Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 297

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 290←Archive 295Archive 296Archive 297Archive 298Archive 299Archive 300

Articles for Creation help

I saw an old article that had been submitted for creation and posted about on a project page. The article is just made up information under a misspelling, in other words a hoax. [1] It should just be deleted.

How do I ask to get it deleted? The article has a link on it for the "Articles for Creation help desk," but this is not an "Articles for Creation help desk," but it is a "Requests for re-review help desk." The article has wasted enough time, already, and does not need re-reviewed, it just needs deleted--or are these hoax drafts kept on Wikipedia? How to go about getting it deleted?

And, just for fun, is there actually an "Articles for Creation help desk," or is that a hoax, also?

Thank you. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it is a help desk, you just have to form all questions as requests for reviews, even if that is the last thing that needs to be done. Someone over there engaged and probably will answer the question. Thanks. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello again MicroPaLeo: look at WP:Miscellany for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I went there and tried to follow the directions, but my contribution is malformed. [2] How do I fix it? MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
A bot came by and removed it. So much for spending ten minutes following the directions. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
As of this writing, it’s still listed under WP:MFD#January 19, 2015. No idea why the bot has today’s date listed behind last week. And the deletion discussion itself is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mesophelles. On behalf of the project, I’m sorry you’re finding things frustrating. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone moved it after the bot deleted it. I think I messed up by putting "Wikipedia talk" instead of just "Talk," but when I v considered moving the article, that would have turned the original into a redirect that also needed deleted, and I kept thinking I had to replace the template with the correct one on the listing, rather than do what the correcting editor did, just edit the text too conform style wise. Technical nightmares all day instead of writing articles. MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn’t look like it was ever deleted. The bot misfiled the date here [3] and then put it back under the right date (albeit in the wrong place) here [4]. Otherwise the bot’s left it alone. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And it looks like what went wrong was, instead of creating a deletion discussion page, you somehow wound up substituting the draft ({{subst:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mesophelles}}) into both the heading and body. The problem was on the discussion subpage itself, not in the listing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparent removal of my innocent posts

When I posted on talk pages, people removed my posts twice even though they did not violate Wikipedia's policies. Removing innocent posts from talk pages is considered to be vandalism.

One of the people who did this, Ricky81682, is an administrator. I contacted him about the post removal, but he did not reply. Why would an administrator commit talk page vandalism? They know better.

The posts that were removed were messages to Baconbutterz that he was doing stuff that was wrong (he made an article (Golden Freddy) that was unsourced and almost totally original research, then uploaded problematic images without licensing or source information (see his talk page for details).) and that he needed to stop. I see nothing wrong with telling a user to stop their unconstructive activity.

Links to the talk page vandalism edits: [5] [6]

ApparatumLover (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My guess is, the first linked edit was a mistake. As for the second, users do have a right to remove messages on their own Talk pages. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dates and Places of Birth

What about any requirements for inclusion of the subject's date of birth?

To me, this is an essential ingredient of an encyclopedia, but I have a subject who does not want to divulge her birthday.

Is there a policy or suggested procedure for this? Will it eventually be dropped in anyhow?

Thanks for guidance. Marilyn Nix (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Marilyn. Good question. You'll want to read WP:DOB. Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If her birthday is not public knowledge, then we can’t include it since it isn’t verifiable. But if it is—if it’s been mentioned in any books, newspapers, published interviews, etc.—then someone may add it to the article at some point. If you can’t find her birthday from a Google search or similar, the latter is probably unlikely. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have to do The Wikipedia Adventure in a single sitting?

Hi. Just wondering if you have to do The Wikipedia Adventure in a single sitting, or if you can do it one 'mission' at a time? Your advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

tH0r (talk contribs) 11:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Moring/Afternoon L0st H0r!z0ns, and welcome to the Teahouse! You don't have to complete all the missions in one sitting and can do them and whatever pace you like! Hope this helps! LorTalk 14:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are thinking that it is a requirement to complete the Wikipedia Adventure to enable further editing; it is not. You do not have to do it at all if you do not want. However many find it helpful.SovalValtos (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lor and SovalValtos. Thanks for the information. You've been very helpful.
Much appreciated,
tH0r (talk contribs) 11:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Creation of a new page about my college - Institute of Engineering, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, India

I am a student of Institute of Engineering, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, India. I created the aforementioned page about my college on the request of the college authorities using the information provided by them, university brochure, notice boards and personal observation. The sources are quite reliable but unfortunately no information about the college is available on the internet so I am unable to cite references on the page. Due to this my page creation has been denied. Please assist me on this issue. Shan3802 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require your sources to be available on the internet. Reliable sources might be books or newspapers, for example, but they must have been published, and must be independent of the subject of the article. You will find more detail at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If your institution has not been the subject of significant coverage in published independent reliable sources then it does not satisfy Wikipedia's definition of notability, and does not qualify for a separate article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan, really indo-aryan?

Guys, it has come to my attention that Pakistan was recently listed amongst one of the indo-aryan ethnic groups. I would like to point out that though eastern-pakistan is indo-aryan in terms of linguistics, it is certainly not indo-aryan in terms of genetics. I wanted to know whether there is someone who could help me edit that page, I also have proof if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you point us to which article you think is in error? The most general advice in this situation is to start a discussion on the associated article's talk page, and present your references there. --LukeSurl t c 18:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah this is the 'indo-aryan' article, specifically on the point of Pakistanis. Thanks for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybowden211 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Patrolled

Hi - What does it mean when you receive a notice a page you worked on is being "patrolled by..."?1987atomheartbrother (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 1987atomheartbrother. New articles get checked by a member of the New Page Patrol team, to make sure they are suitable for Wikipedia and don't have major problems. Sionk (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Page patrolling is a volunteer task. It's not compulsory to be on New Page Patrol team to review a newly created page. If the page meets Criteria for speedy deletion you can also nominate it for deletion. If not, you can mark that page as patrolled. Getting patrolled doesn't mean that article is free of errors. Like Sionk said it's a process of checking articles for a major problems like copyright violation etc.--Chamith (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Just one thing to add to the excellent info above is that new page patrol is not only for articles or draft articles. All user pages get patrolled eventually. The reason is that the wp:user page feature is actually pretty powerful. You could fairly easily set up your own private version of Wikipedia or even host a business web site that way which of course is not what user pages are for so the patrols make sure people aren't abusing their user pages. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If a unique technology regarding mobile phone charging is suitable for uploading?

I represent OPPO, a smartphone manufacturer which has recently developed the world's fastest smartphone charging technology and was wondering whether this topic is acceptable as a Wikipedia article? Or is it perhaps a tad too commercial? Any feedback regarding this would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks kindly, Azeri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakarrik Azeri (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bakarrik Azeri. You have done the right thing by declaring your conflict of interest. The topic is acceptable only if independent, reliable sources have devoted significant coverage to discussing it. If the technology is brand new and has not yet received much attention, then trying to add it will be seen as promotional, and you will run into opposition. Wikipedia is not for promotional or advertising purposes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocking

How do you block someone who is disrupting Wikipedia? Jatremitiedi (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jatremitiedi: Welcome to the Teahouse! Blocks are made by administrators, who are experienced editors that have been granted the ability to block and unblock editors, among other things.
The answer to your question depends on the situation; there are a variety of places to report editors or hold discussions, depending on the type of disruption you're referring to:
If you'd like assistance regarding a particular situation, feel free to elaborate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe Jatremitiedi may be asking for help because of this. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How to Add/Change picture of an Article.

How to Add/Change picture of an Article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devippandey.dpp (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Devippandey.dpp, welcome to the Teahouse! Adding a picture to a Wikipedia page is a two-step process. First, you have to upload it, then add a bit of code to the page to make it show up.
Before uploading a new picture, you should look for one that is already available by going here. If you find one you like, add the code [[Name of picture|thumb]] on the page where you want to use it. All pictures have names starting with File:, so be sure to include that in the code.
If you can't find one and want to upload a new picture, you need to be aware of our copyright policies. Under these policies, most pictures on the Internet can't be uploaded here. But if you made it yourself (example: you took a photograph), it should be okay. You can upload those at Wikimedia Commons and then come back here and use the same code to add it to an article.
Sorry if this is a bit long; please leave a reply if anything is unclear.
Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

New editor here: Need help w/citations

If anyone can look over my page and lmk if the citations need help I would greatly appreciate it! The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lyn-Genet_Recitas. The submission was declined because this person wasn't "notable" but she has 11 citations so I am thinking I did the citations incorrectly?? Thanks! Molly.C.Burke (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Molly.C.Burke Welcome to the teahouse. I took a quick look. I noticed the rejection message but then more messages at the bottom indicating it had been resumbitted. I might be reading that wrong though but if you resubmitted it after that initial rejection then it is in the queue now. The backlog is huge so it may take time to hear back. From my quick look your references looked to be properly formatted. Many new editors don't get how to do that so well done. The thing is it is possible to have perfectly formatted references and still not establish wp:notability in the special sense that Wikipedia means that. So for example if you are trying to establish notability for a rock band and you have a perfectly formatted reference to that bands blog that says how awesome they are that reference won't count toward establishing notability. That was an obvious example but I think there were more subtle issues with some of your references. Many of them seemed to be sites that are linked in some commercial way with your subject which makes them poor refs for establishing notability. Make sure you review this article especially: Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Good luck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Molly.C.Burke. As MadScientistX11 says, there is a review waiting. I have not done a full review; but in my opinion the first two references do establish notability. However, there is still a lot to be done to the article to bring it up to an acceptable standard. At the moment it is not an article, but a collection of links and citations (which makes it appear that the intention in writing it was promotional, which is forbidden. Most of the article should be prose about her life and her work, entirely based from published reliable sources (but rewritten so as not to infringe their copyright) which must cited inline. The bibliography can stay, but should be a small part of the article. All the external links should go, apart from the one to her official website. --ColinFine (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

article not appering and adding information

Hi

I am lindani and would like to add some current information to an article: Skhiming Village .I created Simon Ramafalo article but is not yet in Wikipedia. How do I create another article

Help Lindani Makwela (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lindani, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can just edit the article Skhiming; but please add only information from a reliable published source. (The existing article, like many, is almost unreferenced, but editors tend to be less forgiving of this than in the past, and if you add further unreferenced material, somebody may remove it again).
Your draft is at Draft:SIMON RAMAFALO, and when you think it is ready, you can request a review by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top of it. But I'm afraid that it is nowhere near ready at present. You have included a load of references, which is good (and it looks to me that they do establish that Ramafalo is notable in Wikipedia's special sense); but they are not formatted properly, and they are not attached to the particular pieces of information which they are used to support. Please look at referencing for beginners. The article as a whole is not formatted properly: to make a heading you put it between paired '=' signs, the more signs the deeper the level of heading, so for example ===Early life=== will appear as a third-level heading. We do not write heading in capitals, or number them, and the table of contents is generated automatically. I think it would be helpful if you read your first article.
You can begin another article: I would advise using the article wizard. But it's probably a good idea to spend time learning how to format an article and improving the Ramafalo one first. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clear notifications

Hi,

How can I clear my notifications. It is not really necessary and I do not want them to be shown at all. - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@EurovisionNim: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're talking about these notifications, I'm afraid it's impossible to remove them. --Jakob (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
What do you suggest I should do to not look at the notifications

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The notifications page only shows the last 20 notifications unless you click on the "more" button at the bottom of the page. --Jakob (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You can prevent most of the messages showing by unticking the boxes at Preferences / Notifications - the only exception is "Talk page message" which cannot be unticked - I think this is to try and stop people claiming they "didn't notice" warnings and other messages left on their talkpage. - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Could use some help editing controversial political article

A few days ago a new editor: @Passenger68: requested help editing the article Muhammadu Buhari There was an IP user who was edit warring and was reverting changes made with good references and always in order to make Buhari look as good as possible. The last few days Passenger68 and I have been working on the Buhari article. I took his changes and looked at them one by one; made sure they were validated by references, documented what we were doing and why on the Buhari talk page. Now two other IP users (of course no way to tell if they are the same person) have made a bunch of changes they are @2.29.122.38: and @196.216.200.4: These two editors have completely ignored the voluminous discussions on the talk page. A few of their changes (correcting typos adding some balanced facts to support Buhari) were reasonable but most were not and were clearly designed again to put Buhari in as good a light as possible. One of the most egregious is this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammadu_Buhari&diff=prev&oldid=643372835 where 196.216.200.4 changed the text that said Buhari was one of the leaders of a coup to saying that Buhari was not involved in the coup. If you look at the reference that follows this change, it is page 121 of this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=hTs6GpM4zDMC&q=121#v=snippet&q=121&f=false (Note: you have to click on the page number 121 to see the text) and as you can see from Google books it clearly says right on that page (second paragraph) "the leader of the coup was Buhari". It seems clear to me that this IP editor has an agenda and is not editing in good faith on this topic. I should make it clear prior to the question from Passenger68 I had never heard of Buhari and frankly I don't care about him one way or the other. My question is: is there anything one can do in these situations to get an admin involved when someone demonstrates a pattern of irresponsible editing with a clear bias? Also, if there are any other hosts who have some spare cycles and have more patience than I do for this kind of contentious editing I would more than welcome some help here. MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi MadScientistX11. You can request that the article be semi-protected from ip users, if you feel that they are being unconstructive. You can do that easily if you have twinkle, from the pull down menu (RPP), if not, go to WP:RFP and you can do it following those instructions. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I recently created this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Kalfayan but I'm having problems with citations, references. I'm not sure I'm doing it right. Can I get some help in editing and improving the page? Thanks.

Nirozoss (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nirozoss. You need to read referencing for beginners. The thing to bear in mind, especially for an article about a living person, is that every single separate piece of information in the article needs to be individually referenced to a reliable published source; and most of it needs to be referenced to a source independent of the subject. Furthermore the article needs to be written in a neutral, non-promotional way. So, starting from the beginning, "with a highly individualized style" should never appear in any Wikipedia article unless it is directly quoting a reliable source unconnected with the artist; similarly referring to his "trademark". The claims about his influences could come from a non-independent source such as an interview with him, but it must still be cited to a published source. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page question

Hi, newbie here on Wikipedia, so sorry if this seems like a dumb question. I recently usurped an account and for whatever reason I have two talk pages, one of them that is named "User talk: KatnissEverdeen (usurped)" [7] and another one that is just named "User talk: KatnissEverdeen" [8]. The latter one redirects to the usurped version, but I would prefer to have the name be just "User talk: KatnissEverdeen." Is it against Wikipedia policy and/or frowned upon to redirect my talk page to the "User talk: KatnissEverdeen" page? Thanks! KatnissEverdeen (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey there @KatnissEverdeen: Welcome to the Teahouse! Not a dumb question at all. What happened was, the original "KatnissEverdeen" was renamed to "KatnissEverdeen (usurped)", and their user talk page was moved with it. By default, when a page is moved, the previous title redirects to the new one - which is why your talk page redirected to User_talk:KatnissEverdeen_(usurped). I have gone ahead and removed the redirect, so your talk page is now properly working at User talk:KatnissEverdeen. Hope this makes sense :) And Gale is so much better than Peeta ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the super quick response and for fixing that! I didn't want anyone to be confused and accidently post a comment on the wrong talk page. KatnissEverdeen (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Long time not quite vandalism suspected

NAC: Reported at WP:ANI Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Long story short, I found a new page that looked real, but couldn't find anything on Google. I asked the page creator and he insisted it was real, but could not provide any references. I check the users history and there are hundreds of edits to similar articles, over the past few years, and I didn't see not a single ref. I'm not saying the information is wrong, it looks legit, but still.... I don't know where to go from here. Help? Deunanknute (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Deunanknute. If an article contains any information which is not referenced, any editor is entitled to remove that information from the article. (It is preferable to try and improve the article, rather than just deleting, eg by looking for references, or discussing it with the editor who added that information; but removing it is consistent with Wikipedia's principles.)
If none of the information in an article is referenced, then the article does not establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability (which depend on being written about in published reliable sources), and should possibly be deleted - but again, it is better to try and find the sources than to delete out of hand. If the article does not provide references, and you have looked for sources and failed to find them, then the article should almost certainly be deleted. The general procedure for nominating an article for deletion is articles for deletion - it's a bit fiddly to carry out, but if you follow all the steps you can do it, and then there will be a discussion open usually for seven days where people can argue for or against deleting. If you tell us the page, somebody else can take a look at it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, User:Deunanknute is complaining not about a single article but about another user who seems to be adding misinformation or no information to many articles over the years. If that is the case, Deunanknute, you should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and present the problem over there. Good luck! GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is User:Cunard so popular?

I know this might not be the place to ask this, but that unexisting user page is 19th most accessed page on wikipedia [9]. What is going on Tetra quark (don't be shy) 22:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: I would guess a bot is viewing the page thousands of times a day. Don't ask me why they would do that, but it happens sometimes. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
A possibility is that some hacker/troll is rehearsing a Denial-of-service attack. Just a hunch. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't shed a great deal of light but somewhat related discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 January 18#Curious enigma.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Gold - building a entry in WIkipedia for this noted hacker/journalist

The journalist Steve Gold died last week two days short of what would have been his 59th birthday. I was his barrister in the case that made him famous, the hacking of the Duke of Edinburgh's PRESTEL account in 1985. I later, along with the police who arrested him, became his friend. He took over writing The Hackers Handbook in the late 1980s from Professor Peter Sommer. We have quickly built a small website in his memory at http://www.silentmodems.com

I would like to build a proper and accurate series of pages regarding Steve Gold in Wikipedia. How should I best go about this task?

Alistair Kelman Barrister and Technologist AlistairKelman (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Alistair, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia, and for coming and asking here: as his friend, you may have a conflict of interest, which does not preclude you from writing an article about him, but requires you to be very circumspect. I suggest you use the Article wizard, which will let you develop it in a Draft space, and then submit it for review.
We require that the subject of articles be Notable (in Wikipedia's special sense): that they have been the subject of substantial writing in published reliable sources, independent of the subject: I haven't checked, but from your description I think it is likely that he meets those criteria. The issue that is likely to give you most difficulty from your conflict of issue is that Wikipedia articles are required to be written from a neutral encyclopaedic point of view. If you bear in mind that every single piece of information in the article should come from a published reliable source (not from your personal knowledge or unpublished papers); that most of it should come from sources unconnected with the subject (especially any material that is in any way evaluative); and that the article should summarise all prominent published views of the subject; then you shouldn't have too much difficulty. As well as the links I've already given, I suggest reading your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I am very sorry to hear about the death of your friend and client. ColinFine has given some good advice, but in regard to the fact that Steve Gold is obviously WP:Notable, I have already started an article for you titled Stephen Gold. All you have to do now is to work on it by adding information that you get from WP:Reliable sources. (I also had to redirect references to Steve Gold away from the Computer_Misuse_Act_1990 to the new stand-alone article about Steve.) Be assured that the Wikipedia community is ready to help turn what is now essentially a WP:Stub into a full-fledged WP:Article about your friend. If you have questions or need further help on the article, I suggest you ask them directly at Talk:Stephen Gold, and an editor will help you. Production of this encyclopedia is a shared endeavor, and no one editor has WP:Ownership of any given page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How long does it take for your article to appear in the Wikipedia search engine?

Hello. Just wanted to know how long it takes once you have written an article before it begins showing up in the search engine? Thank you Ridervos (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Riverdos, welcome to the Teahouse. This has been answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Help? PrimeHunter (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Included/excluded groups

It appears that my previous question doesn't exist anymore... But I'll just ask it again here. On the Polychaeta page, the taxobox contains 2 parameters I have never heard of before, included and excluded groups. I can understand what they are meant to do based on their apparent meanings, but I just can't figure out why it is necessary to add them (or not). Can't I just add a list if child taxa and leave out the excluded groups part? It doesn't have a description on the taxobox page either. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi PotatoNinja123. If you scroll down on your screen or check the table of contents for this page, you'll find that your original question is still here. Unfortunately, nobody has answered it yet. Sometimes you just have to be a little patient and wait until somebody comes along who can help you. Remember all Wikipedia editors are volunteers. You could try also asking at WT:ANIMALS and WT:WikiProject Marine life since those are the two WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, PotatoNinja123. Please allow me to venture a guess, even though I am unfamiliar with the taxobox. To me, the situation looks similar to an infobox or a citation template. Lots of fields are provided. Some are universally applicable, but others are specialised and not universal. So, fill out all the fields that apply to the specific article, and simply disregard the others. Blank fields do not display. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It also appears that the excluded and included boxes contain inaccurate information, so I think I will just change it to a list of child taxa. Thanks for the help anyways. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Am writing about my genealogy

Hi Team, I am writing a Wikipedia page article for the first time and it is very likely to have some mistakes. I would like to tell that I am writing about my own genealogy. What are the possible pros and cons for this may arise in future. There is no intention to hurt any one . It just for my own and my siblings knowledge. Kunja Bihari Bandopadhaya (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kunja. I'm afraid that if it is "just for my own and my siblings knowledge", then it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and will not be accepted. Wikipedia articles are about subjects that are notable, which means that reliable indepedent published sources have written extensively about them. Unless your family (and specifically your genealogy) have been extensively written about in major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers, they do not belong in Wikipedia. There are thousands of Wikis on the internet apart from Wikipedia, and while there may not be one appropriate to what you want to do (or there may be: I haven't researched it), sites like Wikia allow you to create your own Wiki, which you can put whatever you like in. --ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Plastiglomerate

Hi! I've been working on Draft:Plastiglomerate and I noticed that there's a tag at the bottom talking about a need for categories (that tag's been there before I started editing). I'm wondering how to remove the tag (I don't see where it is in the code) or what other categories I should add. Thank you, Bananasoldier (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Bananasoldier. The proper time to add categories is when the draft is moved to main space. Just ignore the message for now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


I have also improved an article that claimed improvement due to additional citations. I have added a number of citations. So I have left a message on the article's talk page that the claim be removed. Is that the correct approach?

Pixarh (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody please review the article written by me. Thanks, Rohit

Use link :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rohitkapoor001/Mebelkart.com&oldid=643354762 rohit kapoor 12:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitkapoor001 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Rohitkapoor001. I think your company is just about notable, although some of the sources are promotional rather than informative and you should focus on objectively describing the company rather than trying to create an advert or a 'profile'. You're doing the right thing by drafting it rather than adding it directly to the main article space, but if you have a conflict of interest (say, you've been asked to write an article by your boss) then you need to disclose this and make sure it's clear to your client that they cannot have an advertisement on Wikipedia; if they qualify for an article then it is going to be objective and neutrally-worded.
The problem is that it is posted in the wrong place - on your talk page rather than on a sub-page of your user-page, or a sandbox. You don't need to sign articles, since anyone can edit Wikipedia and once your article is in the encyclopaedia anyone else can edit it. You also need to clean up some of the reference formatting, although I can help you with that when the article is removed from your talk-page and posted into a sandbox for submission as a draft.
I wonder if anyone reading this can help me get Rohit's article into the position where it can be submitted to AFC for review, or give us a second opinion on notability etc. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to move the user's draft to Draft:Mebelkart, but couldn't do so because the latter already exists. The thing for @Rohitkapoor001: to do, therefore, is to try to improve the existing draft which is awaiting review, or to wait for that review to take place and then improve the article when/ if it is published. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Multipule Pictures

How do I make more than one picture appear in a thumbnail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbernardiscool (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jjbernardiscool: You have to use a template to achieve that; the most common one I've seen used is Template:Multiple_image. Example usage:

{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = vertical
| header = Two example pictures.
| width = 100
| image1 = PNG transparency demonstration 1.png
| alt1 = Colored dice with white background
| caption1 = Here's the first image...
| image2 = PNG transparency demonstration 2.png
| alt2 = Colored dice with checkered background
| caption2 = ...and the second!
}}

Two example pictures.
Colored dice with white background
Here's the first image...
Colored dice with checkered background
...and the second!
...will produce the images on the right. Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Would like to do an article on a notable organization.

I would like to create a page for notable organizations related the nonprofit Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratories, Inc in Panacea Florida. I think it is a notable company because it is the main source of marine specimens for most North American scientists. They have directly contributed to the discovery of cancer medicines from marine specimens. Founders Jack Rudloe and Anne Rudloe have published, together and separately, numerous books as naturalists and many articles in magazines such as the National Geographic. Plus the company is well known for its educational work. The founders got the 2014 ELI National Wetlands Award for their work in education [1]. Feedback on the feasibility of this idea before I begin please. Do they qualify as a notable organization? If so what is the best way to begin? Bjorklund21 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bjorklund21. The best way to determine notability is coverage in reliable sources. To be notable, the organisation needs to be being discussed; notability will not rest solely on the founders' own publications. Discussion around the Wetlands Award would probably be the best place to start to see whether e.g. national newspapers or prominent academic journals have picked up on the non-profit and have significantly covered them. Have a look at WP:ORG, which is the notability guidelines for organisations, to see whether the subject fits those criteria.
Also note that issues around conflict of interest and promotionally-worded articles apply to non-profits as much as they do to commercial enterprises. Please make sure any article is written to neutral point of view specifications, and avoid 'peacock' terms when describing the organisation's work. You will also need to declare any conflict of interest you have, and maybe submit a draft to Articles for Creation if you are unsure that what you have on the organisation makes them notable. There is a long backlog there, but it's better to wait a while than to have your article fail to make it through the WP:New Pages Patrol because of a lack of suitability for the encyclopaedia.
What I suggest is to do a lot of reading up on policy and criteria before or while you are writing your article. This will help things go smoother when it is submitted for the consideration of others. I've left a welcome template on your talk page with some pointers to read first, since you've had previous difficulties at AFC.
Good luck, though. New articles that fit our criteria are always welcome. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 18:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Just what I need! Bjorklund21 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.elinwa.org/2014-national-wetlands-awards-winners#Anne

Patrol

I've been creating a few articles recently by translation from the German wikipedia. Each time, I get a notification that the article has been patrolled by someone. It's been a long time since I was last active on Wikipedia but this looks like a new procedure to me. What does it mean? Cricketgirl (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cricketgirl: Hey, welcome to the Teahouse. Patrolling is basically a way for an editor (who is not the article creator) to say, "I've done a basic check of this article." Sometimes, this indicates the article is appropriate. Other times, they can also patrol an article by adding a tag to it noting a need for citations, that it is relatively short, or nominate it for deletion. You can check out New Page Patrol for more info, if you're interested. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi @I JethroBT: - thanks so much for the quick and informative answer!

I wanted to make Dingo Pictures redirect to the part in the article Mockbuster that talks about it, but it isn't a section itself. How can I do this correctly? I attempted to use an anchor link, but it didn't work and created a section instead. Could someone explain please? Thanks a lot! ~HackedBotato Chat with me ♽ Contribs 17:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Did this change help? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've created the redirect for you too. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Just what I needed! ~HackedBotato Chat with me ♽ Contribs 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Displaying 1/2

Hi guys. Is there a way of rendering 1/2 as a single character? Specifically, I'm citing an old paper where the title is "$5 1/2 million . . .". Obviously there are ways around it, like adding a space like I just did, or converting to "$5.5 million", but a single 1/2 character would be preferable.

Thanks! Bromley86 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bromley86 and welcome to the Teahouse. Most keyboards has that as a single character, usually top left corner in shift position (To the left of the 1). If you don't have it, you can copypaste mine here: ½ ½ ½ ½ . There is also a part of the editing window with all of these things. Top bar: click on "Special characters" and them "Symbols". You will get them all: ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ∞ etc. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Cheers W.carter! My old keyboard doesn't seem to have it, but that "Special characters" option is just what I was looking for (clearly not hard enough, as it was right in front of me). Bromley86 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Bromley86. I have to disagree with my colleague W.carter on this matter. According to the section of the Manual of style dealing with fractions, we should avoid the use of special characters to represent fractions. Instead, use a template which can be found at Template:Frac. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Cullen328. In this particular case, I think W.Carter might be correct, in that it's a faithful reproduction of the title of an article in a newspaper (WP:MOSQUOTE). My fault - I should have been clearer in the OP, as "paper" can be misread. Bromley86 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328:@Bromley86:Let me just clarify that I have in no way recommended which style of number to use!!! I was simply answering the question ("Is there a way of rendering 1/2 as a single character?") about where such a character could be located should need for it arise. That was what I interpreted the question to be about. Please do not involve me in a discussion about its use. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The recommended template yields: $5+1⁄2 million. Is that OK? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry W.carter, not trying to drag you in. You indeed interpreted my question as I intended it to be & thanks again for such a helpful answer.
Thanks for looking at this Cullen328. Assuming you want to look further, the source is here and the headline ($XX Million New Name Tract Started Here) is in the bottom right quadrant. Both in terms of accurately reproducing that headline, and in terms of style, $5½ Million looks like a better fit to me than $5+1⁄2 million. In this particular case. I won't mind if you tell me that's not the case though. BTW, I assume the "Anthonyhcole"(diff) was a paste error :) . Bromley86 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all, sorry for the paste error, Bromley86. That's an editor I was conversing with just before. I don't know how I did that. I agree that the special character looks better typographically than the template output. On the other hand, I like to stick with the Manual of Style in almost all cases. Do whatever you decide is best for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions between articles

I have come across more than one contradiction between facts (usually dates) in the daily Events, Births, Deaths pages and the main article they are presumably taken from. For instance, under January 22: "1521 – Emperor Charles V opens the Diet of Worms" When I open "Diet of Worms" I find: "Emperor Charles V commenced the Imperial Diet of Worms on 28 January 1521." It would be easy to change the daily page entry - January 22 - to reconcile with the main article, but can I be sure it is the main article which is correct? Burke (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to check the references given against the date. If there is no reference, and if you can't find a reliable source to be used as a reference, then the date probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You could reasonably add the {{fact}} tag against the date, and/or raise the question on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Can more Teahouses be made for different Language Wikipedias?

Hello, can this Teahouse be made for the multiple different language Wikipedias? In creating making these other\ Teahouses, I think that the various and numerous other language Wikipedias will be strengthened.Frogger48 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Frogger48 to my knowledge it is up to the different Wikipedias to create something like the Teahouse. Many of them already have something similar, but they are called different things depending on what their culture defines as a friendly, relaxed place where Wikipedia editing can be discussed. So a number of them are also called something having to do with coffee, like Cafée or Coffee House or coffe/relaxation room (Swedish Wikipedia) or breakfast (Finnish Wikipedia). Here are some of them: de:Wikipedia:Teestube, da:Hjælp:Nybegynderforum, sv:Wikipedia:Fikarummet, fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone, de:Wikipedia:Café. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Under "Languages" at Wikipedia:Teahouse you can see some equivalent pages in other languages. They are registered at wikidata:Q11059110. Each language is free to set up their own pages and procedures. The English Wikipedia is the largest and has more help pages than other languages. Many small languages have a single Village Pump page to handle things we spread around five village pumps, the Teahouse, Wikipedia:Help desk, and other pages. There are probably also languages without a single general page for communication between editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Frogger48: Editors at the Arabic Wikipedia have used some features of this Teahouse on their own project here, as has the Bengali Wikipedia here. Heatherawalls or Missvain may have worked with editors from these projects to get these spaces launched, but I'll ask them to comment here to clarify. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, most pages under the wikidata:Q11059110 are some sort of "Help for newcomers pages" while the cafée or forum are at some other non-linked location, like the de:Wikipedia:Café or linked to other numbers like the fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro. Glitch? w.carter-Talk 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably not, maybe editors on Wikidata might have thought Teahouse is a "Help for newcomers pages", like you mentioned. While it indeed help newcomers it is not just here to help out starters but for everyone who faces obstacles while editing. So it is up to Wikdata editors--Chamith (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. It's been ages since I advised another language Wikipedia on the Teahouse. Heather and User:Jtmorgan had more direct experience in advising on how to install or add components of the Teahouse. I'm more on the persuasive side, where I help get buy in. :) Missvain (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP Sources

Can Wikipedia pages/articles about living people verify some of it's content by using a source that does not explicitly mention the living person's name?

For example, a list of about 100 schools not considered accredited by CHEA is being used to verify the content in the article about the school that the living person attended being unaccredited. The source does not mention the living persons name.

I tried to see if there was a rule about using BLP sources that do not mention the living persons name, but I could not find anything. I have noticed that some editors removed sources that do not mention the living persons name. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tachyon1010101010. I see the example you mention as problematic. There are elements of original research and synthesis here, which are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Here's a personal example: 40 years ago, I attended City College of San Francisco, which at the present time, sadly, is at risk of losing its accreditation. If that happens, and if someone wrote a Wikipedia biography of me (please don't), and said I attended an unaccredited college using such a source, then that would be a BLP violation. CCSF was fully accredited when I attended. The bottom line is that we must be exceptionally careful about the accuracy of such matters, as reported by reliable sources. In this case, it would be best to have several reliable sources saying that the person in question attended an unaccredited school. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting question, Tachyon1010101010. Like Cullen328 I would see the use of such a CHEA list as original research and/or synthesis, but there is another problem: CHEA does not publish lists of unaccredited institutions; it does have a searchable database with details about accredited colleges and universities. Could the reference you question be about a diploma mill instead of a legitimate, albeit unaccredited, institution of higher learning? (There may be good reasons that bona fide colleges and universities are not accredited, as Cullen mentions above, and CHEA notes on its website.) CHEA used to refer inquiries about diploma mills to state offices in Oregon and Michigan that maintained lists of unaccredited institutions known to be diploma mills. Unfortunately, those lists were never complete because of the whack-a-mole problem-- listed diploma mills just took another name and continued the scam selling degrees. Both Michigan and Oregon have given up trying to maintain those lists, listing instead the diplomas, degrees, and institutions they do authorize. So in addition to the original research and synthesis issues, the reference you mention is probably outdated or a dead link, in which case it should be deleted, and you should use caution to verify the information with other reliable sources. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I image

I`m trying to learn how to image, and I cannot figure out how-and where-to "copy and paste". Can somebody tell me how? [In CLEAR language please!]Dale Stern (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dale Stern. I assume that you are asking about adding images to Wikipedia articles. You can go to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons, where you can search among tens of millions of freely-licensed images. If you find something useful, there is a menu bar that will generate the wikicode appropriate for using the image in a Wikipedia article. Copy the code, and paste it into the wikicode for the article. If you take a photo yourself, you can use the upload wizard at Wikimedia Commons to add it there, and then follow the same procedure to use it in an article. Photos you upload must be your own work, and not a photo of something which is in itself copyrighted, like a book or album cover, or a movie poster. This is a complex area, so I am just giving a brief overview. Please feel free to ask more detailed follow-up questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dale Stern There is a really good and easy-to-follow guide that another editor has made for this, you will find it at: User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. It will tell you how you use the images you find in the Wikimedia Commons, how you copy paste the code (on Wikipedia you copy paste the code and not the picture) for them and how you add different "commands" to the code to make them appear where you want them and in what size. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to create "episode table" for a TV show

I'm currently editing the "List of renegadepress.com episodes" page (from renegadepress.com). I just added the second season. However, when I try to do that, all the episodes from the 1st season drop under the second season title. I have no idea why this is happening and it's driving me nuts! Please help. Debola91 (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you were trying to do, but it looks as if you deleted the termination characters from the table for series 1. I've reinstated them; does that look better? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Protecting movie plots

When a new movie is released , I have seen every time the entire plot is written on Wikipedia . I think those who have not watched the movie should not read the entire story in case of new releases . I want Wikipedia to create rules where no movie or novel will have any plot section where the ending and spoilers are revealed. Wikipedia pages of movies contain this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_(media)

I don't know why Wikipedia don't have any policy about protecting the movie spoilers in plot or synopsis section . Can't editors wait for at least one year after the release of the movie or novel. What should i do to get attention of wiki administrators ? Frost The World (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frost The World: there is a Wikipedia guideline about spoilers - Wikipedia:Spoiler. You're welcome to raise the issue again on that talk page but please understand this has been debated many times before and the consensus is that film plots are permissible as long as they adhere to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example Wikipedia:verifiability. Nthep (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Have you read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Spoiler? The talk page of that guideline would be the place to discuss any thoughts which you might have, once you have read the discussions which have previously taken place. Bear in mind that it is not a matter for administrators; such decisions in Wikipedia ae taken by consensus of the editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_297&oldid=1144231909"