Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 252

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 245←Archive 250Archive 251Archive 252Archive 253Archive 254Archive 255

Creating Article about Company - Want to get it right

Hi Teahouse.

I am trying to create a page about Contentful (A company) and I am currently an employee there. I know about the conflict of interest and I am trying to write as neutrally as possible. I have started a very brief draft as a subpage (user:samsharif8/contentful draft) in my user page and it would be really great to have an editor see that I am writing within the rules.

I plan on adding more about the technology and a list of competitors to ensure that it is more neutral.

Thanks! Samsharif8 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Samsharif8. I think that User:Samsharif8/contentful draft is a good start. Your references seem to be good, and establish notability. The only cautious note I would sound about what you have written so far is that "Its platform agnostic, API-first approach means that content can be distributed ... " reads rather like promotional material rather than an encyclopaedia article. It's partly that these phrases "platform agnostic" and "API-first" sound a bit promotional (though the second of these is in the source, I admit - the first isn't, by the way, and the source says something which looks to be a bit different); but it's more that tricky word "means". As well as sounding promotional, this actually makes the sentence original research - which is not permitted in Wikipedia.
I appreciate that you are talking about listing competitors in order to maintain neutrality; but actually I don't think it is appropriate, unless you are referencing an article which compares Contentful and its competitors. It is more important that the language used about the company and the product is neutral, and that any negative coverage is not omitted. What you should do is put it in at least one category - and if there are articles about competitors, there should be a category which contains them all.
One more thing: thanks for disclosing your COI here: you should also do so on your user page or on the article's talk page User talk:Samsharif8/contentful draft. --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Samsharif8, and welcome to the Teahouse. Just to add to ColinFine’s sage advice —
I've also reviewed your draft, and also note that you have requested assistance at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. First, you have formatted your draft well, and your three citations are documented well. So you have the hang of editing on Wikipedia, a good start.
You may need more sources (reliable, independent third-party) that provide a published analysis of the company. One of your challenges is that the company is only 15 months old, and the more established companies evidence success and notability over time. The progammableweb article has a little analysis, but it relies heavily on an interview with the founder, so it represents his point of view more than a neutral point of view. The 451 Research article may be more neutral analysis, but it's subscription-only — I didn't subscribe, but if you have access that article would possibly be good to selectively quote and summarize. You've listed some famous clients, but that, too, begins to sound promotional.
Also, consider the content of an article about a company — You can mention the products/services in passing, but if you describe them like a catalog, with trademarked brand names, it is difficult to avoid sounding promotional. It needs to be less about the products of the company, and more about the company itself. For example, who founded the company? When? Where? What is the vision of the company? How is the company capitalized? What is its history? Has it filed any patents? Has it had challenges or setbacks? Has it won any awards? Has it been involved in any litigation? If you wanted to know the facts about the company, what would you want to read? When you answer these types of questions, you will be on your way to a worthy encyclopedic article.
Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Thank you both very much for such detailed reviews! It is very helpful. One thing I would ask, Grand'mere Eugene is, am I allowed to cite from the contents of the 451 research article? I do have access to it but I did not think it would be allowed because most editors will not. Also, I may change the article to be about the software rather than the company, similar to how some competitors have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal. Once again, Thanks! 62.96.221.138 (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Samsharif8: It's definitely okay to use reliable sources that require a subscription, as long as your include complete bibliographic info in the citation. See WP:Offline sources, which uses the Wall Street Journal as an example of a source requiring a subscription to see content, and gives advice on using the quote parameter of citation templates, as well as seeking help from other editors at WikiProject Resource Exchange.
You can certainly shift your focus to an article about the software. Just be careful to avoid bloviated descriptions (see puffery).
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I create a brand new Article ?

How do I create a brand new Article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.25.6 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. We have a process called articles for creation that helps new contributors create articles. There, you can write a draft and submit it for review. Others will then check if it meets Wikipedia's standards. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC political motivation and vote stacking

Kingsindian has opened a few RfCs lately with some responders appearing uninterested in sources and only in backing others up. Assuming I'm not that creative and it has happened in the past.[1] I'd like to know about occurrences of RfC politically motivated vote-stacking and what has Wikipedia done to prevent such instances? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:Meatpuppetry, Wikipedia doesn't go by votes, we go by what is the better solution and what falls under the policiesMirror Freak 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: Agreed. If an RfC needs to be closed to establish consensus, the closer should primarily evaluate the relevance and arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not the number of people who said or agreed with something. That being said, a well-reasoned argument often does attract some agreement, so it really depends on whether the original argument is reasonable or not. In terms of preventing vote-stacking, there are templates that get used such as Template:Notavote, which looks like the following:
In addition, if new accounts are created for the sole purpose of participating in an RfC, these arguments are usually discounted as they represent single-purpose accounts. Such attempts are often good indicators of artificial vote-stacking either through a single person creating multiple accounts or a single person recruiting many people in an attempt to sway an RfC decision. Sometimes, these accounts are also blocked. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

lack of information concerning python docstring and risk of conflict of interest

Hi, I am interested in Python docstring and I wrote a tuto about them. When I looked to the Wikipedia article I noticed that there was still a lack of information. I added a paragraph providing the link to my tuto but I get a message concerning conflict of interest. And reading the concern, I think it could be indeed a kind of as I provide a link to my tuto. But my concern is to enhance knowledge and provide material that I can. I wrote my tuto for me at the beginning because I didn't find this information. Now I want to share it. So I'd like to know if I can do this (note that I provide the links in references). Thanks to the community. Daouzli (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Daouzli. First, I'm not sure which article you are talking about. I assume it's this: Python (programming language) correct? I ask because you mentioned "Python dosctring" and at first I thought this might be some specific concept in Python that had it's own article but that doesn't seem to be the case. BTW, I know a lot about computer science and languages like Java, Smalltalk, and Lisp, but very little about Python. Just one person's opinion but the fact that you wrote a tutorial about Python does not seem to me to qualify as a wp:conflict of interest That seems like a good thing as long as you keep your language wp:neutral I've noticed especially on the technology pages some people get very passionate about various technologies, language like "Microsoft sucks big time!" or "Java is God's gift to programmers, no more memory allocations!" are not appropriate (even though they are both true, just kidding). As for referencing your tutorial that may be seen as wp:promotional, if I were you I would try to avoid it just to avoid even the appearance of being promotional, there are probably lots of good tutorials out there. Also, as a reference an online tutorial is not great. I've used them on occasion when editing various articles but as much as possible I try to stick to books or journal articles. There certainly are plenty of those around on Python and I'm sure you have read and probably have the best ones so that's my advise, use books for refs always before tutorials especially your own. Hope that was useful. If you need more specific info it would help to know the specific change to which article you are referring to. I tried looking at the history of edits for your user name but couldn't find anything that looked correct. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.

I didn't find the information in a book or an other article, that's why I wrote my article (it's more a doc than a tuto). There is what I wanted to add to the Docstring article: User_talk:Daouzli

Daouzli (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, that helps. If someone reverted a change you made to the Docstring article the place to take that up is on the docstring talk page: Talk:Docstring For something as fundamental as this though I find it hard to believe that there isn't some better documentation than your tutorial. The tutorial is obviously self published, which is fine but even for a web reference it doesn't look like a great one. When I do a google search just for "Python Wiley" I see several books: https://www.google.com/search?q=Python+Wiley&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb It's hard to believe that one of these doesn't cover docstrings. For example this book: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002658.html I think it's better to use a book like that rather than your tutorial. I know it can be a bit of a pain but that's what makes a good encyclpedia. Or if you have to use an online source use something associated with Sourceforge or python.org, for example: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0257/ --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Daouzli. I think the policy on external links is relevant here. The only one of the (limited list of) criteria for linking that might apply, in my view, is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject ..." - but I doubt that a tutorial is ever relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of a subject. I don't think any other entry in the "What can normally be linked" or "Links to be considered" sections allows this either. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree with ColinFine slightly. I was talking about using the tutorial as a reference. I'm skeptical that there would need to be something in a technical article like Docstring that would need to be referenced with your tutorial page. If it's not in a technical (e.g. Wiley) book or on a site from somewhere like Sourceforge or python.org I'm skeptical it's important enough to belong in the article and need a reference. However, I do think it's conceivable that your tutorial could be a valid wp:External link my reading of the requirement is that "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail" would mean that in an article on Docstrings a Dosctring tutorial for Python could be a valid external link since Python is one of the most common languages where Docstrings are used and Python is one of three languages with a detailed section in the Docstring article. A tutorial is too big for an article but IMO if it's neutral and well written may add to an article. Just to be clear a wp:External links go in a separate section of the article. There are currently three such links already on the Dosctring article here: Docstring#External_links. They are all documentation manual type links but IMO a tutorial is similar enough to documentation in a manual. In my experience there are often tutorials on various technical topics. Note though that doesn't mean your tutorial is neutral enough or adds enough, there are a lot of tutorials that don't add enough value to merit an external link. Or Colin could just be right, he has more experience than I do. Sorry, it's one of the things about Wikipedia we don't always agree. I don't know enough about Python to judge for sure anyway, that would be for the people editing the Docstring page and could be discussed on the docstring talk page: Talk:Docstring --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What to do when you're new

I didn't really expect to get an invite to the Teahouse, I was actually trying to stay as hidden as possible, but since I'm here, I came to get help with things to do when you're new, so I am looking for some tips and advice. This could also be a good way for people coming in later to learn some new things too. Things like formatting within Wikipedia (like using ==Title== and making indexes), spotting things that are vandalism, not just little mistakes, and other useful things to know. Maybe even how to fix my signature? #bodyContent a[title="User:PrefersToStayANinja"] { background-color: #000000; color: #b30303; font-weight: bold; } 19:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernus 780 (talk • contribs)

Well, the first thing you can do is sign your comments with 4 tildas like this (except without the brackets) ~ Mirror Freak 19:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I did sign like that, but i must have put in a bad string in preferences. Here's the four tildes. bodyContent a[title="User:PrefersToStayANinja"] { background-color: #000000; color: #b30303; font-weight: bold; } 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey Infernus 780, welcome to the Teahouse. You might need to specify that you're using mark-up in your signature in preferences, but this string:
bodyContent a[title="User:PrefersToStayANinja"] { background-color: #000000; color: #b30303; font-weight: bold; }
...will not produce stylized content, if only because there are some missing open/close brackets there. For the time being, it might be best to stick with the standard signature until you can get that fixed up, just so people can get to your talk page easily. As for learning the basics, a few good places to get started are The Wikipedia Adventure, an automated walkthrough of lots of basics about your userpage, discussion, and article building. This primer is also a very good reference. And for specific questions, this is an excellent place to come back to, so come back whenever something is on your mind about editing. :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay I know why your signature is messed up. When you put in the information about how you want it to look, theres a little checkbox that says, treat the above as wikimark up link. You want to check that box.Mirror Freak 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You could also check out WP:adopt-a-user. Its a place where new users can get taken under a wing by an experienced editor. I'll give it a go and adopt you if you like. Mirror Freak 19:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Might as well try it for a bit, so i guess that'll help. What should i do first? InfernusIsHiding 19:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the teahouse. first, I suggest you change your signature and make it simpler. second, the most common mistake I see from new editors is they start out trying to create "their" new page. Creating a good new article is much harder than making a good edit to an existing article. third, the wp:answer to life the universe and everything is wp:42, finally, to find existing articles that need work you can click on the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal then scroll down the page to where it says "Help Out". There are a bunch of articles and categories about the kinds of edits they need: fix links, add references, etc. Also, user:SuggestBot is a good tool to find pages that match your interests, although you have to edit a few pages for SuggestBot to give good suggestions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits

I've noticed very occasionally that some editors mark all their edits as minor even when they're not which, according to WP:MINOR is not a good idea. Is this tendency picked up anywhere, such as from the edit count tool? Just wondering Tony Holkham (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tony, welcome back to the Teahouse. This tool counts minor edits, so you could compare that to the total number of edits to figure out the proportion. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The one I saw recently was close to 100% of 2000+ edits. I just wondered whether it flagged up anywhere in the Wiki hierarchy and some diplomatic approach made to the editor. I don't think it's up to me to do anything; I was just curious as to whether admin would do anything about it. Perhaps it's so rare it doesn't matter? Tony Holkham (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
To editor Tony Holkham: You could leave a message with a link to WP:MINOR on the user's talk page. If that doesn't help, then it may be best to ignore it. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
To editor Anon126: Cheers. Tony Holkham (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove protection template from an article

The article Elizabeth Taylor needs expanding and a whole lot of work needs to be done. An editor has expressed interest to expand and improve the article on the article's talk page, however unable to do so due to the protection template. I agree with the editor an ask Wikipedia to give this editor and others a chance to improve the article, also it is rarely vandalized so can an administrator remove the protection template. Thanks. (Monkelese (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is Semi-Protected which means it "prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed". So it's easy for any editor to qualify to edit the article. I don't see any need for any changes to the current protection status which is designed to prevent vandalism and impulsive, non-compliant changes made by fans. A better option is to inform the user how he can easily qualify to edit the article. However if you disagree you can ask an Administrator to consider removing the protection status. (See WP:SPP for more details.) Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Monkelese: I've removed the semi-protection on Elizabeth Taylor as it was applied three years ago when this was a news story. Anyone can now edit the article but not move it.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What should i ideally post on my user page?

Hello, I am new to editing on Wikipedia and i want to know what to put on my user page. I have put my name, hobbies, articles edited on wikipedia what more should i add on my user page. Thanks! Vihaandoshi05 (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Try looking at WP:UP and the pages of other wikipedians for ideas. MY general rule of thumb would be that your page should be a bit about you and the work you do on wikipedia, but that isn't set in stone. good luck! Ryan shell (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Vihaandoshi05 Hello! Personally, I include wikilinks to the articles I post so people may view the articles easily. I only include the articles that I have either created or rewritten considerably, because after awhile, if you include ALL the articles you edit, it gets really long! lol Personally, I don't prefer to put my real name on the page. If I were to get into a spat with another editor, I don't want them cyber stalking me, but it's personal preference. Take a look at other people's pages and see what you like. Bali88 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reponse!

Vihaandoshi05 (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Starting a page

I know this is a silly question, but I can't seem to be able to start a new page. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East Anglian Regional (talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse East Anglican Regional and thank you for your question. It is probably a question that a lot of people have. There are quite a number of ways to start an article. I will tell you about one of them in my reply here and I am sure that other hosts in the Teahouse will give you even better advice. Here is one thing that new editors are challenged with. Each new article goes through a review process. The article may be quite good and very informative, but in many cases the review happens within minutes of the article creation and if another editor is reviewing it and thinks it should not be in Wikipedia, you have to face the disappointment of seeing it vanish. The first step in writing an article is to write a draft of your article and collect references to support the things are said in the article. There are many ways to actually get your article into Wikipedia after you've done this. The first place to start in writing an article is to read the information on this page: WP:Your first article. Click on this link for your first answer and come back to the Teahouse if you have more questions.   Bfpage |leave a message  09:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Am I now allowed to post pictures on articles? KGTaco (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi KGTaco and welcome to the Teahouse. You are now autoconfirmed so yes, you can upload images. Please make sure that you read about which images are acceptable - you can get more information here.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Help! Errors in Wikipedia pages: several articles confused and conflated a famous politician and scholar

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia but found some errors and would like some help fixing them. I am a UK academic specializing in the history of ancient Greek philosophy and science.

Several Wikipedia pages confused and conflated two different people. There was a Belgian politician named Charles A. L. Graux (1837 – 1910). There was a French classicist named Charles Graux (1852 -- 1882). The Frenchmen was an expert on stichometry but had no Wikipedia pages. The English, French, and Dutch Wikipedia pages mistakenly asserted that the politician was also an expert in stichometry, no doubt because of the shared name.

I have done the following: 1. I deleted the remarks about stichometry on the English, French, and Dutch Wikipedia changes about the politician. 2. I created an article about the French classicist (my account is new and my draft is waiting for review).

I need help with the following problems.

The article about the politician has an ambiguous title. It is called 'Charles Graux' but should be 'Charles A. L. Graux.' How can I change the title of the page? Do I have to wait until my article is approved and posted before I can create a disambugation page? (can’t disambiguate only one page!) But will my article post if it has the same title as the politican's page? (catch 22?) I have looked through a half dozen books but can find no confirmation of the classicist’s middle names or middle initials (some online catalogs call him 'Charles Henri Graux' but I do not see the 'Henri' in any 19th century source, including his biography (his father's name was Henri). Thus I think the classicist will have to remain plain 'Charles Graux.' Is that right? Thanks for any suggestions or advice! JohnD'Alembert (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello JohnD'Alembert. If there are sources which refer to the politician as Charles A. L. Graux, you can certainly move Charles Graux to Charles A. L. Graux; but if the sources all refer to him as "Charles Graux" then that would not be appropriate. (There are no sources on the page at all at present, so the article is liable to be deleted anyway). If the form with the initials is appropriate, then moving it would leave Charles Graux as a redirect page, and when your article about the classicist is ready, it will require an administrator to move it over the existing redirect. If the form with the initials is not appropriate to the sources, then the two articles should probably be called Charles Graux (politician) and Charles Graux (classicist) - or whatever term is appropriate. In either case, each article should have a hatnote pointing to the other - for only two articles, a disambiguation page is not necessary. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, JohnD'Alembert, welcome to the Teahouse!
Oftentimes, when there are only two subjects to be disambiguated, we don't make a disambiguation page. Instead, we determine if there is a primary topic that people are most likely to search for. We then keep that topic at the "main" title and include a note at the top for those who are searching for the other subject.
The reviewer who accepts your draft will move it to an appropriate title and determine if there needs to be a disambiguation page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed this on the talk page of the user in question. There's no primary topic, so I've done the necessary redirects and moving.- Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

THANKS for all the replies and especially for the help from Nunh-huh. This was a great introduction to the community here. The new Charles Graux (classicist) page is up and running. JohnD'Alembert (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

HEIPRichardrabbjr (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the policy on images and how do I change a template?

I'm helping another user with an image they uploaded under a fair use copyright that is right now flagged as possibly having a conflict of copyright or not labeled correctly. (The link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Studio_Pierrot.jpg). I checked the licensing link they provided, and it looks like for some reason it's tagged as public domain when it should be tagged as something else (the license says you can download one copy for private use). What do I tag it as and what's the proper template? Luthien22 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Luthien22, welcome back to the Teahouse! Since this is a company logo, it would easily fall under Wikipedia's non-free content ("fair use") policy. Every non-free image needs two things:

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Anon126! That was exactly what I needed! However, now that I'm done correcting the tags, there's still a tag at the top marking it as improper use/improper tagging of a copyrighted image and I can't find a way to remove it. How do I take care of that, since that was the tag that caused the original uploader to ask me for help? Luthien22 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Luthien22: I've fixed up the licensing for the image. No problems now. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 09:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much Philg88. Luthien22 (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Political subject matter ... conflicts between editors

Hello,

I am fairly new to Wiki. Have experienced on a few occasions an editor with dissimilar political views striking anything that runs contrary to his opinion on a particular subject. I have noted that this person was the primary writer of the article as well, so there may be reflexive reaction on his part. The subject was "Income Inequality in the United States" and this editor (in his personal profile) noted that he was an activist socialist. He patrols articles relating to that subject matter and 'scrubs' articles of anything contrary to his point of view. He is a senior editor and seems to have the power to shut people out of articles. How can a person make legitimate, and needed, contributions to articles when such an editor serves as a political firewall? Thanks. Tolinjr (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tolinjr and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse.
To begin with, please Assume Good Faith. (AGF) and do not make personal attacks. Discuss the contribution and not the contributor. Many editors have their own belief system and have interests in articles and subjects that they may have some bias with. This is to be expected, but should not interfere with the normal editing of others, due to any perceived or actual ownership issues. If you are having trouble with an editor who refuses to act appropriately and you feel an administrator needs to intervene, you may report the situation to WP:ANI. If there is a content dispute and you feel strongly that your contribution should not have been removed or changed you can file a request for assistance at the WP:DRN where an editor will attempt to mediate the dispute. DRN does require extensive discussion on the talk page first so always remember that addressing your concerns directly to the editor on the article talk page is very important.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Mark. Good advice on contribution vs contributor, however, in this case, after re-reading his 'talk' page, there is significant evidence of arrogance and heavy-handed behavior with several other contributors (in addition to myself). FYI, I brought this up with Wiki administration and they simply informed him that I complained. And then he took a shot at me in our discussions. So it wasn't very helpful. However, in principle, I agree totally with your thoughts and will abide by them in the future. Tolinjr (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What if

Hey Teahouse, I was wondering what would happen in this kind of situation. Okay, so say there is this user who created an account and was vandalizing Wikipedia only and so he gets blocked. What would happen if the user makes a new account and no one knows that this is the user who was being a vandal, and the user actually becomes a good contributor meaning he stopped being a vandal. If the user later comes clean about making a new account, does he still get blocked?Mirror Freak 18:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No answers? Come on guys...I know you know this stuff.Mirror Freak 18:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Patience, young Grasshopper... Seriously, you gave people 12 minutes. We're not all just waiting to answer your question @MirrorFreak:, some of us have jobs we need to be pretending to do in the mean time. But seriously, no one will care. People make dumb mistakes, and if you had vandalized a long time ago under a throwaway account, and have been a good contributor for years, no one should block you now, because Wikipedia blocking policy states that blocks are preventative and not punitive. If you aren't stirring up any trouble now, some foolish mistake from years ago doesn't matter. --Jayron32 18:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
So my old account that's blocked, Ajohnson2199 doesn't matter. It's less than a year old, but I thought I should at least come clean about it.Mirror Freak 18:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't sweat it. As long as you have stopped, aren't maintaining bad hand accounts and are being productive, we can all forgive a little youthful indiscretion. --Jayron32 20:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, most of us made mistakes when we started editing here, so nobody will hold it against you as long as you avoid such activities in the future. My first ever edit (done as an IP) involved blanking a page because I wanted to see if it really could be edited by anybody. Green Giant (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Create brand new article - some norms confusing

Hi,

Iam new to wikipedia though made edits recently. I wish to submit brand new article but stuck with some issues. Pls clarify... sorry If Iam asking too many queries!but cant help

1.While we need to support article with references citing web links but at the same time constrains me not to give 3rd party info.
2. As a registered user, can I include images in my new article
3. Wiki can make simple the whole process of writing new articles with a single hyperlink that takes me to create new article. As of now, help for editing more elaborate but "create" is under wraps!!
4. In mobile version, can I use sandbox? Can I submit new article?

Nrajarao (talk)NRaja — Preceding undated comment added 06:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nrajarao. Welcome to the Teahouse.
1 I don’t understand what you mean. References are supposed to be 3rd party. What makes you think otherwise?
2 Yes, see Help:Files for an overview. Copyright considerations make images a little complicated for images you did not create entirely by yourself.
3 Have you tried the Wikipedia:Article wizard. I confess that I have never used it myself (I became an experienced editor before it was created). But I understand it makes things really easy for new editors.
4 I have never used the mobile version except that I just checked that I can do an edit. Since I can do an edit I assume that it works for using the sandbox (which is just an editable page) and submitting an article (which is a matter of clicking a button). —teb728 t c 07:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Nrajarao. The trouble with providing a single simple link to create a new article is that writing a new article which won't get deleted is hard. It is much better to get familiar with editing Wikipedia articles first, and then move to creating a new article. If there were a single link to create one (and there nearly is, because if a registered user searches for an article which doesn't exist, it will offer them the option of creating it), we would probably just get more unacceptable articles which would need to be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion issues

My page about me is under Speedy deletion issues, I'm a new Lyricist in Tamil film Industry.Please give me Proper Instructions to guide me through. Essay Ric (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Essay Ric:. The answer is, you should not be writing pages about yourself under any circumstances. You should just go about your life, doing your job. If your life generates enough notice in reliable sources, eventually someone else will just write a Wikipedia article about you, ideally someone who never met you and has no interest in promoting your life work. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more guidance. --Jayron32 05:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It is highly discouraged but as yet is not a matter of "under any circumstances".--Mark Miller (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Under what circumstances should one start an autobiographical article on oneself? Powers T 12:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
One example, LtPowers, is when a person clearly meets the notability guidelines, such as a newly elected member of a state or provincial legislature. In such a case, the Articles for Creation process is recommended but not mandatory. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing at Wikipedia is mandatory or forbidden in these situations. Creating autobiographies is forbidden only in the sense of "It has never once happened in the past that it worked out well, in all of the thousands and thousands of times people have tried it. That doesn't mean it couldn't work out in the future, but given the history of this, we'd be best just to recommend that people never do it". That's why we just tell people not to do it. It doesn't mean someone couldn't do it right. Hasn't happened yet (of if it has, it's happened so rarely as to be statistically indistinguishable from never). --Jayron32 19:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Issues and Music Sample Upload

Hello, Your site or (Fiddle Faddle ) has been helping me with my newly created Wikipedia page. I am new this community and would to ask if you would be so kind as to look at my page I created for Angel Session under my (talk:Demetrius Guidry) account that is currently under re-review.

Your site tagged me for references, which I hope I have fixed. Lately I have been tagged for Speedy Deletion of images because of not having copyright information on them. I hope I have fixed that issues, but I am not sure. I have also been tagged for a 60 second song sample because the tagger (Richard Yin) stated that the "Hearts of Broken Love.ogg) is "too short to identify the subject of the article."

Please look at everything I have done to fixed theses issues and tell me if my article is ready for acceptance into the Wikipedia site.

Lastly, is it possible that I can make a donation to your site to correct any issues that are still not correct?

Thank you, Demetrius Guidry Demetrius Guidry (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to help you with your draft article...I removed various external links. Wikipedia does not require ANY inline external links or links to Facebook Twitter etc. You have replaced them...I assure you, it will not help you get your article approved. Please also note that Wikipedia cannot reference itself. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

TCG

Hi, I'm new to the wikipedia editing. My main interest is trading card games and I thought of sharing some of that information on the wiki. It's not difficult to make the pages of the cards in all various sets, but according to the reviewers it belongs in a game wiki, they back their judgment with the fact that you can read it off of the card if you play it in your deck, but in my opinion they miss the point. Some cards are more difficult to get (short print, appear only one time in an entire box,...) and that's the reason I wanted to make these pages, to offer info for the people who don't have those cards. I know my question is quite rough, but if there are questions, I'm open to try to answer all of them. Maskedbrawler (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maskedbrawler. Any information added to Wikipedia has to comply with our content policies. One of these policies is that we do not allow original research. Any factual statements need to be verifiable, and you need to cite a reliable source. In other words, you can't add information that you have learned yourself as a hobbyist. You can add information cited, for example, to reliable books and magazines about the hobby. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I can cite the references without a problem, though I'd just need to learn how to put in citations. Maskedbrawler (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:REFB is a good introduction to how to add citations, also known as references. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

IMAGE I'VE ADDED TO PAGE ISN'T SHOWING UP FOR SOME REASON - ANY IDEAS?

Hi,

I've just downloaded a poster to add to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Love_(1971_film)

But for some reason the poster isn't showing through. Not sure why. Any ideas, anyone please?

Beryl reid fan (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello Beryl reid fan and welcome to Tea House
I have added the poster, but I am not sure if it is at appropriate place,
If it is wrong you can move it to right place.
Best wishes
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 17:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Posters are usually in the infobox so I have placed it there.[2] Beryl reid fan also tried that but it didn't work because there was a blank image parameter later in the infobox.[3] If there is more than one assignment of the same parameter name then the last overrides the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello PrimeHunter
Thanks, actually I tried it too, but I didn't know that, the last parameter
will override
Best wishes and thanks for useful info
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 19:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanking you both very much for this! Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing a disambig page

My good-faith (and incomplete) edit, including a partial alphabetisation, on the disambig page for Norman Johnson was reverted. I'd welcome guidance.

I'd have thought that "Norm" should sort before "Norman".

It makes more sense to me, to arrange disambig pages by name rather than date. In either case, I cannot see why Norman Johnson (priest) should be the last in the list.

"American politician" was reverted to "Member of the Washington House of Representatives". Washington is a town in County Durham, UK; which I've visited - and afaik has no House of Representatives but is governed by a town council. Is there some other place with that name? (LOL - but deadly serious.)

Which is the preferred format for the birthdate of living people? I've seen both "born xxxx" and "xxxx-".

I find it helpful to see both dates and nationality in disambig pages. What's the general Wikipedia policy?

-) Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey there @Narky Blert:! You might find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages useful, but it's long and arcane, the most relevant bit there is in the ordering section, where it says "Within each group within a section, and within each non-subdivided section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This might mean in decreasing order of likelihood as user's target, alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically, not to the exclusion of other methods." It seems to me that, for people, chronologically by their birth date is the most logical way of ordering them; most other pages that disambiguate people by their name do the same. See John Smith for example; within each section it is ordered by date. Insofar as Norman Johnson doesn't have sections, I would order the whole thing by birth date. Also, This page gives guidance for doing dates at Wikipedia. It recommends using "Born XXXX" for people still living. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 00:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As for your specific point about the member of the Washington House of Representatives, please note the blue link here and on the disambiguation page. So, if a reader wonders whether a town in County Durham has such an institution, they can click that link to check. In the far more likely case that someone is looking for another politician with the same or similar name, the current wording best assists the reader, in my view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, both:-) Narky Blert (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Following the advice of you both, I've re-edited that page. How does it look now? (My peeve wasn't that my edits had been changed (I often thank improvers), but that they'd been wholly reverted without explanation - in a couple of cases for no good reason that I could see, such as changing the birthdate format back to a disapproved form, and the removal of a birthdate.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the different areas of Wiki and I found something offensive?

I found this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan and I think it is sexist against females. Could it be removed? I also had to create this account as it said that my ip address would be visible, is that something to worry about? i don't want hackers to steal my ip address?Houllich (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: I'm confused. Wikipedia:Editor retention is in the Wikipedia namespace. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope. That's a project space. When I attempted to move it to the Wikipedia name space it was returned to the project space. Editor retention is a Wikiproject.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're confused. The Wikipedia namespace is, literally, any article with the "Wikipedia:" namespace prefix. "Project space" is another name for the main namespace (without a prefix). Powers T 12:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it can't be removed and you can let your IP address be seen. Don't worry.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the 'cutsie' little manga character either - mascot or no. I am an artist and remain clueless about this genre of art. Its something of a historical quasi-article. It happened and there isn't anything we can do about history. More women need to be involved to balance things out a bit.  Bfpage |leave a message  23:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Houllich, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. First, no one can steal your IP address or gain access to your account, but your general location can generally be ascertained with it.
The situation with Wikipe-tan really depends on who you talk to. Without taking a stance on the matter, there have been many discussions about how appropriate this unofficial mascot is for the project. You should really read over some discussions to get some context:
It's also worth noting that Wikipe-tan is not in the article space and is not an official representation of the project. That said, you've noted your concerns at the talk page, which is probably the best place to begin this conversation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Also note that Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan has a box saying "Deletion discussions". Click "show" there to see the below links. Wikipedia:Project namespace explains what the project namespace or Wikipedia namespace is. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Issues

Hi Everyone. Unfortunately, I've been having major problems formatting the info box for CCGS Moytel. Is anyone with more experience able to help me out? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Moytel

Thanks :) Orcair (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Orcair and Welcome to the Teahouse, you simply forgot the closing brackets and the first part of the infobox. I've fixed it for you. More info at Template:Infobox ship career. Happy editing! w.carter-Talk 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much!

Orcair (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How to link a translated page to the original and give credit??

Sorry, I am a newbie. I've translated a page from the German Wikipedia entitled "Martin Schanz". I created the page by searching for that title in the English Wikipedia, hitting the create button, and pasting from my sandbox. Is there some simple way to link my English version to the German one and give credit to the originator. I've seen a reference to Wikidata. Do I use that somehow? Thanks for any and all help! JohnD'Alembert (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JohnD'Alembert. Well done (for translating it: I've not reviewed the article; but on a quick look, it appears short on references). You must give the attribution; WP:translation says "Attribution in the edit summary and placing the template {{Translated page}} on the article talk page are the recommended ways to credit the source of the translation". To link to other language versions you do use Wikidata, but you hardly have to encounter it: just pick "Add links" by the "languages" header in the sidebar. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I see that language links have magically already appeared. I'll try to add that template. Progress! JohnD'Alembert (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello JohnD'Alembert, to add to the excellent answer given by ColinFine you can look at this talk page to see how this looks at an actual article. That article contains translations from two foreign articles. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We're in good shape now. Looks great! I've learned to use my first template and the langauge link is where it should be. Thanks especially to ColinFine and W.carter1. JohnD'Alembert (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How to make starting lineup diagrams for association football matches.

Just wondering how to make diagrams like this. SwahiliChese (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello SwahiliChese and welcome to the Teahouse. The diagram you have found is not something generated by the Wikipedia code. It is a picture created by someone and uploaded to the Commons. I would have to guess that the creator of this picture, made it in Photoshop or some other image editing program. Bits of it may have been borrowed from the Category:"Template:Football kit" materials. The picture was made by Davykamanzi, maybe you could ask at his talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Article was rejected

I would like to know the reason for my article to get declined, so that I could rectify my mistakes.

elaangovanElaangovans (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Elaangovans. Welcome to the Teahouse! The decline reason was posted at the top of your sandbox. "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research." In other words, it's more suitable for a personal blog rather than an encyclopedia. --NeilN talk to me 14:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How can I update company information inline with Wikipedia rules?

Sorry if this is a common question I am a newbie here. I would like to add information to the page of the company that I work for - company size/location/history/management etc. It is in no way promotional, and is in line with information our competitors within the industry have on their pages (uk insurance and finance) How can I update this in line with the Wikipedia guidelines - what is best practice in this situation? thank youPagetta (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pagetta welcome to Tea House
I suggest you reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before submitting your article.
As you work for the company, it is COI. Wikipedia encourages neutral point of view,
which seems difficult when one has a link.
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 11:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Pagetta. Aftab Banoori has pointed you at the right page, but hasn't directly advised you what to do. If there is material you think should be changed,
  • Find reliable published sources for the information (for uncontoversial factual information such as size, location and names of officers, the company's own website will be adequate, but for anything which has even a whiff of opinion or judgment, it needs to be a source independent of the company).
  • Post your suggested changes, with references, on the article's talk page.
  • Optionally (especially if the talk page does not get much traffic), insert the template {{Edit request}} on the talk page.
At risk of seeming to be picky, I'd like to point out that neither your company nor its competitors have a page in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has pages about them. Wikipedia is interested in having encyclopaedic pages on notable subjects, not in any aspect of the rivalry between companies (unless that rivalry has itself been written about in reliable sources). --ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't locate initial article I was working on last week. Said it would be available

Hello, I initiated an article last week and was told it would be saved for months. I've been searching for a "Draft" section or similar, but to no avail. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you Paulcyr (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paulcyr. Is it Draft:William Xifaras: From Prison to Motion Pictures? By the way you can see all your edits here. --NeilN talk to me 18:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is Neil, can you tell I'm new to Wiki? Paulcyr (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you NeilN, much appreciated. Paulcyr (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Paulcyr: Happy to help! We were all new here once. --NeilN talk to me 18:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, well thanks again, and a pleasure to meet you. Paulcyr (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment of article quality

Hello, I've always had the understanding that articles cannot be assessed by its contributors, but cannot find where I've read that.

As I've been researching this, I'm getting different information. I've seen references to project assessment teams. The Wikipedia:WikiProject New York project page, however, it says that any editor can assess an article. There's no stipulation about whether that editor contributed to the article or not.

Is there a global rule - or is it left up to each project to determine who should perform assessments?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse User:CaroleHenson! It depends on what the contributions are. Minor contributions such as spelling errors, fixing refs and categorisation wouldn't block people from assessing, but major contributors shouldn't be accessing their own articles' quality or importance, except to put them in the lowest possible category (class=stub/importance=low). Things like class=list are also OK, since that's not a quality assessment. I regularly create stubs and sometimes I classify them as class=stub/importance=low, but mostly I leave it to others. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, assessments are actually done by the involved participants under the project scope. It is not at all unusual. Most projects simply allow a member or other editor to give a quality assessment and importance rating. If there is a question you should ask at one of the projects involved. Some will have assessment pages to discuss the issue. GA and FA assesments are nominated by an involved contributor and the reviewed by an uninvolved editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I completely agree with your opinion, Stuartyeates. That's the way I've approached it, too. I don't assess articles that I've made a significant contribution to... but if I happen upon an article that would benefit from some minor tweaks and assessment, then I do that.
If I'm understanding you, Mark Miller, that except for GA and FA article reviews, it's acceptable for a major contributor to assess the article. Am I understanding you correctly?
Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is. There is no policy or guideline that limits the contributor from rating the article, however, as you go past C class it might be more reliable to ask others opinion. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment states this:"Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. Many projects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment." Anything up to a C class is a matter of size so it in uncontroversial. B class or higher may request an independent assessment. GA and FA are always from an independent assessment.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent clarification, thanks Mark Miller!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_252&oldid=1140200385"