your article should look like. In all honesty, I don't know whether or not "Opportunity lifecycle management" is a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article, as it sounds like hollow jargon to me. So it is up to you to demonstrate that the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you add boxes?

I often see pages that put info inside of boxes. For example, most pages will have a box with contents of the article inside. Pour some wisdom on me! EMachine03 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome EMachine03. You are probably talking about Wikipedia:Infoboxes. Check the link, and if you still have questions, come on back.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EMachine03. Another type of box commonly seen in articles is a Table of contents. Whenever any article has four or more section headers, the wiki software will generate the table of contents automatically. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks guys! I'll post more questions soon. EMachine03 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, EMachine03. I found that the easiest way to get a feel for how Inforboxes work is to find a page which has a good one, then use the Edit tab to see how it was done. Then of course, remember to Cancel the edit page! --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

License

I have loaded picture of Kohat File:Tehsil gate.jpg, the picture is of 1919, I copied it from https://www.flickr.com/photos/59036290@N07/5989995439/ I also discussed it with Cullin.Cullim assured me that it would be safe to upload that old pictures. but now I got a message that this picture is marked for deletion, I am not very expert they want information about the source. same is with other picture File:ktraiway.jpg which is 114 years old. What shoud I do plz help. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 05:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Aftabbanoori. I told you that it was OK to upload photos published before 1923, but you did not tag the photos appropriately as being published before 1923. So, go to Wikimedia Commons, and add the appropriate tags verifying publication before 1923. Just click on the links and add the appropriate tags. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I will try to add tags but I am not sure if I can do this to me it is little bit complicated, but I will try If I can. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 06:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Aftab Banoori. I've gone ahead and added the tags for you. To add license tags, edit the "Licensing" section (in the source it will show up as =={{int:license-header}}==) and add a copyright tag. Copyright tags acceptable for Commons can be found at commons:COM:CT. The tag for the two old images you uploaded is {{PD-1923}} (works published before 1923, public domain in the United States). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I am very grateful to you Anon126 and Cullen328.

I did't understand your message fully, but when I went to the image page to add the tag, the way you said, I was pleased very much, you have already added the tags. It is wonderful when people like you and Cullen are here. Best wishes to both of you. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)