Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 299

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 295

←

Archive 297

→

How to change article name?

Hello. I am pretty much writing an article for the first time. The article was hardly written, so I pretty much scrapped it all and started it fresh. It's on a fish--a Chevron Tang. The article is currently titled Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis, which is the scientific name of the fish. I want to rename it Chevron Tang, which is the common name of the fish, also more frequently searched. How can I do that?

ZachofMS (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi ZachofMS , welcome to the Teahouse. You rename a page by "moving" it. See Wikipedia:Moving a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter. I got it! Chevron Tang... ZachofMS (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello ZachofMS . Yes, the way to rename a page is by moving it, as stated above, but I would advise you to first consult with an experienced editor at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes to be sure that the use of the common name is per the guidelines. Many of the fishes are listed under their scientific name for some very good reason that Fish-project-guys know more about that I do. You can also post a suggestion about the move at the talk page of the Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis to see what they think. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I use the move feature to merge two articles about the same thing into one? Trying to have Zebrasoma xanthurus deleted because it is about Zebrasoma xanthurum. Plus, Zebrasoma xanthurus really isn't the correct scientific name for that fish ZachofMS (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The move feature cannot be used to merge two articles. Merging is a more complicated process. See WP:Merging. However, it appears that the article with the incorrect gender has been proposed for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would advice you to have that conversation at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes, since you are more likely to get correct answers there. But you may have to be patient since it is Saturday night and the WP is usually a bit void of editors then. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 18:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to revert your move unsuccessfully, the article should be under the latin name as all others are.Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree Theroadislong. The project page said that the common name should be used as the article title if there is a common name that is widely used and not used for any other species. ZachofMS (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm 'pinging' the editor here for Theroadislong's comment in case they thought this conversation was over. w.carter-Talk 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As the project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes says, there are detailed rules for when a common name is the primary name of an article, and when a Latin name is the primary name of the article. Wikipedia does have a useful feature of redirection, which essentially permits an article to have more than one linkable and searchable name. The project guidance has to do only with which name should be the primary name. If the common name is the primary title, the Latin name (which is always unambiguous) should always be a redirect. If the Latin name is the primary title, but the common name is unambiguous, the common name should be a redirect. If the common name is ambiguous, it should direct to a disambiguation page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sports team question

Hello. I play on a team that has a pre-existing page on Wikipedia -- but the page hasn't been updated in quite a while. As I am a team member, does it constitute conflict of interest if I update my team's page? I would not be adding controversial information, simply citing previous years' rankings and tournament participation. Thanks in advance for your help! Kirby Krackle (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kirby Krackle. As long as you show references for the updated info, then you're good. Adding provable statistical data to an article is by no means a conflict of interest. Now if you were blatantly promoting or advertising, that would be different...but updating records - no. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kirby Krackle. I don't entirely agree with Vjmlhds: yes, if you are a member of the team, then you have a conflict of interest, and should read the page I've just linked to. That does not say that you may not edit the page, and I agree with Vjmlhds that if all you do is add factual data that is referenced to a published reliable source, that probably won't be a problem. But the difficulty with having a conflict of interest is that what appears uncontroversial to you may appear promotional to somebody unconnected with the team; or what appears important to you might seem trivial to somebody uninvolved. That is why you are encouraged to post your suggested changes on the article's talk page, rather than edit it directly. --ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Afd discussion and Stand-alone list

Hi all, I'm a quiet new in wiki her and i'm a bit overwhelmed with so many wiki rules. I've read the rules but there are still things I don't quite understand, so if possible I would like to ask experienced users like you guys here for your opinions.

1. afD Discussion Result
I've recently join this afD discussion about the proposed deletion of 6 members of vocal group Apink the proposer believed didn't have any notability outside their group so they don't deserve an individul page. It has since been closed abruptly with the deletion for all 6 members as a result even though the discussion still ongoing and I believe no clear consensus had been made. The reason why I think it was hard to reach a consensus even after it has been relisted twice was because those 6 members have different notability. Even the proposer have later requested for withdrawal and wanted to do it individually, but it was rejected so the discussion continued on the same page.

If I can summarized the discussion for those 6 members,:
1. Keep Son Naeun most of the comments believe she have notability outside the group.
2. Keep Park Chorong and Yoon Bomi - Even though not as many as Son Naeun, some also believe they have notability outside the group.
3. Delete/Redirect other 3 members -I think we have reached consensus to delete these 3 members

I have tried to contact closing admin first but I haven't receive any reply. I'm not sure what I should do now. Should I try to create a WP:DRV? I understand that consensus doesnt mean a voting, so what actually it means if there are so many different argument?

2. Stand-alone List
Because of the deletion of the individual page of some of the members, I would like to create List of Group members for the group. Can I create a stand-alone list like the one for One Direction and Exo?

I have made the draft on my sandbox here. I have only been editing page so far but never created an article before. If I want to create stand alone list like that, Is it the same like creating a new article? Thank you so much, really appreciate your help. I'm sorry I have so many question. Sonflower0210 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sonflower0210. Closing an AfD debate after a month is not "abrupt" because the discussion went on for a long time. One week is standard and all such debates need to be closed. I think "redirect" was the proper decision. The articles were not deleted but redirected. Any editor can see the content in the earlier edit history. The biggest problem I saw for those who supported keeping the articles is that various asssertions of independent notability were made, but those claims were not backed up with links to reliable sources. A biography of a living person must have references to reliable sources backing up any claim. Instead of fighting the redirect, you should (in my opinion) pick the most notable member and rebuild the article with proper references in your sandbox page. Once it is of decent quality, that's the time to put it back into article main space. As for list articles of band members, they need to meet pretty much the same standards as any other article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 for your suggestion. Please bear with me for few more questions :).

1. So If I'm understanding right, when the article has been completed with proper references I can re-create the individual member article that I think notable without going through WP:DRV? Is that allowed even though prev afD resulted in the redirect?

2. Once I have complete it with proper reference, how to do it properly? since it has not been deleted, can i just edit their individual page by remove the redirect?

3. Where do you think I can ask for second opinion if those three are notable enough for their own page. I especially find this part in WP:ENT a bit ambigious, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows,..." How to determine that it's a significant role? For me, it can also include an important supporting roles like second lead actress, etc. But for other user, it only means "lead actress".

4. Also, for the standalone list. According to WP:NOTESAL, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". So I think it's allowed? I'm thinking on doing the same thing like they did for One Direction and Exo. They created standalone list for all the members and only create the individual page for the one notable. Anyway, Thank you once again for your help Sonflower0210 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Sonflower0210, I do not think deletion review is necessary since the article was redirected rather than deleted.

2. Yes, you can remove the redirect and then add the expanded content. There is always the chance that someone will again nominate for deletion. But if the article is much better referenced, it has a good chance of surviving.

3. You can always come here to the Teahouse to ask for an opinion. There is no strict definition of a "significant role". If reliable sources discuss the role in detail, that is good evidence.

4. Personally, I do not like the idea of a freestanding list article about members of a band. I see no reason why this shouldn't be covered in the main band article. That is my opinion, and other opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you so much for your advise. Really appreciated it :) Sonflower0210 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reports and perception of sources

Hi Teahouse, I have a small question to ask. On the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women, it cites the following quote:

"Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, declared in a 2006 report posted on the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) website that:

Violence against women and girls is a problem of pandemic proportions. At least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime with the abuser usually someone known to her.[5]"

There are a few problems I encountered on this. First, the citation is a broken link to which I will fix and is not a major problem.

I also investigated this claim despite it being made by a figure of high authority by looking at the original report to which he made this conclusion and found that it was a gross generalisation of multiple studies that had been taken place, each not representative of the conclusion he has made. Now, the question is this. Whilst this shouldn't really be there as it seems like an inaccurate report to base a conclusion like that on, that is my opinion and Kofi Annan has made that quote based on that report. What are the Wikipedia policies on things like this? I feel it shouldn't be there.

Thanks CorrectiveMeasures (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CorrectiveMeasures. An issue like this should be discussed on the article's talk page. This is an important, high visibility article, and major changes should be based on consensus. If the UN report itself is unreliable, you should be able to find a reliable source critiquing it. Your own personal analysis is original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy for further information on how to deal with content issues. It will tell you that the first step is to discuss on the article talk page, and will then advise other ways to resolve content disputes collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Are the bonds real?

Hi all, I've experienced some trouble on a Wikipedia page, where some thinks there are $50,000, $100 million, $500 million, and $1 billion bond notes with coupons. He keeps on trying to get them onto a page where they clearly don't belong. What should I do about him?Buscus 3 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't entirely clear from your post what the problem is. Are you saying that someone is copying inappropriate images to a page where they do not belong? Have you tried discussing on the article talk page whether the images are appropriate? If the edits have the quality of vandalism, then you can report the vandal at WP:AIV, but be sure that any edits really are vandalism before reporting them as vandalism. If that isn't your question, then please restate the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The "bonds" in question are forgeries, and even if they were real, they do not belong in an article about currency, Large denominations of United States currency. The matter is being discussed on that talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

How best to deal with external links

I have written a series of pages about the National Open Art Competition. In terms of what it does, purely mechanically that is, it is similar to BAFTA. So there are judges and trustees etc and a series of awards that are given out each year, similar to the Best Actor. I have therefore modelled the Wikipedia pages on the BAFTA Wikipedia pages mechanically, with one page for the 'main' event and one page for each year's awards. I am working on adding one page for each award as well, listing the winners of that award over the years. So far so good.

The problem comes with the difference between the National Open Art Competition and the BAFTAs. Almost by definition, the winners of the BAFTAs are well known, public figures who have their own Wikipedia pages. The films/TV programmes are similarly well known and have their own Wikipedia pages and therefore internal Wikipedia links within the BAFTA pages. the links are in the most intuitive place and work really well. The artists and the artists' works in the Competition are, almost 100% unknown and have no Wikipedia entry.

So, if a Wikipedia reader is interested in one of the artists, or one of their works, if I provide a link in the Wikipedia page, then it won't be to a Wikipedia page, but to the artist's own website or to the Competition's website where there is an image of the work in question.

Here's the question. How best to include those links? In any 'normal' website I would include them in the body text because that's the logical and intuitive place to put them, but links in the body text is frowned upon in Wikipedia. If I put them in an External Links section, which I could of course do, that will make them much more difficult to find and effectively duplicate much of the body text on the page.

All pearls of wisdom would be most gratefully received! Sebh007 (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Sebh007 First, it is just possible that this link has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't meant to include the whole Internet. There aren't many policies on Wikipedia that are hard and fast but no external links except in the external links section is one of them. And if the page you want to link to doesn't meet the requirements for an wp:external link then you just can't include the link. However, there is one other option that might work here. If I'm understanding you, this page you want to link to helps to clarify the difference between two different awards. So IF you can work in that explanation into one of the articles and IF that page you want to link to meets the wikipedia standard for a good wp:reference then you could add a reference using the Web Citation template in the editor. Look at the "Cite" option on the tool bar and it gives you a bunch of templates, one of them is to cite a web page. With that tool you get a form and one of the fields in that form is a URL. Doing that you can essentially include the link in the right place as part of a reference. Just to pick a random example if you look here: Irish_Tour_'74_(film)#Background You will see the reference for this quote about a concert in Ireland during a period of IRA bombings goes to a news article on a web site. You could do something similar if the external page you want to link to can be used as a reference for some significant fact in the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: I don't think the rule about external links not being in the text is a "hard and fast" rule. I see them all the time. Maybe they aren't supposed to be there, but if it was really a "hard and fast" rule, they would be gone.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The guideline: Wikipedia:External_links does say that external links "should not normally be placed in the body of an article." so there is some wiggle room in that it doesn't say absolutely never but I always remove external links that are in the body of an article and I've never gotten any push back for it. Moreover it seems to me very much an essential design goal of wikipedia to not have external links. Its what gives the encyclopedia the feel of an actual encyclopedia rather than just another web site, all the links, I've never seen an exception (except of course external links section), go to within the encyclopedia. Can you think of an example where an exception would make sense? In any case, this example seems to me to be clearly a case where the editor should not include an external link in the body and I stand by my advise. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: I'd say that this falls under the idea that English Wikipedia is far too big to police properly, and that if you see an external link the body of the text you should remove it. Articles that have them in the body of the text just haven't been cleaned up yet. New Page Patrol and other copy-editing/review services can't catch everything. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 23:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In which case, it is your opinion and not a "hard and fast" rule. What you're doing is proper according to the guidelines, though in some cases we'd be depriving the reader of information since the topic related to the external link does not have a Wikipedia article for whatever reason, such as lack of notability. But you are right that we should try to avoid such a situation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I expressed myself badly in the last comment. Obviously just because I do something and people don't complain is hardly compelling. It could be that I just have such a winning personality (or more likely I am such an overbearing asshole) that people don't like to argue with me. But I refer again to the policy on wp:external links it says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. " Now perhaps I shouldn't have said "hard and fast rule" because there really are no hard and fast rules here, everything can be open to a common sense exception and a good argument. But as I look through that external link article and in any other documentation I can not find ANY specific examples that say "it is OK to use external links in the body in these circumstances". Thus, it seems to me the onus is on you, if you feel that this specific question I was wrong to give the advise I gave then please provide a well reasoned argument why an exception makes sense in this case. Or if you want to give some general purpose example that doesn't match this particular question but you still feel is important then please express that. And BTW, this is another example where I am more of a stickler for standards than some people and pridefully so. Standards are critical for good usable web design. Even the most creative web designers agree with that. And also, standards are an essential aspect of making web sites accessible to people with disabilities. Software designed to interpret Wikipedia pages and translate them to audio streams for the blind for example rely on standards to deal with things like links, which they will assume are within the encyclopedia. So the clear standard here is that external links are only allowed in the external link section but like virtually all Wikipedia standards there is an opt out clause for some very good argument for a special unanticipated case, but you have provided no evidence that this specific question is such a case. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. As the OP here, I can see the arguments entirely, and the fact that there seems to be some sort of split suggests that there is at least some wiggle room. My attitude is that an interested party reading the Wikipedia entry would, if they were truly interested, want to see the item in question but at the same time, the item in question is not of sufficient notability to warrant its own entry in Wikipedia. So, if the example was notable, then the line might read '...Sistine Chapel ceiling by Michelangleo' and the reader would have a single click to go straight to each of the Wikipedia entries. However, if, as in this case, it does not warrant its own entry in Wikipedia, that doesn't mean that it should not be linked to from Wikipedia somehow and that the link should not be easy to find and follow. So, if you agree with the logic so far, that suggests to me that in an ideal world, where we are trying to make things as straightforward as possible for anyone to follow, if we don't include an external link in the body of the text, we need to provide a two click mechanism if that is possible. So my ideal would be to provide a hyperlink in the body of the text to the External Links section, and not just to the External Links section, but straight to the correct External Link within the External Links section. Is this possible within Wikipedia please?

Sebh007 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sebh007 probably no surprise but no I don't agree. You could use that argument to justify putting external links all over the place "well this would be useful but its not notable enough for a Wikipedia article". A couple of more points: there is actually a tag that can be applied to articles that have external links in the body. It's a recognized problem that people tag and correct as a matter of course. I use User:suggestbot to give me articles that need attention and match my interests and more than once I've done mass cleanups on an article where I found all the external links as prompted by tags and either moved them to the External Links section, changed them to references, or just removed the links. I am highly confidant that if you add external links to the body of the article someone will eventually revert it and if you tried to contest it you would lose. The policy is clear and its only not absolute in the sense that no wikipedia policy is absolute. The reason you gave is not at all convincing to me. People follow refs and then click on URLs all the time, its hardly onerous. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Military Accident list Article Question

The article I'm speaking of is the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–09). I posted a comment on the Talk page, but have gotten no reply, so I'll re-post it here.

I don'd think the Space Shuttle Columbia was a Military Aircraft. While it was operated by NASA which is a government agency. NASA is responsible for the civilian space program. So therefore I believe it should be listed in only space-related accident lists.

Comments? Ideas? Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(Post moved to top of the page by w.carter-Talk 20:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

Well, I happen to agree with Rocketmaniac2. Posting to the article talk page was the right first step. With no response, you could go ahead and remove the entry. Be ready for someone to revert your removal, which would be a content dispute. Read the dispute resolution policy for advice on how to deal with content disputes. My own suggestion about whether to include that accident in the list would be a Request for Comments, but your mileage may vary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Rocketmaniac2 I could be wrong but I think that NASA sometimes had the shuttle do military related missions as well as scientific ones and most of the pilots and passengers were from the military. So in that sense it might be considered a military aircraft. But I admit that's a stretch -- and I had to double check myself because I wasn't sure but you are correct NASA is not part of the DOD but an independent agency that reports directly to the president. So seems like a good observation on your part. I also think posting on the talk page first was a good idea and if no one speaks up shortly, go for it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ready (except) my edit to be reverted. I will not "blow up", but will work with others to resolve the issue. This is why I'm asking for other opinions now..... MadScientist, Yes, The shuttle did many DOD missions, but I still consider the Shuttle to be civilian. And, Space Shuttle Columbia's final mission STS-107 was strictly a scientfic mission. These reasons are why I believe this accident doesdn't belong in this list... Thanks for your opinions. Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well perhaps I'm being overly optimistic... which for me would be a rare event... but I don't think its all that inevitable the change will be reverted especially given how well you documented it on the talk page ahead of time. One other thought, as I looked at that article there was no definition of what exactly qualifies as a military aircraft. Perhaps the people writing the article thought it was obvious but as this example illustrates it may not be and that might be another good addition to the article. Just a suggestion. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I like your idea about adding the definition for Military Aircraft. The article Military Aircraft should be the best source.

I've also added another entry in the Talk page again asking for comments and ideas..... Also I said that there was good conversation going on about this subject here in the Teahouse.Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources when translating articles

Hi, I'm working on translating an article from Polish into German. When I go to put in the sources from the Polish article, should I change the date that the reference was visited, as I'm double-checking they do indeed have that information before using it in my translation? The answer is possibly an obvious yes, but I wasn't sure and so wished to check! Thanks in advance. Dionysius1990 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dionysius1990: As long as you're checking them, sounds perfectly fine to me :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dionysius1990. Strictly, we shouldn't be answering that here, unless we happen to be familiar with the policies of de.wikipedia. But I would suppose SuperHamster is right. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dionysius1990: It you are editing on the German Wikipedia you may want to ask at one of their versions of the Teahouse. They have both a de:Wikipedia:Teestube and a de:Wikipedia:Café for such matters. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: Ah, of course, I will ask over there. Thank you! Dionysius1990 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Whoops, did not catch that the target language was German. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dionysius1990: There are two schools of thought about this. (a) When they check a cite, some editors like to update the accessdate, to show that the site was still live. (b) But other editors say no, you should not do that. Suppose the article you are translating was written in 2011. You check the link and change the accessdate to 2015. Now suppose that the link goes dead. I want to fix the dead link, so I go to the Wayback Machine, where I have a choice between the versions of 2011 and 2015. The version that I should choose is the one from 2011, because that is the version seen by the author of the original article, which supports the statement that the author made in 2011. If you change the accessdate to 2015, I have no way to know which version the original author saw. So my advice is, as long as the link still works you should leave the original accessdate alone. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

is expertise without citations "soap"?

(i checked your search box)

if you are an expert about something without external sources, and the relevant page is misleading due to false/slanderous sources, is a relevant content-edit soap?

i tried going with the tutorial thing and it took me to topics where i could rework formatting but not really contribute as i have no expertise (let alone citations) about the stuff recommended for me to edit.

let's say there is some social movement, and the movement is recent enough that the members of the movement haven't published anything with high rapport/esteem. what should one do?

there are data analysis which if directly submitted to wiki seem they would qualify as original research (and bad), however there are entire branches of the site which have similar problems of professional bias. by professional bias i mean there are sources and articles which are written with similar point of view as those professionally in the field, instead of attempting to simplify for a lay audience without poisoning the well.

i digress- the detractors to the movement have slandered the movement through major publications which are getting laundered through wiki to make the topical wikipage a soapbox of the very group accused by the movement.

does personal familiarity with the topic constitute: a conflict of interest (by wiki standards)? an act of soap boxing? a non neutral point of view?

what i'm wanting to have is a neutral or mildly pro article which represents the topic and movement fairly, mentioning concerns within the movement instead of popular ad hominems and popular strawmans. what presently is alledged to represent the topic, could simply be moved to a topic page where the arguments are awarded accurately to those making the arguments, either as a 'detraction' subsection or as a separate page. instead of talking over and misrepresenting the topic to the extent it is causing an edit war.

less abstractly and more quickly, if there was a movement internally about panhandlers robbing people. and the wiki-page for the movement said it was actually about the mistreatment of panhandlers, what do?

any clarification would be appreciated. Ethical bastard (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ethical bastard. This is a simple question to answer. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. That means if no-one else has written about it, we won't either. What you "know" can only be used to lead you to references, not as a basis for your contribution. Hope that clarifies it for you a bit. BTW, someone has taken offense at your username and reported you for it. You may wish to change it. John from Idegon (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon

i understand where you are coming from and i appreciate the clarification. i don't understand how an encyclopaedia could cover controversial topics in line with the proposed ethics policy, but it doesn't matter for now as the vacuous citations will temporarily stand over the competing nothing.

regarding the name, i'll just delete my account in a while. people have the right to take offense to the username, as i am here cause i've taken offence at a slanderous article. if the offence of a name is more significant than slander, i have nothing to contribute so i'll be off.

none the less, thank you for the perspective and warm wishes for your content curation.Ethical bastard (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethical bastard, a constructive way to address your situation is to find appropriately reliable, independent, verifiable sources which support views that balance the existing parts of the article which you have trouble with, then update the article to include them. In an encyclopedia, or any constructive conversation, I find that little is as effective is good quality sources of credible information. They can be difficult to find, requiring some digging, but nothing else makes your case as well. Be sure to involve the other editors on the relevant Talk page as well so you build a consensus. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethical bastard I agree with all the other replies but just want to add one more perspective: imagine if we tried to do it otherwise. If we allowed people to just use their own expertise to validate the information in the encyclopedia. Do you think conflicts and disagreements would go away? Of course they wouldn't. So then in that case how can we ever come to a consensus on anything? It would be impossible. One group takes one position another takes a different one and without appealing to references there is no way to determine who is correct. Trust me as someone who has edited for a while now it can sometimes be incredibly hard and frustrating even WITH appealing to references but without it would be impossible. It would change Wikipedia from one of the most trusted sites on the Internet which it rightfully is now to just another site that hosts opinions like Facebook. BTW, not knocking Facebook just saying the goal here is different and to use one of my favorite analogies it is a lot like democracy: its flawed, frustrating, time consuming, and far from perfect but compared to the alternatives it is the best we as imperfect humans can do. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MadScientistX11, but not everybody has such trust in Wikipedia: last week I heard on television that "Wikipedia is like a public toilet: what you find depends on who was there just before you." All the more reason we have to be diligent in keeping the standards high... --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

How to add gallery to article?

How to add gallery to article?Anand.orkhon (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anand.orkhon. The guideline for use of image galleries can be found at the shortcut WP:GALLERY. The details of the gallery coding can be found at WP:Gallery tag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious!

Hello, I recently submitted my article Hostyle Gospel that was rejected two weeks ago. I reached out to other users and administrators and got tips on how to improve my article. One user even went as far as browsing over the article and reformatting the entire article so it would be ready for resubmission. I'm still new to Wikipedia and I don't know as much as the other gurus, but how long does the process of a resubmitted usually takes? Thank you Graceking123 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Graceking123. You asked the same question on my talk page, and I answered there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What would be the best way to create a second page to link content to the main page?

Hello, I'm currently working on a wikipage at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Code_Monkeys I'd like to add a page to list all the games developed by the company but I'm not sure how best go about creating the page. If anyone could help that would be great, thank you very much.

Tokeepongaming (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Tokeepongaming I'm not sure creating that second page is the best way to expand the article in question (more on that below) but to answer your question: to create a second page you need to establish that the topic is wp:notable on its own and that it makes more sense to have a separate article rather than to include all the info on the existing article. Here is an example you can probably relate to: we have an article on the concept Object (computer science) However, there are many kinds of CS objects: distributed objects for example. To crowd all the info about distributed objects into the object article would make it really large. Also, "Distributed object" is by itself a very common computer science term and there are lots of good wp:reliable sources that talk about distributed objects. So what we do is create a new article called: Distributed_object then on the Object (computer science) article we have a section called: Object_(computer_science)#Distributed_objects That section has an overview description of distributed objects (for people who don't care about the details) and then links to the Distributed_object article and at the very beginning of the section we put the wikicode: {{main|Distributed object}} which creates the link to the main article at the start of the section. You could do the same thing in this case, have a separate article on code monkey games and then link to it from the code monkey article. Hope that was clear. Now that I've explained it: don't do it! At least not yet. The_Code_Monkeys article has major issues. See all those tags at the beginning? The reason we do things like the distributed objects example is because an article will get too big if we try to cram too much info into it. But The_Code_Monkeys has the opposite problem right now: there is so LITTLE info that it barely qualifies as an article. My advise to you is to fix the article first. Add better wp:references Do a better job of establishing that the topic is wp:notable in the special Wikipedia sense and after you do that THEN start adding info about the games. Even then you may not need an extra article, it depends how many games there were, how notable the games were by themselves (as opposed to being notable as part of Code Monkey) my guess is that the games aren't wp:notable enough to merit their own article but in any case my advise is clean up the code monkey article first. Hope that was clear feel free to leave more questions on my talk page if you need to. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopes of Disney bring the timelord to the big screen

I hope Doctor Who will hit to the big screen by Disney and Universal.

- ThisIsTheLCPD (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello ThisIsTheLCPD and welcome to the Teahouse. While it is good that you have hopes and dreams, this is not the place to share them since this page is only about editing the Wikipedia. This is not a social chat page. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Article for deletion nomination

I tried to nominate an article for deletion, but the templates did not work, and I had to copy everything (using Safari), but it is still not correct. Is there anyone who can correct it for me, or tell me how to do it? Cfd analysis of evacuated solar still? MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

relocated to top of page John from Idegon (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey MicroPaLeo. The page's cache was not showing the active link in the AfD template. I purged and the link went blue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I also removed the "2nd nomination" words, because it was a different type of deletion, not discussed. I appreciate the help, it all looks to be in order. MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:92.18.128.114

Hello. I am working on a page. A Kray Twinz song "What We Do".

Does it look like a good article? Thanks! 92.18.128.114 (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This IP is currently blocked for block evasion. Arfæst ! 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the block. IP accounts are not allowed to create articles, right? RudolfRed (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

IP editors can create drafts via the WP:AFC process; they (technically) cannot create new articles themselves. This particular IP, however, indeed is a blocked editor evading the block. Huon (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Insertion of an image

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_on_Technical_Interchange_for_Space_Mission_Operations_and_Ground_Data_Systems

I have uploaded and added the copyright tag but the image is not inserted yet. What do I have to do next?? Joachim (SpaceOps)Spaceops (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Spaceops, not sure what you mean, but if you are referring to how to place the image in the article, you will find User:Yunshui/Images for beginners orWikipedia:Picture tutorial helpful. I also looked at the article where you have only used bare urls as references. That is not the proper way of doing it since such refs are prone to link rot. Please read the Help:Referencing for beginners for how to fix this. Btw, when you link to an article in the Wikipedia, use the wikilink instead of the url. Like this: International Committee on Technical Interchange for Space Mission Operations and Ground Data Systems. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Spaceops:Having looked at both the picture you uploaded (SpaceOps) and the article, I find that there are a couple of other things you need to address. You need to change your username since having a username that is the branded abbreviation of an organization is against the policy of the Wikipedia. If you in fact are a member of that organization, you may also have a conflict of interest regarding that article, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Last, the name of the article is very long and might not be the most common name for the organization. You might want to move it to just "SpaceOps" and leave a redirect at the long name. See WP:COMMONNAME. w.carter-Talk 11:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it to SpaceOps per WP:COMMONNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I own the copyright on a game and want all to know the right way to play...

So how do I go about writing about something that I have the copyright on (and it is free) so that all can play it the right way. It also happens to benefit the brain (left and right side at the same time - science has shown to be true)? PG3d (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PG3d. I'm afraid the answer to your question is "Find a site that is not Wikipedia". All articles in Wikipedia should be based entirely on information published in reliable sources, and mostly on sources unconnected with the subject of the article. Until your game has been extensively written about in reliable sources unconnected with you, it is not a subject for a Wikipedia article; and even when it does, the content should be about what people have said about the game, not a guide to playing it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What awards have I earned?

Where do you go to view the awards you've earned? Or do you just have to remember them? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @YoSoyUnHamster: Welcome to the Teahouse! Nice to see a fellow hamster. If you're referring to barnstars, you'll have to keep track of them on your own. Some users have a section on their userpage (or a separate page entirely, such as User:YoSoyUnHamster/Awards) to list all their barnstars and other awards as they get them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As you are new to Wikipedia I think it'd be better to explain these "barnstar" stuff. On Wikipedia awards or barnstars (Wikipedia:WikiLove) are used to show appreciation between users. For example someone can thank you for your contributions by using Wikipedia:WikiLove system. On Wikipedia Awards/Wikilove doesn't work like game achievements. You will only get awards/wikilove by other editors just like you. Wikilove is used to encourage users to edit Wikipedia. They do not act like real-world awards or other kind of achievements. You asked how to view the awards you've earned. At the moment you don't have any Wikilove/awards as you are a fresh user. If you can provide some high quality contributions to Wikipedia then someone might show you Wikilove by giving you an award. Wikilove will be posted to your talk page. Like I said they are not a point system. So don't be discouraged if you don't receive any Wikilove. Um.. I can give you a Teahouse badge if you can create a Teahouse guest profile. Cheers!-Chamith (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. How do I delete a page? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@YoSoyUnHamster: You can't. Administrators can do that. But you can request for speedy deletion if it meets the criteria. Or you can propose deletion. But there must be a good reason, otherwise your request will be rejected. It's not like deleting files on your smartphone or computer.--Chamith (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I help?

Do you know of any pages with grammar errors that I can fix? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse YoSoyUnHamster. Look here: Wikipedia:Community_portal Depending on the size of your screen you may need to scroll down a bit. Where it says "Help Out" there are a bunch of categories for articles with specific kinds of problems and the first category is: "Fix spelling and grammar" The link next to it that says "Learn How" will give you tips on how to fix the errors and the bullet list of links below it (e.g., Fuzzy logic, Pir Piai, etc.) are all articles that have grammar or spelling issues that need to be fixed. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Wiki Knowledge graph

This is regarding to wiki article knowledge graph appear on Google or Bing search engines in right hand side. seems to be this knowledge graph not updating frequently. it showing old information. is there anyway we can force to update or request to update this graph.

as an example:

this is about the article: source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesara_Jayawardane location : someone was added the date of birth as 1977 without reference and not in good faith.

Wiki Admins already removed this from the article and semi-protected the page. but still google search populate this as 1977 on right hand side knowledge graph.

Landy3 (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. - Arjayay (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Arjayay for prompt reply. really appreciate your help on this. this is a text field showing on that Knowledge Graph, I thought thats picking up from WIKI. because wiki page already updated to void someone's edits without NPV and valid references. thanks i will find that feedback thing. Landy3 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Coloured border

Hi. How can I create a color sample , but only the border to be coloured? The ,,interior" should be colorless. Daduxing (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Daduxing: Welcome to the Teahouse! Template:Color_sample lets you define the border color. Here's the code you want: {{Color sample|border=red|white}}. This will produce . ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much @SuperHamster:! Daduxing (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Food Items on Talk Pages

In lots of talk Pages I see , people say have some tea , have some fruitcake .When did this start ? . is their any particular list of foods whose pictures can be pasted ? Frost The World (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the teahouse Frost The World. I have answered your question on your talk page. I hope you enjoy your tea. NathanWubs (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

dates of birth on wikipedia articles

Hello all, I was wondering if dates of birth are compulsory in wikipedia articles about people and if yes, do they need to be in the box or can they remain outside? 143.233.243.125 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. No, birthdates are not compulsory. For marginally notable people, the birthdate may not be widely reported, and in those cases, Wikipedia editors should not track it down. Privacy, accuracy and verifiability are more important than including a birth date. See WP:DOB for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

List article in Greek

Hi, i created an article about a Greek politician, written in Greek but when i save it lists the article in english wiki, an notifies me that it will be deleted. Can i edit article and list it in Greek wikipedia? Lary bvlgari (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lary bvlgari. Each different language Wikipedia is a separate entity, with its own rules and customs. I would expect that you can create your page in the Greek Wikipedia, but you would need to ask somebody there to be sure. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Ζάννας Ζήσης already exists in the Greek Wikipedia. I don't speak Greek so I don't know whether this is the same person. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Glancing at the two articles again, it looks as if much of the content is already the same in the Greek Wikipedia version, and looking even further it seems as if you wrote that one too, so you found where to put it. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for input on

Montanabw Suggested I bring this here. I recently ran into an editor who I thought was a POVwarrior. They were, among other things, copy/pasting lots of unformatted text and bare links onto my talk page complaining about NPOV and OR in a controversial article. There initial reception was less than welcoming, not rude just firm. After seeing some of their other edits I figured that they simply did not know how to make diffs or use a talk page so I wrote a very brief tutorial for them. It seemed to help get them communicating.

I have turned that brief tutorial into draft text for one or two welcome templates. The purpose is to have something that a new user can read on their talk page and without clicking on any links and get a minimal idea on 1) how to communicate; and 2) a very brief introduction to our editorial guidelines with links to the more detailed policies.

I am looking for input into the text; Comments on its appropriateness; and to make sure I am not propagating any misunderstandings of policy I might have. Thank you for your time and input. Please ping me with replies or discuss on the talk page. Thank you JBH (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think your draft would be better suited as a personal essay rather than policy or a template. Arfæst ! 19:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arfæst Ealdwrítere: OK, thanks for taking a look. My main questions, though, are whether the information contained in the text 1) covers the basics; 2)I am not misrepresenting policy; 3) See if any editors have ideas on how to improve the text.

What I want to achieve is one or two generic texts that can be places on a new user's talk page when they first do something like dump unformatted text on a talk page or start complaining Wikipedia "... won't let me put XXX in an article." Right now these users seem to get hit with a bunch of Blue Links. Turning it into an essay, while possibly useful, does not really seem to achieve the purpose, it just turns it into another Blue Link rather that a nice comment they can read as part of the flow of an ongoing conversation. Simply linking WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc. over and over just seems not to be the best way to get through to a casual new editor and adding Jbhunley's ideas on stuff to the blue wall would, in my opinion, add to the problem not help it. Note: I do not really care if this is adopted for general use, it is something I figured was worth keeping on hand for my own use in similar situations to what I described above. My primary concern is to, as I said, make sure I covered the basics and I am not misrepresenting policy. JBH (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello JBH. While you intention to help is good, you may be pleased to know that the "Welcome plate" that appears on a new users page if you pate the code {{subst:Welcome to Wikipedia}} there, includes almost all of the things you have in your essay in a much friendlier way than before. Please check it out here: Template:Welcome to Wikipedia. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: That looks great! I will put that in my library for use with new users. The only thing I would like to see is something like the 30,000 ft overview of RS, OR, NPOV kind of like I have in section two. Does something like that already exist? A lot of the conflict I see from new/inexperienced/have-not-spent-way-too-much-time-reading-noticeboards users is that they read the title of the policies and fill in what they think it should mean. Those misconceptions are usually pretty similar. That kind of information can probably be done in an essay, the key though would be getting people already confronted with lots of Blue to read it if they are already disinclined to read the policies themselves. The audience I want to reach are the ones that want to jump right into their subject (mostly good) but are not interested in reading lots of policy documents (not so good) but would read a screen full of stuff right in front of them. A not insignificant population, I think.

That might be a discussion for another area, if so where would that be? Thanks for the info! JBH (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I've seen essays floating around here somewhere, but I really can't recall where. You can browse different help pages and see what you find. There is an awful lot of info to be found if you just enter "WP:Whatever you are looking for" in the searchbox (top right corner). You'll be surprised what pops up! :) BTW, here's another one for you: Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, it is aimed for young editors but I think it's useful for anyone who is new here. A real birds eye view of the WP. w.carter-Talk 22:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: Thank you. JBH (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)