Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 553

Archive 550

Archive 551

Archive 552

Archive 553

Archive 554

Archive 555

→

Archive 560

Help with auto archiving

I have setup auto archiving on my talk page. But I think it did not well. Someone please help me with that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I looked at your talk page and I see that you were changing your archive setup recently. However, it looks to me like your archive setup is currently working. I myself prefer dated archives, but that's just a matter of taste. What did you think was not working right?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to change your configuration to say "User talk:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Archive %(counter)d" instead of "User talk:Example/Archives %(counter)d", and then see whether that works. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thanks for the suggestion, I did the same. But problem persists. The bot is not archiving my page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you corrected it less than 18 hours ago. Wait and see what happens when the bot had has time to run again. It runs only once a day. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It has, as expected, done the job when it had time to run. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: The archiving bot only runs once per day. Also, this edit will cause the bot to archive to Archive 1 instead of Archive 3. — Gestrid (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is Signing required ?

Why is Signing required ? Sai kiran ------------ 10:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikirantangirala (talk • contribs)

Signing your posts on talk pages and project pages (like the Teahouse) is not compulsory but it is very much encouraged as good practice - see Wikipedia:Signatures. It is also very simple - writing four tildes "~~~~" at the end of your post automatically appends your username and the current date and time to your post when you save it. This tells anyone reading your post who you are and when you made the post. You can customize your signature if you want to. Since signing posts is so simple and so helpful to other users, it is almost universally followed by experienced Wikipedia editors. If you choose not to follow the convention then your posts will look somewhat odd. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

When replying to postings on talk and project pages, it is good practice to ping the person you're replying to Saikirantangirala - as I did there - so that they get a notification. If they haven't signed their contribution, I have to go into the page history to find who I am replying to. (It is true that there is a bot which often signs unsigned comments; but it doesn't always: I don't know why). --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

By default, SineBot will sign unsigned edits. It won't usually sign for users with over 800 edits, but they can opt back in, see User:SineBot#Opting back in for experienced editors. There are occasionally technical problems with the bot, so better to sign for yourself. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If you mean why signing is manual and not automatic then it's because the same software is used for discussion posts and other edits, and the software cannot tell what should be signed. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Proving paid editing/COI editing

Editors will not admit that they have links to the company/organization/political party/politician. They try to remove criticism controversies from reliable sources. Their editing pattern shows bias. Where the username and the article name matches, it is easy to identify.

But for those who don't disclose their conflict of interest and censors controversies/negative contents from the article? Marvellous Spider-Man 05:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It can be a sensitive subject. Of course it happens (sometimes a lot), but at the same time one shouldn´t assume that someone who removes negative info have a COI in WP-terms, doing so can be quite correct, a good faith-edit, or a WP:ADVOCACY edit (not much better than COI from the WP-standpoint). Jytdog, care to impart some wisdom on the subject? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I can speak very generally, sure. First, everybody has to assume good faith, and everybody has to edit content according to the content policies and guidelines (using good sources, summarizing them according to NPOV (in other words, giving WEIGHT per the WEIGHT in what the recent, solid reliable sources say), etc) and everybody has to try to stay calm and behave well. Second, please keep in mind that the overall problem is non-NPOV editing, or "advocacy" as we call it. COI is just a special form of advocacy, and the editing of a "fan" (or hater) is indistinguishable from an editor with a COI. Both break NPOV. Keeping that in mind, it is one "bucket" for something like a company or a product, and another for other matters (like politics). It is more likely, if somebody is editing in a non-neutral way about a company or product or non-political person, that they have some financial or personal relationship that creates a COI; if somebody is editing non-neutrally about politics it is more likely they are a non-conflicted advocate. Generally speaking.

So.. If you are butting heads with someone on content about a company or product or non-political person, and it appears that the other editor has a very clear POV (for or against X) the first thing you should do is really listen, and really try to see if they have a good point; maybe you or others have been pushing too hard one way. And I mean really try. If you check your head and what you have been doing is OK... and if the other person really has been not following the content policies and guidelines, then go to their talk page (not the article talk page) and ask - and i mean really ask, don't be rhetorical - if the person has some connection with the subject of the article. Don't say they have a connection and don't assume they do -- ask. (you cannot know if they do or not). (Note - if you have acted badly at the article, it is impossible to have an authentic conversation - this is one reason (among many) to act decently at the talk page.)

At their talk page, you can introduce the question by explaining, briefly and nicely, how it seems to you that their edits are not following NPOV. A couple of diffs are useful, if you can bring them. But when you ask, you have to do ask nicely, because they are might think you are just trying to "beat" them on the content issue by bringing this up. (and make sure you are not doing that!) Anyway, they might say yes, they might say no, they might get mad at you.

If they say "yes", point them to the WP:COI guideline and ask them to follow it (to disclose their COI at the talk page, and to offer suggestions on talk instead of editing directly). If they say no, it is difficult. They might really be a "fan" (or you might be wrong and they are actually editing more neutrally than you!). But if they say "no", you have two choices, really. You can let it go, and just remind them again to try to follow NPOV and maybe to read WP:ADVOCACY, and then just go back to editing the article. The other option, if it is really clear to you that they might have a COI (an actual financial or personal relationship), then tell them nicely that you are bringing the issue to the community to discuss, and file a case at WP:COIN. And finally, they might just get really angry at you and not answer at all. You have to stay calm if they do that. Just explain again that it is really a question, and it would be useful if they would answer. Do that once, at the most. And if they say no (or just yell at you more) again you will have to decide to let it go, or file a case at COIN.

If you file a case at COIN, be brief, and bring diffs showing the non-neutral editing, and say you have a concern about COI - don't say that the person has a COI for sure.

but you have to stay calm through that whole thing, because your own behavior and editing will end up being judged. people sometimes file COIN cases and the community says that they were acting or editing badly. So it is important to be self-aware.

that's it, pretty much. it is really hard to deal with COI when it arises in the context of content disputes. You have to be really careful to keep the article Talk discussion clean, and the conversation at the other editor's talk page clean. And to be sure that your own editing is really solidly grounded in the content policies. Great sources, neutrally summarized.

I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Marvellous Spider-Man That was an impressive effort, so I hope you read it! ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Be very, very, careful of calling editors out as COI editors. WP:OUTING is taken very seriously, it can get you blocked. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes! don't make claims; ask authentic questions. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And it sometimes happens that an editor will deny any COI and become an administrator. This happened with User:Wifione with the article Indian Institute of Planning and Management. He fought tooth and nail to get any negative information about IIPM removed, denied repeatedly that he had any association with that institution, spent a lot of time in other areas gaining trust (see the numerous accolades on his user page), and passed WP:RFA. I raised an objection there, and it was discussed but he still passed. Finally he was banned, among other things for sockpuppetry. The story of his rise and fall actually made the mainstream news (and is therefore mentioned in the IIPM article). ~Anachronist (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And sometimes an editor takes a different approach: User:Joedesantis Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Marvellous Spider-Man. For a warning series you might find of use here, see {{uw-paid1}} through {{uw-paid4}}. See also the write-up we worked hard on in our recent overhaul of NPP, at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Conflict of Interest (COI) and paid advocacy. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Advice on Improving Article

Hello,

I was informed that my first article about Kitron (company) did not have enough references and was therefore declined. Currently, the article has 6 references, how many more are needed? Any help/guidelines here would be appreciated.

Zubzer0 (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Zubzer0 and welcome to the TeaHouse. It's not as simple as just counting up the number of references; the quality of the sources and depth of coverage also need to be considered. For example, the first two of the refrences at Draft:Kitron were published by Kitron itself, so they don't contribute to its notability. (I could say I'm a really great person, but that wouldn't convince anybody.) Number three just includes it on a list of companies, but says nothing about it. Number 4 is much better, with some detailed discussion. The basic guideline is that the article should show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic: see the article WP:42 for a brief explanation of how to interpret those three requirements. You could also direct specific questions to the reviewer who reviewed that article (Timothyjosephwood) - the link to his User Talk page is at the top of your Draft article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Zubzer0. There is no magic number, or hard fast rule on exactly how many sources are necessary. The only real answer to your question is: enough to establish the general notability of the subject. This is done by demonstrating that the subject has received sustained and non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

As I said when I rejected the draft, there seems to be plenty of sources available online. Unfortunately, of the sources currently in the draft, one is an official report put out by the business (which isn't independent and so does not contribute to notability), and three of the remaining are all published by the same media outlet.

So incorporating additional sources from a range out outlets, and over time, will help to demonstrate that the coverage of the subject has breadth as well as depth. TimothyJosephWood 14:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Could not parse twinkle options.jr

I have recently installed Twinkle and cleared cache and now eery time I reload the page or load another one it says Could not parse twinkleoptions.jr. What do I do? (I am using Google Chrome) FriyMan (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure that it says ".jr" and not ".js"? It may be worth going to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences to try resetting your preferences. If in doubt, try choosing the "Restore defaults" option at the foot of that page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

David Biddulph, You will not believe, but nothing helped! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriyMan (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Friyman, have you cleared the cache after setting your Twinkle options? Nthep (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

User:FriyMan/twinkleoptions.js should have been updated when you reset or restored defaults at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences but the history of that page shows no change since yesterday. It may be worth getting that page deleted (through a {{Db-u1}} request), and then setting your Twinkle preferences again. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Company profiles

hello,

could somebody please explain to me why wikipedia permits the publication of companies' "profiles" for some firms (e.g. companies operating as risk and strategic consulting firms) but denies the publication for others that have exactly the same portfolio?

thank you.

nicNic452 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia doesn't have "profiles". It has encyclopedic articles on companies that satisfy corporate notability. Second, I am willing to guess that some of the company "profiles" whose publication was permitted should not be permitted. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Out of more than five million articles, some of our articles shouldn't have been accepted and should be deleted. You may read the deletion policy. If there are particular articles that you think do not pass notability, you may nominate them for deletion via Articles for Deletion (or either of the other two methods of deletion). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Headings in Mobile View Visual Editor

I would like to know how to add headings to mobile view's VE (Visual Editor) as I am editing an article about a small commune in France, and would like to add a section named "Weather" because I would like to add a table of the typical weather throughout the year, but do not know how to add headings. Please reply as soon as you possibly can as I am keen to get on with my Wikipedia surfing.

Thank you from WikipedianModifier777 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You have, unfortunately, found yourself in an area where probably most of the most experienced Wikipedians have absolutely no clue, because they've probably never used the visual editor. So...be patient in waiting for an answer. TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @WikipedianModifier777:! When you're in visual editor, on the toolbar at the top an option says "Paragraph". Click it, and it will turn into a dropdown menu, where you can select the type of text you want to add, including headings of various sizes. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - That didn't work. So what I've decided to do instead is switch to source editing instead whenever I wanted to add a heading. Thanks once again, WikipedianModifier777 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How to Correct information that is displayed about my organisation

The National Freedom Party Most of the Information Displayed about the Party here is wrong and its leaders that are leading the party are displayed whereas if you see our competitors all leaders are displayed accordingly, i have tried editing this info but i have no idea what am i doing wrong because it wont go thru, plz assist dearlySbondlovu45 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sbondlovu45, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can help you with this. First, if you are affiliated with the Party, you have a conflict of interest and that means that you should not edit the article. What you can do, as you have, is to suggest edits (either here or on the article's talk page). Depending on what you ask, it may be done. If there is any outdated information that needs to be changed, please provide a reliable source that is independent of the Party in question that describes up to date information. Failing that, some minor information may be updated according to sources that the Party itself has published. Can you tell me what information is this about and what kind of sources do you have that describe the state of affairs accurately? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference Link

I have a website I would like to link as a reference to a name in my unpublished Wikipedia article (Emanuel Congregation). I followed the directions of putting the brackets around the website link, but its not creating the number next to the name Dansmo (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't use ref tags. The pages you need to read are Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Citing sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dansmo. Square brackets are not enough to make footnotes. They only make a link clickable. What you need is ref tags. Here is a basic format:

<ref>[https://www.ctschicago.edu/about/about-history/news-media/1039-chicago-theological-seminary-awards-2016-rabbi-herman-e-schaalman-interreligious-leadership-award-to-student-activist Chicago Theological Seminary Awards 2016 Rabbi Herman E. Schaalman Interreligious Leadership Award to Student Activist]</ref>

Note the <ref> and </ref> tags. Also note how inside the brackets you can enter the title of the webpage after its address. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dansmo. It looks like you're trying to use a hybrid embedded citation/footnote markup for your sources. Using ref tags (<ref>) will add a footnote marker at the location in the article where you're adding the citation, but placing the url in between two brackets will cause only something like [1] to appear in the "References" section. There's no in-house citation style when it comes to Wikipedia and if you look at various other articles you'll see that different editors may prefer slightly different methods per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style. The best thing to do is to try and keep the formatting consistent throughout. I suggest avoiding embedded citations since that particular style is no longer recommended for Wikipedia. You can use citation templates if you like (though that's not required), or simply just format your citations like shown in Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: the basics. Regardless of whichever method you use, the most important thing to do is to provide as much information as possible about the source you are citing as explained in Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. This will make it much easier for others to identify the source being cited and find archive versions of it if someday it can no longer be accessed via the Internet. Moreover, reliable sources only have to be published and are not required to be online, so providing as much information about a source is essential when there is no link to click.

Finally, I noticed you referred to the draft your working on as "my unpublished Wikipedia article", so I just thought I add links to Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for your reference. Basically, Wikipedia articles are created/edited by editors and written about certain subjects, but the article itself is not owned per se by any person or organization in particular. Moreover, Wikipedia highly discourages editors from creating/editing article about subjects they may have some kind of professional/personal connection to. After looking at your Draft:Emanuel Congregation, it's not enough for such an organization to simply be shown to exist to have a Wikipedia article about it. Rather, it has to be shown that the organization is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It might be a good idea to ask about your draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism since the editors who belong to that WikiProject are probably familiar with these types of articles and how Wikipedia's notability guidelines are applied specifically to them. They might also be able to point you towards some better sourcing. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Kajal Aggarwal

Teahouse please help me in editing information on this Indian actress Kajal Aggarwal's article, in it her parents names are shuffeled.

Please help me with editing this as the page is secured from edits. FloydLawton (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, FloydLawton, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Because of past vandalism, the page for Kajal Aggarwal has been protected from anonymous and very new editors. In these situations, the way you would proceed is to place an {{edit request}} in a new section of Talk:Kajal Aggarwal. In this edit request, you would need to provide a citation to a suitable source for the change you want to make, particularly since the existing source for the parental names and occupations does not appear to contain the information currently presented.

A more experienced editor will look at your request and either make the requested edit or leave you some feedback about why it cannot be made. You should be very clear what you want changed so that the task is as simple as possible for the other editor, ideally they should be able to copy the new text from your request and replace the old text with it in the article. It gets a little more complicated if you want to refer to one of the existing references if that reference does not already have a name tag.

Hang in there for a few more edits and a few more days and you'll be able to edit these sorts of pages yourself.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Does an introduction to an article need citations at all?

Because Townville elementary school shooting doesn't have any citations and I'm thinking about adding one. Depthburg (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Depthburg.

Townville Elementary School shooting is a short article, but long enough that there is separation between the lead and the body. Ideally, information in the lead merely summarizes information in the body and does not need to be separately referenced. If you wanted to add something, you would add the referenced information to the body of the article and, if needed, add a very short summary of that added information to the lead or intro.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depthburg (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

How do I integrate my page to the Main Wikipedia

Hello! Thankyou for guiding and supporting my article so far. I created This article as a part of #100WomenWiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabomita_Mazumdar

Please help me correct the errors so that I can get it integrated to the main Wiki. I am not very technical. I couldn't understand every step to be taken. Such as the option for uploading a picture. I couldn't upload the picture that I had clicked. What are the other changes that I need to make? Please help me. Thanks in anticipation !

Krishna mazumdar (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Krishna mazumdar. The article is now live and a part of Wikipedia. The biggest problem I see with it is that most of your sources are at the bottom instead of being inline. The article also looks like it could be doubled or tripled in length. I don't upload pictures so somebody else will have to comment on that part of your question. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for advice, Krishna mazumdar. The references need to be inserted following the statements that they support, rather than directly in the references section at the end of the article. Wikipedia's software will sort out the reference list itself (as you'll see it has for the several references cited in the text). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Krishna mazumdar. Pictures are good to have in an article, but they come way down the list of priorities, after getting the references, the structure, and the text of the article sorted. You don't say what the problem was in uploading the picture, but you can get help at Help:Upload. The most important thing to do first about the picture is work out its copyright status. With certain exceptions (which almost never apply when the picture is of a living person) all pictures used in Wikipedia must be free for anybody to reuse for any purpose; which means that unless they are in the public domain (rare except for very old photos) the copyright owner must have explicitly released them under a suitable licence. If you took the picture yourself, you are probably the copyright owner, and you can make that declaration as you upload it; in any other case, you need the owner of the copyright to make an explicit declaration: see donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we first of all create bots under our account?

Can we first of all create bots under our account? (the account is a normal one and is a guest profile of the Teahouse.)Sai kiran ------------ 10:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikirantangirala (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. No, bots can be used only if approved, see WP:Bots. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What does "Error. Edit not saved" trying to tell me?

This issue comes up a lot. What is it caused by? It's usually when I a long editing session it won't let me save my changes. For example, my edits on Ahmad Suradji now can't be saved and it has also reverted some other edits I did in the article that I managed to save a few hours ago. Depthburg (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah looks like your edit wasn't saved because it included a link to a site on the spam blacklist. Link shortners like goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly are not permitted by Wikipedia. I have replaced the shortened link with the full link and it looks like it fixed the problem. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ping Depthburg. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

After "a long editing session" (like when I forget to save until I close my machine hours later) the software sometimes appears to "time me out". However, this can (normally) be overcome by re-clicking "Save changes" - Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not in this case it seems. I stumbled on it when I tried to fix a ref close on the article. The blacklist filter was blocking the save. TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depthburg (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding References

Hello, this is Doctor TP. I want to know how to add references on article properly. Currently, for the articles, I just inserted, but when I look at other articles, they are at the bottom. How can I do that? Doctor TP (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Doctor TP. Their are multiple ways to include references in an article, but probably the easiest and most common is to use: <ref>REFERENCE HERE</ref>. So for example when you type this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref>

What you get is this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."

References

Also, you may want to look over guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners. Hopefully this helps. TimothyJosephWood 16:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

New article help

Hi, I am hoping that I can get some feedback on the article I am working on. It’s about the shooting at UT that happened in 1966. I had been talking to another editor AntiCompositeNumber about whether I should do the article and you can see our initial discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Whitman

I’ve finally got a draft ready and I would really appreciate if someone can look at what I had so far and letting me know if it looks good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Longhornfan2018/sandbox/1966_UT_tower_shooting

I’m new to Wikipedia and this is my first article so I want to make sure that I’m doing it right. It’s a work in progress so there are some small things I need to fix but I would like to know if I am on the right track. Also, I am having problems with the References section. I don’t know how to get the section title that says References on it? I tried putting it in but all I get is these weird lines – if anyone knows how to fix that please tell me!Longhornfan2018 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Longhornfan2018 ... Well ... I did a touch of general formatting cleanup, but ... yeah ... It's probably one of the best first articles I've ever seen. TimothyJosephWood 16:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Thank you very much. I've been reading wiki "how to's" and tower articles for months.. my brain hurts! Do you think it is ready to be submitted? Longhornfan2018 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Longhornfan2018, unless there's just something major I'm missing, I would skip AfC on this one. I mean...you can submit it if you want, and I can approve it, but there's doesn't seem like much reason not to save unnecessary time spent and just publish it directly. Plus it will go ahead and get it in mainspace where other's can contribute to it, where it is likely to sit at AfC for a month or more given the backlog. TimothyJosephWood 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Wow, that is awesome! I've noticed a few minor proof reading errors I would like to correct when I have some time tonight/ tomorrow. I will correct those, and then it will be ready. How would I put it directly into main space?Longhornfan2018 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Longhornfan2018, to move (assuming you're using the regular editor), click More at the top of the draft and then Move. If there's a problem, let me know and I should have the permissions to fix it.

Looking around, it looks like Tower shooting at The University of Texas at Austin redirects to Charles Whitman#Tower shootings, but Tower shooting at The University of Texas at Austin seems like a fairly terrible name for an article. And it's likely that some of the content on that article will need to be adjusted to accommodate a main article, and avoid unnecessary duplication of content.

Probably a good idea to check out Wikipedia:Article titles when you have a chance. The title above fails the requirement for conciseness terribly, but it seems like your current title may as well. So, for example, if there is only one UT tower shooting, then it is not necessary to include the year. If there is only one UT Shooting, then it may not be necessary to include 'tower, that is, unless it's iconic and essential to the event.

Per the same policy, you probably want to spell out the name of the university. If you look at the page for UT (disambiguation), it lists 13 universities worldwide that are abbreviated UT. TimothyJosephWood 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Thank you.Once again, you have been super helpful. I will read the articles you suggested, and come up with a new title. I am bogged down with school, so it might be a couple days. If it's ok, I will just message you directly on your talk page if I have any additional questions.Longhornfan2018 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding link to foreign language article

Hi, I just wrote my first article, in English, which is based on an existing article in Hebrew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Steinberg

I have been asked to add a link to the Hebrew article within the English article. When I try to do this using the reference to a Wiki page option, it does not recognize the URL of the Hebrew article, which comes up like this: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94%D7%9D_%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%92 (Hebrew characters are decoded)

Also, I have not managed to add a link to the English article to the Wikidata on the Hebrew article page.

Any advice for a newbie on this issue please? Thanks,Sarah TikshoretSM (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your Wikidata edits seem to have done the trick. I think it sometimes takes a while for the effects of such edits to become visible on the relevant articles, perhaps because of caching, but both the English & the Hebrew show the link now. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi TikshoretSM - when you say "is based on an existing article in Hebrew" I am not clear if you are saying you translated the Hebrew Wikipedia page? - If so, even if you did not translate all the page, but only a section, this needs to be acknowledged, as the original authors need to be credited.
If this is a translation, in whole or part, Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate explains what you should have done and emphasises The new, translated article must credit the source article - it is too late to include the acknowledgement in your first edit summary, as it recommends, but this could be used in a WP:null edit summary, and you should place the template {{Translated page}} on the target article's talk page. - Hope that helps - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph, glad that worked!

No, Arjayay, it is not a translation. TikshoretSM (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox isn not showing up

Hello, i've been working on a company infobox – have been to MANY tutorials and not getting it to format correctly...

Could some generous soul kindly point out the error of my ways? coded infobox is below:

Thank you!

Seejay2020 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Seejay2020:, and welcome to Wikipedia. You should use template:infobox company or a similar topic-specific infobox. The unspecific "infobox" itself is only a so-called meta template (simplifying: it is used indirectly within other templates, but usually not directly on its own in articles). I'd also recommend you read through Help:referencing for beginners with basic information about Wikipedia's referencing to improve your draft at User:Seejay2020/sandbox. If you are connected or employed to the company in any way, please also read WP:COI for editors with a possible "conflict of interest" (if not, feel free to disregard this point). I have also added a welcome message with a collection of useful links to your talkpage. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

new article

hi. I've submitted my article on oroantral fistula link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Justryingtohelp/Oroantral_fistula but it got rejected due to copyright issues. Can someone show me where it exactly went wrong and what changes/improvements that I have to make in order for it to become appropriate. Previously there was a draft of oroantral fistula but it was removed for some reason link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oroantral_fistula Justryingtohelp (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Justryingtohelp and welcome to the TeaHouse. The very best person to ask is the reviewwer who reviewed that article in the first place (Robert McClenon) - the link to his Talk page is in the box placed at the top of your article. Reading what he wrote, your article is very similar to Draft:Oroantral fistula, which was created a few weeks before yours. We do not want to have two articles covering the same subject. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Justryingtohelp - As I explained both in the decline and on my talk page, and as User:Gronk Oz explained, your draft is excessively similar to Draft:Orantral fistula. It appears that either you copied the text of that draft without attribution, or that both you and the author of the other draft copied text from a web site. If your draft actually is in your own words, please explain why it is so similar to an earlier draft. What went wrong appears to be that you copied either an existing draft or text from a web site. What you need to do to make it appropriate is to rewrite the draft completely in your own words. Please explain why your words are so similar to another draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That link should have been Draft:Oroantral fistula, Robert McClenon and Justryingtohelp. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Oroantral fistula is an existing draft that has not been submitted, and is older than User:Justryingtohelp/Oroantral fistula. There still appears to be questionable copying. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, understood. I was just pointing out that there was a typo in your link to the existing draft, so it appears as a red link. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. It was coincidental for the first line to be similar and I have taken some part of the aetiology from previous draft which I will amend this. Other than that, I've followed just the layout of the previous draft (i'm not sure whether this is inappropriate). A few of us worked on this article thus I wasn't aware of some plagiarism issue. I'll work on the copyright/plagiarism issue first and then should I resubmit it for review or discuss it through here? Thanks for the reviews/replies Justryingtohelp (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

where can I get another editor to join a discussion

I am trying to get consensus on a page but feel like an outside opinion is need where should I ask Truthitmatters (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Truthitmatters probably one of the steps in the dispute resolution process. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, presumably you are talking about Talk:Creep Catcher, in case others want to drop by. TimothyJosephWood 18:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I will wait a few days if no others comments I will ask for a third party opinion as I believe that to be proper processTruthitmatters (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The "Vandalism level" template

Were is located the template? GXXF T • C 20:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello GXXF, welcome back to the Teahouse. Template:Vandalism information presents various "levels" of vandalism based on how many reverts are made in Wikipedia per minute. Other editors have created various other designs for the template that are listed at its documentation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Embedding a video

Hi, I would like to know: how do I change the size of a video without making it a thumb? Thank you Checks Facts (Talk) 21:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusion on Reliable Sources

A draft article I am attempting to submit on a university president was rejected, mostly on the grounds that a majority of my citations were from the university's own website, magazine and news releases. This was biographical and factual information, so I'm confused as to why a president's own university would not qualify as a reliable source on the subject. If the information were regarding the quality of his performance, I could understand the potential for bias, but I don't understand why a university would not be a highly reliable source for factual information on its president. Could you help clarify Wikipedia's best practices or approach on this? Thanks so much for your attention. There'sWald0 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, There'sWald0, and welcome to the Teahouse. The confusion here is between reliable sources and sources that are independent of the subject. Ideally, you should use sources that are both reliable and independent. This means that you cannot use the website of the university for sourcing information about its president.

Why you need to do this? First is that articles should be neutral, and as you say using sources that are not independent has the potential for bias. As you note, using related sources does not automatically lead to biased information, but it contains the potential for bias. Why not eliminate that potential by using independent sources?

The second problem is that only independent sources can be used to establish the "notability" of a topic. Only topics on which many unrelated people have written on prior to you are considered notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I could write a dozen books about myself, but that wouldn't make me notable if no one else has noticed and written about me. The same goes for the university president. We need coverage in sources that are not maintained by the university to establish if the person is noteworthy.

There are minor exemptions. If you can't find an independent source for some minor detail, you can use a source that is affiliated. A typical example would be a person's formal title, or their exact date of birth. But instances of this should be very few in comparison to information that is sourced from independent sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with your answer, Finnusertop, because this person is an academic and we have different sourcing standards for such biographies. There'sWald0, this person clearly meets our notability guideline for academics, specially criteria #6, as president of a university with 26,000 students. According to that guideline, "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Accordingly, it is acceptable to use university sources, as long as the article is scrupulously neutral. If independent sources are available, it would be good practice to add them to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, Cullen328, if your point is that WP:GNG is not the only notability guideline we have (though there are good reasons to invoke it, rather than a list of dozens of guidelines, to new users). But if you imply that independent sources are irrelevant for any other notability guideline, you are wrong. WP:Notability addresses independence of sources in relation to other considerations than GNG. More importantly, WP:ACADEMIC#General notes states: "once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources" (emphasis added). In this case, it means that we need to have an independent source that says that he is the president of the university. As a rule of the thumb, independent sources are also better for content than affiliated sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop, I am also going to notify Robert McClenon of this conversation. Our goal here at the Teahouse and also with the Articles for Creation process must always be to improve the encyclopedia, and when we are dealing with a draft about an indisputably notable topic, we should do everything possible to assist a new editor to get an acceptable article into the encyclopedia promptly. It took me less than ten seconds to find this article about this person in the Deseret News and also an equally useful article in the Salt Lake Tribune. Why decline an AfC draft instead of adding a reference or two and moving this to main space promptly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:Charles A. Wight. I will note that I did comment that the subject probably was notable, but that independent references were needed. It appears that there are legitimate differences of opinion about the role of the AFC reviewer. I am aware that some reviewers think that the reviewer should improve a draft that is almost ready for acceptance. I haven't taken it to be my responsibility to find the independent sources. Perhaps I should take a different view of the job of the reviewer. However, as it was, I saw a draft on a notable person, but a draft that didn't establish notability. If a draft says that an individual competed in the Olympics but doesn't provide a footnote, I will decline it, saying that a reference is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added references to the two independent, reliable newspaper sources mentioned above to the draft. Robert McClenon, will you please approve the draft? On the broader point, I think that we should deal with drafts about indisputably notable topics differently than those whose notability is in question. When the topic is clearly notable and excellent sources can be found (as in this case) almost instantly with a basic Google search, then our goal should be to get the article into the encyclopedia promptly. Any bureaucratic obstacles should be swept out of the way, and if all that is required is to add a source or two, please do so in the best interests of the encyclopedia. That's my sincerely held opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

how do i publish an article i created?

how do i publish an article i created?

how ? Raoufhakam (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it was created in your Sandbox, then all you can do is view your document, then click on the blue button that says, "Submit your draft for review"

Checks Facts (Talk) 21:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Raoufhakam: If you do not see that button, you may also submit it for review by adding the following code to the very top of your draft: {{subst:submit}} Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

improving grade of article

I have improved my Wiki Article Keshavrao Sonawane. Could please help me improve the grading of my article? How can I get better grade than start class?

AbhijitSonavane (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi AbhijitSonavane - please understand that Keshavrao Sonawane is not "your" article, it is Wikipedia's article about Keshavrao Sonawane.
Secondly, I note that you have stated that he was your grandfather, which gives you a potential conflict of interest in editing that article.
Having looked at it, I have tagged certain basic information - His date and place of birth, education etc. as needing citations, and also flagged up an unsourced section. I have also removed an indic script photo-caption - this is the English Wikipedia - and removed a flag from the infobox. I suggest you resolve these and then, once the citations have been provided, approach the wikiprojects listed on the talk page and ask for an independent review. - Arjayay (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Arjayay. I understand it is wikipedia's article.

I will try to find the references and improve citations.

AbhijitSonavane (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

How to finalise an article which was in need to be wikify ??

Dear all, Well So many questions for you all all the time, no ?

Here it is a new one. How to finalise an article which was in need to be wikify ??

thankx in advance, Ilona

Ilona1203 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ilona1203. The biggest issue currently as far as your draft goes, is that it does not include any sources. Without sources it would be almost certain to be rejected at Articles for Creation, and would likely get deleted if published directly.

In order to establish notability for the purposes of Wikipedia, articles need to include references that demonstrate sustained non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For guidance on referencing for Wikipedia, see Help:Referencing for beginners. If you need additional help, feel free to ask here or at my talk page. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the pending AFC categories at the bottom of my draft for 'Elizabeth Clark'

It says AfC pending submissions by age/7 days ago and AfC pending submissions by age/11 days ago

It also says AfC submissions by date/29 November 2016 and AfC submissions by date/04 December 2016

I submitted the article for re-review on 30 November (as is shown) so I reckon the by age category should now be 15 days.

Could you explain this please?Pogga D (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It would have been useful if you had given a wikilink to the draft. Presumably you mean Draft:Elizabeth Clark? The dates are correct. You submitted it for review on 29 November in this edit, then submitted again (which you didn't need to do, as it was already in the review queue) on 4 December in this later edit. You made no edits on 30 November. It says in the headers for each of the "... days ago" categories: "For technical reasons, articles which have not been recently edited or purged may be in a more recently-dated category than they belong." --David Biddulph (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pogga D: keep in mind that Wikipedia's time stamps use UTC, so may not agree with the date/time in your location. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox

How to add another field in the taxobox in the non visual mode?Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Adityavagarwal. If you look through Template:Taxobox, it includes guidance on all the parameters supported by the template. TimothyJosephWood 16:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but there is a suborder and the taxobox does not have this perhaps, so even if I added the suborder with pipe, still it did not display it in the taxobox. Also, can I add images from the websites cited for the ones which does not have any image in the taxobox?Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Try reading Template:Taxobox again. The parameter is "subordo", not "sub ordo". --David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As for images, read Template:Taxobox#Images. You can't use an image directly from a website; see WP:Images and the links therefrom. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I wrote on your talk page and really it was so quick a response which is really appreciated. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a newbie and my 1st edit didn't get posted

Any help is appreciated, this was my 1st attempt ever, and I would like to get better so I can contribute more. Thanks! DBOYDBOY (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DBOY, and welcome to the Teahouse! There were a couple things wrong with your edit. First, it didn't include any references (in the Wikipedia sense). Also, it was a bit too long to be in the lead (the very beginning of the article), and it attributed undue weight to a single view on the matter. A simple explanation of "undue weight" is this: If you add something supporting one side of a view on the subject of the article, you have to also add something equally supporting the other side. This maintains the article's neutral point of view. — Gestrid (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've left a message on your talk page with some useful links to help you in the future. — Gestrid (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your edit was obviously a sincere attempt to improve the article, but it didn't include any references to bible commentaries at all, and it was added to the introduction which is supposed to summarise the rest of the article. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners, and perhaps try editing a less controversial article until you get the hang of how things work here. Dbfirs 19:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I see your points. If a person only reads my paragraph, I see what you mean about one side of the matter. I do think what I wrote balances what is said in the preceding paragraphs. What do you think?DBOY (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, how do I properly reference the Bible, since that is the only source material I used?DBOY (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just added to my comment above. You correctly referenced the bible, which would be appropriate if you were writing a commentary on the bible, but for references in Wikipedia, you need to reference what other people have said about the bible. Dbfirs 20:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia isn't interested in what anything says about itself. It's only interested in what other people who are unconnected with it have said about it. See WP:PRIMARY. In this case, we're not interested in what the Bible says in it, but rather what other (preferably well-known) people have to say about what the Bible says in it. — Gestrid (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I will go back to the drawing board and try to implement your recommendations!

Best Regards,

DBOYDBOY (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@DBOY: I would also suggest that you finish up your Wikipedia Adventure. It'll teach you a whole bunch about editing Wikipedia. I've actually gone through it myself, and I can say it will be very helpful to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gestrid (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Did it teach you to sign your posts, Gestrid? ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I honestly don't remember if it did or not. But it's the last day of the college semester, so you can't really blame me for forgetting. — Gestrid (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We all do it from time to time, Gestrid. I hope you enjoy the college holidays. I'm pinging DBOY again, as notifications only work when the post is signed in the same edit that the ping template is used. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it an WP:ORPHAN?

At one time, I was able to look at what pages linked to a page I was working on, and now I cant seem to find that information anywhere. Can someone point me in the right direction please?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In the sidebar on the left, there is a "What links here" link that will show what pages link to the page you are on. RudolfRed (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks... I don't know how I missed that...  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)