Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 624

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 620←Archive 622Archive 623Archive 624Archive 625Archive 626→Archive 630

I am trying to create a page and I am struggling with it. Can you help?

Hey guys, I hope you can help. I am trying to create a page and I am really struggling to bring it together. Is there anyone able to help me out? It is for Edgar Phillips.


Thanks.

Georgiethejourno (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference Draft:Edgar Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello, Georgiethejourno, and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is not a bad start, but there are a number of issues.
  1. It definitely needs more sources. Much of the content is currently unsourced. Don't include contnbet until you ahve a source for it, then cite the source promptly.
  2. Please Don't include exact dates of birth for living people except under the limited circumstance s allowed by WP:DOB.
  3. When using citation templates, each source must have a title, and any source URLs must be full urls, starting with "http://" or "https://". Please read Referencing for beginners for more detail.
  4. Don't date things from the current moment. Don't use phrases such as "currently", "This summer", "was and still is", or "now lives at". Suppose the article is accepted, and then is not edited for 5-10 years. Will those statements still be true? Will a reader know which summer is meant? Use phrases such as as of 2017 or planned for the summer of 2017 or the like.
  5. Use a somewhat formal tone. Along with this, always refer to the subject by last name after the full name at the top.
Get all that done, particularly additional sources and removing anything still unsourced, and you will be in much better shape. Fell free to ask if there are any further questions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Georgiethejourno: please read the message I left on your talk page regarding the content in the draft that was copied from iMDb. In short, you must write in your own words. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I missed the copied text. Thanks for spotting it, Fuhghettaboutit. Georgiethejourno, Wikipedia absolutely cannot and will not accept improperly copied content. The talk page message spells out the rules in more detail. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Anytime. I spend of lot of time on copyright issues so it is automatic as my first check of any addition I am looking at. Unfortunately, DES, this was also the case with the article two threads up, Fred J. Dodge. This was harder to spot as much of it was [far too] close paraphrasing, but since not word-for-word in all cases, spot checks could easily miss the copying. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that also, Fuhghettaboutit, and I feel some egg on my face just now. I trusted a novice contributor without checking the source, merely copy editing it. I should know better. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't sweat it. Thanks for all you do. What would be really nice is if somehow we didn't have to do this for every page; if the problem wasn't so damn pervasive. Oh, well, back to the salt mines.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What is Defaultsort?

I often see people use the defaultsort template on top of categories but I don't understand what is does or why it is necessary. Thanks in advance for any info! hillelfrei• talk • 16:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello hillelfrei. By default, articles are sorted in category pages according to the first letter of the title. Sometimes there is a need to override the default criteria; for instance, Albert Einstein would be sorted by default under the letter A, but the correct way to sort his article would be under his surname rather than his given name. This is achieved by adding the {{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}} tag to the article; this way, the article for Albert Einstein will appear under the letter E in category pages. Hope this helps! –FlyingAce✈hello 16:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
...and for more info, Help:Category#Sort_order is a good starting point. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As ever in Wikipedia, there are some do's and don'ts, as to how to use defaultsort, especially with non-standard characters - please see Wikipedia:Default sorting.
Some articles have unusual defaultsort formats - Louis V of France is "Louis 05 Of France" so he comes before Louis IX of France who is "Louis 09 Of France" as otherwise, IX would sort before V - and they need the preceding 0, so that 5 and 9 come before 11 - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey hillelfrei. The gist of what the template does is explained above but I thought you might want to know why we need it in addition to the native way to sort by piping categories (which if you follow the links above you will see explained). Using the example above of Albert Einstein, you could sort a category by his surname by piping it like this: [[Category:XYZ|Einstein, Albert]]. But to take advantage of that, you would have to do that for each of the categories on the page. One advantage of the template, then, is that it instructs all the categories below it to sort by what you place, without having to pipe each one. It's also useful to know that if you use the template, but pipe one of the categories, the piping will overrule the template for that one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Great answers, thanks! hillelfrei• talk • 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the correct protocol for adding a photo?

How do you know if a photo is "cleared' or okay to add to a page, what is the protocol for adding a photo? Cydorsm (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Cydorsm. The answer really depends on which particular photo you're considering, since the legalese justification for using a photo can vary greatly. Maybe if you can be more specific we can be more helpful. TimothyJosephWood 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
For example, a book cover or a photo from someone's private collection.Cydorsm (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Cydorsm: Again, it depends. So, for example, a book published in 1850 is different than one published in 1950. A book published in Jamaica is different than one published in the US. One published by a Frenchman who died defending France in WWII is different than literally anyone else in the world.
So we really just need a link to the image you propose using. Or if no link is available, just an indication of exactly which book. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement?

I'm trying to write an article but received feedback saying that it "reads more like an advertisement". I don't see where this is true. The article is about a business but there is no advertising language used. It is mostly an expanded list of notable mentions of the business activity.

It was also noted that there was a "large number of low-quality references". I've removed anything referencing the business' own website, and any other references from an industry site that could be construed as a press release.

I'd love some more feedback or more detailed criticism of my article. Draft:Russell_Reynolds_Associates

TLCWiki (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@TLCWiki: Hi, does the industry business are related about you? If so, you're in WP:COI, COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, see also the WP:ACTUALCOI policies guideline, thanks. `SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The draft is completely riddled with advertising puffery, for example... “advises based on a rigorous evaluation technique to build strong leadership teams” “considered one of the world’s “Big Six” executive recruiters.” “Evaluating culture, aligning culture with strategy, and assessing culture and talent together are all important aspects of boosting organizational performance and the effectiveness of the leadership team.” These are totally inappropriate for a neutral encyclopeida article. Theroadislong (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
In case you still don't get Theroadislong's point, TLCWiki: Who says it's "rigorous"? NOT WIKIPEDIA: Wikipedia articles should never express judgments about anything, unless they are explicitly attributed to independent reliably published sources. Who considers it one of the big six? NOT WIKIPEDIA. Who says that those are important aspects? NOT WIKIPEDIA. (And if the subject of the article says these things, Wikipedia isn't interested. Find somebody completely independent of the subject and quote them - and attribute the quotes - fine. But not in Wikipedia's voice). --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
ColinFine, TLCWiki, I would phrase it a bit differently. First a subject's notability must be established. For that purpose, what the subject says about him-, her-, or itself makes no difference and is not considered. Once there are sufficient independent, published, reliable sources cited in an article (or draft) to clearly establish that the subject is notable, then and only then, what the subject says does matter and is of interest to Wikipedia. But even then, any statements by the subject must be clearly attributed to the subject, and cited to a source, just as quotations from anyone else must be. ColinFine is absolutely correct that no opinions or judgements may ever be expressed in Wikiperdia's voice, as if Wikipedia itself had made or endorsed the judgements. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Theroadislong, ColinFine, DESiegel, SA 13 Bro Thanks. I've reworked the Business Overview section and added a reference for the "Big Six" mention. Is there any other changes/recommendations/suggestions for the rest of the article? Do I have too many references? Do I need to elaborate more on some of the Notable Clients section? I've spent a lot of time gathering these tidbits about the company and I'd hate for it to be deleted because I'm not following the rules. TLCWiki (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi TLCWiki. The examples of problematic text above were just examples and addressing just them does not address the many other parts that, as Theroadislong's said, are "riddled with advertising puffery"; the page remains so.

"The year 1994 marked the opening of the Russell Reynolds Associates office in Palo Alto, Ca. This office serves as the only dedicated sector-specific group, as is appropriate in the ever growing Technology sector."

This is dripping, promotional ad-speak. No, 1994 did not "mark" the momentous event of RRA opening an office → "In 1994 RRA opened an office in Palo Alto, Ca." It does not "serves as" but "is". "[T]the only dedicated sector-specific group" – what is this sounds-like-English, corporate mummery? "As is appropriate"? Says who? The "ever growing Technology sector"? This characterization appears in the sentence not because the continued growth of the technology industry has any focused relevance to this topic, but solely to make the inappropriately-worded, superlative claims from earlier in the sentence sound more grandiose.

This excerpt is unsourced, and would have to be cited to a secondary source, rather than a primary one, as it's full of evaluative analysis rather than straightforward statements of fact. This is just another example, where there are others. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

On building a new page in an established genre

I am editing (and writing) a page on the urban fantasy series The Tony Mandolin Mysteries. It is an established series in the same genre as The Dresden Files, Garett PI, The Nightside series, the Discworld Vimes novels and others. How far into the build should I wait before posting for review? Please note that I am adding images, reference links etc as I go along. It's almost like being back in grad school. RLBeers (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi RLBeers, and welcome the Teahouse! You can submit your RFC whenever you are ready. Good luck, and happy editing. DoABarrelRoll.dev(Chat!)(Contrib's)(Email)(???) 22:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. BY the way, I am writing as a reader with permission from the author of the series, also an unpaid reader to avoid any conflict. How would I disclose that, if needed?RLBeers (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, RLBeers. If you have permission from the author, that suggests that you have some connection with the author, and therefore that there might be a conflict of interest. But it will depend on the case. Incidentally, permission from the author is a complete irrelevance for Wikipedia: permission is neither sought nor required. If there has been substantial independent information about the series, published in reliable places, then an article can be written based on those sources, whether the author likes it or not. If there has not been such material published, then there cannot be an article in Wikipedia, whether the author wants one or not. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent Changes namespace

After finding out I could save filters on Recent Changes. I had the namespace set to "Article", but sometimes when I click "Show" it automatically sets the namespace to "all" and gives me changes for non-articles too. (but it does follow my filter) So the question either is "what's causing the bug" or "how do I get around the bug". -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

PS. The bug also makes it to where it will only fetch 50 revisions from the last 7 days. (when I click on a number it still bolds the default number) -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
PSS. When I type into the tag filter, the bug also automatically empties it and goes on to fetch results that include those that don't have the tag in particular. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
information Note:Moved Here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) DoABarrelRoll.dev(Chat!)(Contrib's)(Email)(???) 01:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I write about a new Technology Company

I want to write a wiki about a new Technology Company, If I write this wiki is admins will delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jave Johnson (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jave Johnson. New companies are very rarely notable and are therefore usually ineligible for a Wikipedia article. Only companies which have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources are eligible. Experienced editors will not allow Wikipedia to be used for advertising or promotional purposes. We are strict about this. If you are affiliated with this company in any way, you must declare your conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Jave Johnson, did you really mean to upload the Trozap company logo to Wikimedia Commons, under a free license allowing anyone to use it anywhere for any purpose, without asking your permission or paying you? Even your competitors? That seems like a strange thing to do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

adding a photo

How do I add a photo to a page72.39.146.142 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. If you mean how to add an existing, free photo to a page (e.g., one already uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons), then the mechanics of placing it for display can be read at the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, but the most basic markup is [[File:Name of image.extension|thumb|Caption to display below image]].

If you mean how to upload a photo for use here, that is exquisitely context-dependent—what photo to be displayed in what page; the copyright of the photo; unless it is in public domain or suitably freely-licensed, details about the photo from which its copyright status can be determined, or, possibly, how you are situated in relation to the photo such that you own its copyright and can release it. In short, this question cannot be answered in the generic. However, I have in the past posted here a sort of primer, covering some of the ground rules, that I'll post below in the hope it might be informative. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright rules of thumb
  1. Any image you find you must assume to be fully non-free copyrighted, and cannot be used here unless you have affirmative and verifiable evidence of copyright status that makes it usable here. This excludes a vast cross section of images you find on the Internet, and through a Google image search.
  2. Usable images are those which are either in the public domain or are under a suitably-free copyright license (meaning the image is copyrighted, but is permitted to used on a very unrestricted basis, that is as free or freer than the licenses most of Wikipedia's material is released under). A list of suitably-free, compatible copyright licenses can be viewed here.
  3. "Public domain" is often misunderstood as meaning publicly posted or publicly used, which have little bearing. It means that the copyright of the image has been affirmatively released by its owner into the public domain (e.g., the owner so states in relation to the image), or it has passed into the public domain because of some situational status, such as that it was not subject to copyright in the first place (e.g., an image created by a U.S. federal employee during the scope of his or her duties), or because of timing, coupled with publication status—which can be summarized as the image being:
    • Created/photographed prior to 1896 (whether published or not) = PD.
    • Published before 1923 = PD.
    • Published after 1923 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
    • Published between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
    • Published from 1923 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
    • Unpublished and created/taken before 1923 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
    • Unpublished and created/taken after 1923 = too complicated to get into.
  4. Suitably-free copyright licenses can be viewed here.
  5. Images that meet the above standards should be uploaded to our sister site, the Wikimedia Commons, and not locally, so all Wikimedia projects have access to the image. Images at the Commons can be displayed here natively.
  6. There is a strict and limited exception to the above, which is that non-free images can be used under a claim of fair use, but they must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. Such images cannot be uploaded to the Commons, but only locally. Rules of thumb for that are also complex and I don't think it would be useful to go into them unless you come back with specifics of what image you are looking to use, and it seems a fair use exception might be applicable. Just note one exclusion that covers a lot of terrain: generally we cannot use non-free photographs of anyone who is alive.
  7. You can use an advanced Google search to try to locate suitably-free images. Go to Settings → Advanced → usage rights → Free to use, share or modify, even commercially.
  8. You might try the "FIST", Free Image Search Tool.

How sould a ranking be done in long tables?

I have seen a couple of articles with tables like this. This does not look correct, but I don't know the correct way to do such a table, should i just ommit the rank table or should I somehow add it to the main table?

GrahamCracker325 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello GrahamCracker325, and welcome to the Teahouse. What works well in a table depends on the precise data to be included, and particularly how wide a table row would be. (Two wide a table can be awkward, particularly on mobile views or for those with limited resolution.) Also, consider whether the rank information adds to the reader's understanding of the subject or not. I will say that any "ranking" or "rate" column should (like everything else in the table and the article) be directly supported by a cited reliable source. Forgive me if I am repeating what you already know well. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello!!!

Dakota — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2652:D700:495B:5014:E06E:54E4 (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dakota. Did you have a question about how to use or edit Wikipedia? That is what this page is for. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Do I have enough references?

My article Draft:Ken Clark Artist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ken_Clark_Artist was declined because of no references. I am asking how many is enough?.. Thanks all- Obie Willis Obie Willis (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Obie Willis. The quality of the sources is much more important than the numerical quantity, and you will just irritate reviewers if you load a draft article up with mediocre references. We are looking for references to independent sources that provide significant biographical coverage of this person. His own website is useless for establishing notability. Passing mentions are useless. Also, your references lack bibliographic information. We want article titles, names of books or magazines, authors, dates of publication, page numbers and so on. Select your references and structure your article to show that this person meets our notability guideline for artists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I guess notability is relative. Award shows like Rialto, New Zealand Film Awards and New Zealand Academy of Film and Television Arts are the equivalent of the Oscars or BAFTAs in New Zealand. The Alexander Turnbull Library is equivalent to the Smithsonian and The New Zealand Archive of Film, Television and Sound Ngā Taonga Whitiāhua Me Ngā Taonga Kōrero equivalent to the Library of Congress. So I find it a bit difficult to know which is a notable reference. and would really appreciate your help. Obie Willis (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Obie Willis. Cullen328 is correct that a few high-quality references are better than many poor ones. What makes a reference high-quality is three main attributes. 1) The reference must be to a reliable source. That means that it has some editorial control, and a reputation for accuracy. It means that soemoen stands between the reporter/writer and the published work, confirming the accuracy of what is published. Scholarly journals, major magazines and newspapers, books published by major publishers, and the online equivalents of the above are usually considered to be reliable sources. 2) It must be an independent source. Press releases, news stories obviously based on press releases, statements by the subject's company or associates, interviews, or statements by the subject will not do. 3) For notability purposes, a high-quality reference will discuss the subject in some detail, for several paragraphs at least. It will perhaps express opinions about the subject (positive or negative). Inclusion in lists, directory entries, or one-sentence mentions while talking about something else add little, although being included in lists of award winners (when the awards are significant, on national or international level) ads more than most brief mentions. Try hard to find sources with extended discussions of the subject, please. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Obie Willis, please provide links to Wikipedia pages as wiki-links, not URLs: [[Draft:Ken Clark Artist]] renders as Draft:Ken Clark Artist. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ciao everyone!

How do I join the Teahouse and are we aloud to swear on the wiki? I have a swearing problem but I try not to on the wiki in fear of being blocked for my bad mouth.to clarify I am actually pretty nice and do not use offensive terms like calling someone a 'bitch' 'pussy' or 'bastard'. However I will occasionally say 'son of a bitch' or 'fucking hell'. As for joining does it matter that I use the mobile version of the Wikipedia?Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Long reply, but there isn't a short answer. There's no rule against swearing, but there is a rule against rudeness and swearing will often fall into that. The policy on civility can be found here, but be warned that there's no "right answer" when it comes to potentially offensive language. What constitutes "swearing" is both culturally and context dependent—terms that would be horribly offensive in the US wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the UK and Ireland and vice versa, and language intended to upset someone is far more likely to be considered inappropriate than an instance when there's a good reason to use a particular word or phrase. As a general rule, any edit you make on Wikipedia should be accompanied by the thought "is this improving anything?". There are some circumstances when even the most offensive language will be appropriate, but they're rare; bear in mind that anything on Wikipedia is being read by a wide variety of people of varying ages and background, and what you consider inoffensive or funny is very likely not to have the same effect on other readers. If you give the impression that you're swearing just to try to be shocking, or that you're unable to communicate politely in a collaborative environment, at best you'll develop a reputation as an obnoxious editor and people will be less inclined to help you when you ask, and at worst the community will eventually conclude that the loss of people alienated by your approach outweighs whatever benefits you bring, and you'll be asked to leave Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Of more importance is the fact that she is leaving hundreds of misspelt custom welcome templates on new users pages and it's getting to look VERY disruptive. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
And at least one of those custom "welcome" messages (are any of them templates?) mentions a "co-editer" [sic], which seems a little odd. Dinah Kirkland, if you're still following this thread, I'd like to suggest that you refrain from welcoming any more new users. Being friendly and welcoming is usually a good thing in the abstract, but please leave it to experienced editors to decide when and how to appropriately post such messages. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Old English font

How can I change the font of my signature to old english? JethRoad the FactBoy(talk) 15:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about a specific "old looking" font, or Futhorc? If the former, you can specify any font you like in your signature in HTML, but bear in mind that if you're not using a standard font most readers won't see it and it will just appear in their browser default. If you mean Futhorc, unless you know the unicode codes the easiest thing to do is probably to cut-and-paste the individual characters from Template:Runes, but bear in mind that unless readers have this specific character set installed all they'll see is either mojibake or a row of white squares. ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I am actually referring to the font second from the top:File:Manage enwiki signatures with css.pngJethRoad the FactBoy(talk) 16:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please link to images, don't display them here, particularly if they are large. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
That signature was created with the code
<font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">TomasBat</font></font>]] 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a bit over-ornate, on the edge of being overly confusing and hence discouraged, as per WP:SIG. It is also malformed, using nested font tags where a single tag with two attributes would do the job. Your current signature already uses the exact same font. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The exact same effect could have been produced with
<font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT" color="green">TomasBat</font>]] 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
saving some characters in markup. But I think changing both font and color is over-kill. 16:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
In addition, what do they mean when they said that: "... tags were deprecated in HTML 4.0 and are unsupported in HTML5." On Wikipedia:Signature tutorial#Real-life examplesJethRoad the FactBoy(talk) 16:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It means that using such tags may result in particular browsers not displaying the desired attribute—or possibly even displaying something that looks wildly wrong. And the problem with picking a relatively obscure font, such as Old English Text MT, for your signature is that a sizable number of people won't be able to see it. For instance, your signature here is displaying for me in a serif font, not a blackletter font such as Old English Text MT. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Wikipedias # of good articles going up or down?

This is just my personality but I'm afraid vandals are damaging articles faster than "good" editors can improve them. So I was wondering if there are more GA being added or removed. I know this probably isn't the kind you guys are used to and I'm sorry if this is a bother but could you let me know? If not can you tell me where I can find out?22mikpau (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Steadily up, and the slowing of the rise recently is the result of improved standards making it harder for an article to qualify, not a drop in the number of articles being nominated. (With the sole exception of January 2004, when the criteria changed from "I like it" to a set of formal criteria and all the existing Featured Articles were reassessed, there has not been a single month in Wikipedia's history where the number of delistings outnumbered the number of promotions at either Featured Articles or Good Articles.) "Wikipedia is in decline" is an often-claimed myth, but there's little evidence for it. ‑ Iridescent 00:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

how many 'teahouses' are there?Wholecube (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

how many 'teahouses' are there ? im wondering if there are many more teahouses with many other hosts.Wholecube (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wholecube There´s several places on WP to discuss different things, if that´s what you mean, see Wikipedia:Dashboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Wholecube. There is only one page called "the Teahouse", this one. To obtain help with using Wikipedia there is also the help desk, and Editor assistance. Beyond that, the dashboard mentioned above provides many useful links. However, please do not ask the same question on different pages. It wastes people's time, and tends to get negative reactions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Profile or Post suggestion

Where is the best place to suggest that someone in the Wiki community should create a post or page that does not yet exist?

Cletus.C "If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind." — Kurt Vonnegut 09:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cletus.Cirroc (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, a red link in an article is a tacit suggestion to create the red-linked page. There is requested articles but it is pretty heavily backlogged. Or you could mention it on any talk page where the subject is being or might be discussed. Or you could be bold and just create it yourself. If you plan to create a new article, however, please read Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners and then use the article wizard to create a draft that an be reviewed by an experienced editor before it is moved to the main article space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Clean start

Nearly two or three years ago, I used accounts to edit Wikipedia. I initially used one account, but I made disruptive edits in good faith. Then I had a clean start under a new name with less disruptive editing. However, there were still some serious embarrassments. I then drastically decreased my activity level, editing as an ip (without disruption) sporadically. Both old accounts are fully abandoned. Is this reasonable under Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Clean start? Should I create a new account to restart for the second time? Thanks. 211.100.57.204 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor using an address ending in ...204, and Welcome to the Teahouse. It is perfectly acceptable to edit while not logging in, i.e. to use an IP address as your user name, provided that you do not also use your old accounts to edit the same topics, or otherwise edit deceptively. You could think of it as a second clean start, and all the same rules and principles described at Wikipedia:Clean start apply. This is, of course, assuming that you were not under any actual sanctions (as opposed to loss of reputation).
You are in no way required to create and use a new account. However, as you should know, there are some benefits to using an account, including: a useful user talk page, user sub-pages and sandboxes, increased privacy, a watchlist, , the ability to receive notifications, and the ability to build positive reputation. If you therefore choose to edit from an account, you may create and use one if you choose. I would urge you to follow all the advice at Wikipedia:Clean start, and very carefully stay clear of any disruptive editing. DES (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have another related question. Wikipedia:Clean start requests one to use {{retired}} in order to indicate inactive accounts. Is this necessary if the account is inactive for the long period of time stated above? (please note that the new IP address in the signature might be different due to address changes) 211.100.57.204 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Sorry, I forgot to use this to notify last time. 211.100.57.204 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that WP:Clean start says: To reduce the chance of misunderstandings, you should note on the user page of the old account (while logged in under that account) that it is inactive, by using the {{retired}} tag or leaving some other message. This is never required, although it is a good idea. Whether to use the Retired template or a simple note is a matter of style and preference, the only point is to let people know that you do not intend to return using that account. People have been known to return after breaks of multiple years. Note also that if you do it, it should be done while logged in under the old account, so as not to make any public connection with any new account or IP. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Therefore, no notice on the old user page is strictly required if the old account is clearly abandoned due to the clear lack of activity in the last few years? Thanks. 211.100.57.204 (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No. I think it is required. It is under the "How to clean start" section and it says you should. If not required, why it is under the section "How to clean start"? BTW why this anonymous user do not want to add this template? 185.197.72.213 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No, "should" means "strongly advised", but not required. If it were required, the page would say "must". And if done, it need not be by template, simple prose such as "I have ceased using this account." will do. The page also says If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use.(Emphasis added) And remember that all Wikipedia editors are anonymous except for the few who have disclosed their legal names. The editor with the IP ending in 204 may not still have the password to the old account, or may not want, by editing it now, to suggest a connection to this posting or any about-to-be-created account. Or there may be other reasons. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure. If so, it can be misused or abused. It may be a kind of socking. E.g. when someone is noticed for their disruptive edits and their account become infamous, they can simply abandon them and become a "new editor". By using the new account, they may be target the same articles with the same form of disruptive edits but they be less likely to get banned, since no one will be able to know their past actions. There is something unfair here. It is open to abuse. 92.63.109.253 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, a clean start can be abused. So can editing while not logged in. But in practice, if an editor returns to the same topics after a clean start, the identity is quite likely to be detected, which will not improve the editor's reputation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • But may not be detected too? Especially on low-profile articles. And does this have a limit? Can an user request a "clean start" second time, third time, fourth time? It is silly, i think. It must have a limit. I think an user has only one right to clean start. Otherwise, it is also very open to abuse. 92.63.109.253 (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree with DES. Editors are advised to indicate the old account is retired to reduce the chances of accusations of improper socking being levied. If they are willing to take that risk (and consequences) then they're not forced to use any template or message. And multiple clean starts are not disallowed. We don't block an anonymous editor whose IP changes on a regular basis so why should we block someone, editing uncontentiously, who decides to start afresh every so often? It's harder for them, making sure they follow the provisions of a clean start with every new account, but as long as they do, they can edit in peace. --NeilN talk to me 13:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Question1: If an account gets blocked for socking, can't the sockmaster use this an excuse to escape the block? They may say that the account was not a sock, but a new account for a clean start.This might be very abusive. Question2: Lets assume that i am a disruptive editor. When my disruptive edits are noticed, i request a clean start and continue obviously the same behaviour. Then again, others notice me and i request an another clean start and continue the same thing...This is undermining all the WP sanctions and policies. Based on this, every abusive editor can easily manages to jump from gun. Am i wrong? 92.63.109.253 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes, you're wrong. "Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may lead to additional sanctions. Whether a new account is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny is determined by the behavior of the new account. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." WP:SCRUTINY is key. --NeilN talk to me 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) To save jumping down all the hypotheticals, regardless of an IP (or account) being used as a clean start, if they edit disruptively or in a manner which is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia they'll end up being blocked -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Don't have very much to add other than there's no need to worry about abuse of WP:CLEANSTART, because it's supposed to be an option available only to good faith editors who at least try to abide by policy. Say you're being harassed or something like that, you may abandon your current account and create a new one, and that's fine. When currently blocked/topic banned users try to make a clean start, it's just called sock puppetry. Sro23 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
So the interpretation seems to be different for every person. Thanks to everyone who have discussed their views. (The IP is different this time) 211.100.57.174 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not. WP:SCRUTINY is key as NeilN said and it is only for good faith editors as Sro23 said. 62.109.16.184 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I am facing a difficult decision right now whether to leave a message with my old account (using something like {{retired}}). Some say that it is required where others said that it is a "should" only and can lead to the connection of the two accounts. What should I do? (The IP is different again) 1.180.206.196 (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
As stated above, WP:CLEANSTART specifies that "you should note on the user page of the old account (while logged in under that account) that it is inactive", but not that you must. It is highly recommended, but not required. My own view is that you would be well advised to add such a note, because it will help demonstrate that you are acting in good faith. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
But it is still not strictly required, is it? 1.180.206.196 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please read my comment again - I wrote that it is not required. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

can I be invited to other places?

As I am invited to a teahouse , can I be invited to such other places ?please give examplesWholecube (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Wholecube. I believe that some wiki-projects invite potential members manually. I don't know of any other page that has the sort of semi-automatic invitation process that the Teahouse does. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Once more, please do not sign section headers. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
ThanksWholecube (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

where can i find projects?

I want to join some wikipedia projects to help wikipedia editing , but which projects should I join ? where can i find projects ?Wholecube (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Wholecube. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory for a comprehensive list. As to which ones you should join, it depends on your interests, as you will see three are a great many in existence. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thanks sir , it helped me very muchWholecube (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Gallery not working in article

At the page Jungfernstieg station, there are blank subsections under "Platforms" titled "Photos of U-Bahn (U1) and S-Bahn (S1/S2/S3) platforms" and "Photos of U-Bahn (U2/U4) mezzanine and platforms." I noticed this, and when I looked into the source code, I found that there were images encoded into the page using the Gallery template, but they were not showing up in the article. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the way the gallery is encoded into the page, so how do I make the images visible?

Thanks,

DraconicDark (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi DraconicDark. The gallery templates had "state=collapsed", not a documented field, and there doesn't seem to be a way to uncollapse them. I removed the field and now the images are visible. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. DraconicDark (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Replacing an existing image

I would like to replace the image in the infobox on Tree swallow, File:Tree-Swallow-Portrait-Wiki.jpg, with an image I took myself that I think is of more encyclopedic value (it shows the tree swallow's entire body at rest, sitting on a post). Do I go to Commons, upload a new revision of the file, and change the licensing, or am I supposed to upload an entirely new file and replace the file on the article? If it's the latter, should the old file be nominated for deletion once it's no longer used? --Iiii I I I (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Iiii I I I: and welcome to the Teahouse. Images on Commons are usually not overwritten, unless it's a minor technical improvement or bug fix in the original image. More detailed guidance about this is available at Commons:Commons:OVERWRITE. Please upload a separate file and replace the file link in the en-Wiki article, if the new file is considered better. Regarding deletion of "old" files: unless the file is clearly out of scope, damaged beyond repair, or provides false information, it is usually retained. Maybe someone else wants to use it for a different purpose, or other editors disagree with you and prefer the other image. So it's almost always better to keep such images just in case. GermanJoe (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link GermanJoe – hopefully this is correct (and hopefully the image is better). --Iiii I I I (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iiii I I I. That's a beautiful image. If you have other interests in this area, you might join or take a look at the resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds (I am a member). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What will happen if my edit is not perfect ?Will I be punished for wrong edits?

What will happen if my edit is not perfect ?Will I be punished for wrong edits ?Wholecube (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

AS ,long as you are attempting, in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, your edits may be reverted if someone else disagrees with them, but there will be no "punishment". Wikipedia doesn't deal much in punishment even for intentional harm. Blocks and bans are to prevent further problems, not to punish for past ones. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
And again, please don't sign section headers. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thanks sir for your help. But i did not understand the signing of section headers , what is a section header ?Wholecube (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks sir , I am trying to edit articles in good faithWholecube (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, Wholecube. Sections and their headers are described in detail at Help:Section. When you ask a new question here, you are creating a new section of this page. The form for asking a new question asks for a "subject/headline". That text will be come the section header, or section title. Using four tildes (~~~~) will add your signature to the header. Please don't do that. On the other hand, using those same four tildes at the end of your question will add your signature there. Please do sign the ends of questions. The section header is used to identify the contents of the section, and should not be too long. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I should add, you should normally sign posts on discussion pages, such as this one and such as article talk pages and user talk pages. You should not ever sign an article page. Please see Wikipedia:Signatures for more detail on this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Types of editors are in wikiepdia

Hello, i want to know how many types of editors are in wikipedia. And what should an editor can do to earn privilege editor? WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi WikiBodhiVamsa. A list can be found here. HillelFrei• talk • 13:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, WikiBodhiVamsa. Wikipedia has many permission levels; for example, users become autoconfirmed after making 10 edits and holding their account for 4 days. Autoconfirmed users are able to edit semi-protected pages. If you want more information about the different permissions available on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:User access levels. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 13:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, WikiBodhiVamsa. The general answer to your first question is that there are two types of editor: those who are here to improve the encyclopaedia, and those who are here for some other reason. If you stay here and work to improve the encyclopaedia, then in time you will be able to apply for particular levels of user access (if you have a reason to: I have been editing for 12 years, and made 13383 edits, but I have never applied to be even an admin, because I am not interested in taking on the responsibilities of an admin). Titles and rights like "admin" are not badges of status in Wikipedia, they are simply provisions that some people need to do the jobs they have taken on (think of an office cleaner, who typically has low status, but may have access to parts of the facility that most employees don't). --ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, WikiBodhiVamsa, and welcome to the Teahouse. All the above comments are correct. One can also classify editors by what sort of editing they do. Some work mon fixing grammar and formatting. Some work on finding and adding sources to articles. Some work on improving articles, filling in missing information. Some work on creating new articles. Some work on keeping article facts up to date. And so on. Many editors do more than one of these, at different times, or mixed together, but many specialize, more or less. All these are editors here to help improve the encyclopaedia, which is the kind that we encourage. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Article

How to create an article and get approved by wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexhino Kovaci (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rexhino Kovaci, and welcome to the Teahouse.
  • First read Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Your first Article, and Referencing for Beginners.
  • Second, gather a number of independent, published, reliable sources that discuss the topic in some detail. (as mentioend below, if you can't find several such sources, stop here.)
  • Third, use the Article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project.
  • Fourth, use the sources you have gathered to write the article, in your own words. Cite statements made in the article to the sources using footnotes. Do not include any judgements or opinions unless they are specifically attributed to a named person or entity, and supported by direct citations. Do not praise or blame anyone or anything in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Fifth, submit the draft for review
  • Sixth, when it is rejected, take note of the comments and improve it until it passes review.
You have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Congratulations. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sixth, he means if it is rejected, people have succeeded on their first attempt. If they took their time and did their "homework" first, it´s not super-easy.
  • Second, if you can´t find any, don´t try to write an article on that topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I wrote when quite intentionally, because while drafts are sometimes accepted on the first submission, this is rare, most take two or three to get things in sufficiently good shape, and I want the new editor prepared for that. On stopping if sources can't be found, Gråbergs Gråa Sång is quite correct, Rexhino Kovaci. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You´re right of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


. . . .Can you help me please?

Help

Hi, I had to know if there was any way to view certian google books whose preview were unavailable. For instance, Daisy and Ducky Mallard By Judy Moulton, this book on this link has only few pages that can be seen. However, it contains a lot of useful information. I tried searching it a lot on other places, and was unable to. So, could anybody help me out and suggest where to view such books? Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adityavagarwal, and welcome to the Teahouse. The availability that Google provides to different pages in its scans is a decision that Google makes, partly based on its contract, if any, with the publisher. Wikipedia has no control over it, and Google has not published how different search terms may change the result. In some cases you can purchase access to a complete ebook version. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
In general, if you want extracts to help write a Wikipedia article, you could make a Resource Request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, However, given that this is a children's story-book, I cannot see that the content would help write in writing or improving one of our articles - we don't provide extracts for bed-time story reading. - Arjayay (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Adityavagarwal, as Arjayay says, that is definitely not a reliable source, or in any way useful, for your edits to our article on the Mallard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad. I did not know it was a children's story-book for bed-time stories (even though it looks like :P), as there were very few pages in the preview by which I would be able to know if it is reliable (only 2 written pages, two pages containing drawings, a cover page, and a copyright page). I was trying to find resources to information added previously. However, the information present in the second written page is true and also when I tried searching for more about Mallards, in the google search links, this book came up with those lines; however, even the preview was not available for them. So, I thought it would contain a lot more of useful information. Also, how were you able to determine that the source was not reliable? I saw WP:RS again, but it is a published book and also the information provided was true, and not that it was just basic information which would be available anywhere. Consequentially, I would be able to take better care of the reliability issue. Thank you for making me know about that source. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Permission to remove something from this page?

I just have one question to ask about a certain article here: Sailor Moon

Under the "Legacy" part, is it OK if I remove this line: "A reviewer for THEM Anime Reviews also credited the anime series with changing the genre—its heroine must use her powers to fight evil, not simply have fun as previous magical girls had done.[93]"? The reason is because if you actually look at her review, it shows that she didn't get part of her review right, she just becomes biased and claims it "should have ended at R" and just bashes on the rest of the show and in reality she kinda really isn't explaining how Sailor Moon impacted the legacy of TV shows or not.

Please let me know.

Sailor Mercury Fanboy (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sailor Mercury Fanboy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest tagging the citation with {{fv}} (failed verification) and posting about this on Talk:Sailor Moon. If in a week no one has come up with a better source or has objected to the change, remove it. Or don't wait, but be clear in your edit summary that you are removing an indirect quote not found in the source, and still post on the talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Sailor Mercury Fanboy, On rereading your question, and then checking out Sailor Moon article, it becomes clear to me that the reviewer did say exactly what the article says s/he said. You just dislike the use of the cite because the reviewer went on to say things you disagree with, things critical of parts of the series. That is not in my view, a good reason to remove the statement and its supporting citation. Wikipedia articles should report all significant points of view on the topic, including critical ones. As long as there is no significant dispute that this reviewer is a reliable source, the statement can and should be used, I think. If you do think it should be removed, explain why on Talk:Sailor Moon and wait for responses. I think you would need a better reason than the one you listed above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_624&oldid=1126875354"