Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 745

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

Archive 740

←

Archive 743

→

Question

i want to add a person's biography on wikipedia, can it be done on an android phone?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minuranking1 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Minuranking1. I believe that some editors have successfully written articles on android phones, though I have not done more than the occasional edit that way. However, please be aware that:

Creating a new article is one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia. Please see the essay your first article.
Writing about yourself is even harder, and strongly discouraged, because it is hard to write in a sufficiently neutral way about yourself.
Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have chosen to publish about the subject, and all articles should be mostly based on such independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Minuranking1: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is technically possible to edit Wikipedia from a phone, but this is probably not a good idea (especially creating an article) due to the amount of typing you would need to do. If you had a physical keyboard, it might work better. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Minuranking1: It's absolutely possible - go for it! If Stephen Hawking could write major books on science from his wheelchair, using a smartphone to create a page here is a breeze. I'm on my iPhone 5 as I reply to you. Whilst I do prefer a keyboard for big edits to pages, other editors of new articles use an Android exclusively. See User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing, by one of our Teahouse hosts. As stated above, the same requirements for accuracy and notability of the subject still apply, of course. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Can someone please point to me some documentation explaining https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fear_of_the_dark&curid=5153191&diff=831788593&oldid=810420011 ? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpheus Lummis (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Orpheus Lummis. Welcome to our Teahouse. I've added a new heading to separate your question from the previous one. (Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes like this:~~~~, please) I've not seen someone trying to add a category in a foreign language on en.wiki before and that's not an acceptable way to go about ensuring links between languages. Google Translate tells me that "อาการกลัวความมืด" is Thai for 'Fear of the dark'. So, it's relevant, but not appropriate to an English language wiki. That said, interlanguage links are acceptable in the right place. See Help:Interlanguage links and Wikipedia:Categorization where the latter page says it's OK to have interlanguage links on the left hand side of the page to assist users find similarly categorised pages in other languages, as you can see in Category:Fast food. Thanks for drawing this to our attention. Those two edits by an IP have now been undone. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Orpheus Lummis I think they meant link to the Fear of the dark article on the Thai wiki, but forgot to add the ~~semi~~colon in front of the language code, like this: [[:Th:อาการกลัวความมืด]] which would have resulted in Th:อาการกลัวความมืด. That's not how you add links to other wikis in the sidebar, BTW. Mduvekot (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That's helpful. Orpheus Lummis (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: You are wrong. The link [[Th:อาการกลัวความมืด]] actually is the way to add an interlanguage link to other Wikipedia into a sidebar – and, as far as I can understand what happened here, that is precisely what the anonymous editor wanted. It just is an obsolete way of doing that.
OTOH, what you present ([[:Th:อาการกลัวความมืด]]) adds an interlanguage link in the article. (BTW, its first metacharacter is a colon, not semicolon.) This, however adds a plain, readable link in the page's contents, as you can see in your own example above, not in the sidebar. --CiaPan (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

CiaPan thanks for the correction. Mduvekot (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Thai article in question is already linked in Wikidata to the English article Fear of ghosts, so (because of Wikidata's significant flaw in being unable to cope with one-to-many links where the article breakdown differs between Wikipedias) that method is not available, which presumably explains why the inter-language link had been added manually (until Nick removed it). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance tags and more

Hi I don't drink tea, but thanks for the invite

Trying to clear off a COI maintenance tag and it keeps coming back - not justifiably And as I add content to the page and clean up the page and add more sources I get a second remonstration that I am disruptive editing and some of my links are inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry - including, get this, one to a research note at Carnegie Mellon!

What am I missing? How do I convince a bot I'm a better researcher/writer than it is? Is there a way to check if a link is 'inappropriate?' Is there a way to make it appropriate?

Thanks

Mikkopresents (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mikkopresents: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In examining the page in question, I can say that the tag is not being restored by a bot, but by another user, Missvain. A bot did revert the addition of a link which is considered not appropriate(I think because it is to a blog, as blogs are not usually considered reliable sources). Is the information not published somewhere more reputable? "Mikko" sounds a lot like Michael(much like part of the last name of the person you are writing about), so I will ask you directly if you represent Mr. Michalopoulos or are associated with him in some way. If you are, you should 1) not remove the COI tag, as you have a conflict of interest and should review the conflict of interest policy, and 2) not edit the article directly, instead suggesting changes on the article talk page. If you are not associated with him in any way, please state that. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mikkopresents in your last edit you also removed the page protection tags which is not ok or correct. Your edit summary "Removed maintenance tag (for the second time) because there is no COI - the page needs cleanup" also was not a reason to remove the tag before the cleanup. Note the tag only says that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection..." not that they do. If as your edit summary suggests you agree the page needs a clean up, this should be done before the tag removal, just removing the tag just makes it appear that there is a COI (be that true or not). However you are doing the correct thing to move forward and discussing with Missvain the issues they had with your edits and hopefully can work things out. But for now I have reverted the tag removal, until the content issues have been addressed, and while the protection actually exists. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)

KylieTastic (talk)

@KylieTastic:

Thank you for your response - Michael is, unfortunately, a very popular name all over the world - I'm a Finn/American and only share an interest in New Orleans with the subject - I don't know how else to verify that -- if I understand you correctly - I should make my edits to the page and then once they are accepted - then remove the tag? Also I should go to 331dot (talk) and tell him what I just told you?

Create second sandbox?

Hi there, I am hoping to receive some help. I created a Page for Louck's Tavern, but it was deleted. I found supporting documentation to add, but not sure how or where to add. Attempted to upload clipping of newspapers but was unable to.

On a separate issue, I would like to submit - or work on - an entirely new page, different subject. I hope to create a place where I can upload my content and work around it, while getting suggestions from someone like yourself, WITHOUT risk of deletion, before finally submitting for review. Am I needing a second SANDBOX? If so, please tell me how to do it?

Thanks in advance... jkcproject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkcproject (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jkcproject. You can have as many sandboxes as you like - Any page called User:Jkcproject/anything is a sandbox, and as long as you keep within the broad limits at WP:UP you'll be fine. My suggestion for writing new articles is to use Draft space rather than user sandboxes, but both are acceptable. See your first article if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jkcproject, you can create wanted pages, although no page you create is without risk of deletion. If you want another sandbox you can do what I do, User:ZLEA/sandbox. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Your draft is at Draft:Louck's Tavern and you can work on it there. Uploading clippings of newspapers would be likely to be a copyright violation. If you wish to use a newspaper as a reference, you can fill in the relevant details in the {{cite news}} template, and use that in a reference as outlined at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

How do I reference information?

I was wondering because I am currently thinking about making an article for review, and they said I needed to make references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealWeatherMan (talk • contribs)

@TheRealWeatherMan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on citing sources can be found by reviewing WP:CITE. The sources will need to be independent of the subject and be reliable. It may help you to use Articles for Creation to write your draft. Doing so allows you to get feedback on it before it is placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. If you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, TheRealWeatherMan. It sounds from your question as though you have got writing an article backwards (as many people do). Don't write an article and then add references. Find the references first, and write the article from them. Wikipedia isn't interested in what you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) know: it is only interested in what reliable published sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, :Hi, TheRealWeatherMan. If you are just starting out editing wikipedia, You may find Referencing for Beginners helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Improving articles

Why are many articles on wiki short, I would like to know I've noticed that the hindi TV serials are not edited in the full story but are quickly summarized,for examples Pavitra Rishta and Doli Armaano Ki.Also Glow TV is an Indian TV station in South Africa just like Zee World,with programmes from Star Plus and Colors TV,why isn't there a page for Glow TV and information on series and what the channel is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPagoo (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@AJPagoo: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. If information is missing, it means either it isn't available in Reliable Sources or no one has added it yet. You should Be Bold and improve the articles. See WP:REFB for how to use references for material you want to add. RudolfRed (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Steve Hannagn Article submitted March 2018

I need help in understanding why this article is being turned down. One comment said that the sources are not liable. I am not sure how to improve the sources since they included: Time Magazine, Fortune Magazine, Smithsonian Magazine, Scribners Magazine, a book on the 1940 election published by the University of Illinois Press, Scott Cutlip's book on major figures in public relations published by Earlbaum Publishers, Allen Frederick;'s Secret Formula published by Harpers Business, K.S. Miller's U.S. Public Relations History published by SAGE Press, and Stephanie Capperel The Real Pepsi Challenge published by The Free Press.

I would appreciate any assistance so that this article can get on the right track. Mtownsley (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

While Steve Hannagan may be suitable notable to be the subject of a Wilipedia article, every part of Draft:Steve Hannagan is badly written and badly referenced. My recommendation is to withdraw the draft and study other biographical articles before trying again. From your history of edits, it appears that back in 2017 you have added content about Steve Hannagan to many articles, often using as a reference unpublished interviewers' notes. David notMD (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

How do you add Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RanaeFritola3 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I placed a welcome message on your talk page which has guidance on getting started. You can come back here if you have more specific questions. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating articles

I would like to know if my article Sacred ties wasn't good enough that it was reverted to Pavitra Rishta Page, also I would like to help on any article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPagoo (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AJPagoo. Am I right in thinking that Sacred Ties is an alternative title for the series called Pavitra Rishta? That's what it says at Pavitra Rishta. If that's correct, then we should only have one article about the topic, so your main mistake was in trying to create another one. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi I would like to apologies and have realised my mistake but still I would like to know why are pages like, Pavitra Rishta and other series not giving full summary of the show.Why isn't there any information about Vaishali and Varsha, and other characters. I would have edited the page but what forced me to create any article is that the Pavitra Rishta Page is protected from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPagoo (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The best answer I think I can give to that question is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and no one has (yet) got around to writing a more complete plot summary, AJPagoo. That said, the plot summary already accounts for the majority of the length of the article, so it would be good to add other stuff too! I suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. You'll see that if you click on the padlock at the top of the article, it will take you to WP:SILVERLOCK, which explains how to request edits to the article. Once your account is a few days older, you will be able to edit the article directly, but please do so with care and caution if you do. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Joining

How can I join you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jashangill18 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, @Jashangill18:, it looks as if you have already joined Wikipedia, so you should be able to edit and write articles. You can also join various WikiProjects if you find any interesting, but that is not a requirement. Nessie (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jashangill18: - if you are enquiring about becoming a Teahouse host, I would recommend that you spent the guts of a year improving your proficiency at editing, and acquainting yourself with the core policies of Wikipedia before you consider such a move. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

new user, new page, question on if its worthy of addition

Hi there, i only created an account as i was wondering if it was worthy or not to write an article about different fpv flight simulators. im fairly well versed in one, though there are several out there they are the sort of thing that is now widely available and used by the people in the fpv community, and plenty of articles have been written about the different ones available on the web.

I was wondering if this is acceptable on wikipedia, and if i should create a page each for the most established ones?

I hope this is the right place to aks.

i have checked for the simulator i know the most about (LiftOff) and can find 3 independent sources, but they are independent reviews so im unsure if this qualifies under the notable rules or not.

if not that's fine, if so, what should i be mindful of?

these are the reviews i have to hand,

http://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/814970-testing-liftoff-drone-racing-simulator/

https://www.propwashed.com/liftoff-drone-racing-simulator-review/

http://www.controllercraft.com/articles/liftoff-fpv-racing-simulator-review/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robisnow (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Robisnow, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think three articles is a little too little. From the looks of it, these are good sources, independent and reliable, but I'm not confident that three is significant coverage.

I notice that we have an article about First-person view (radio control), but it has no information on FPV RC flight simulators. I think you could create a section in that article about them. Try to explain what are some common features of FPV RC flightsims, and name a few of the most important ones. The great thing about editing existing articles is that expanding them is easier than creating new standalone articles. While some topic may not be notable enough for an article of its own, it can be introduced in an article about the larger topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have caused a misinformation on Wikipedia.

Hi, A few years ago, I uploaded This photo on Wikicommons. At first, I attributed the photo to Iraj Castle, then I found out that this was wrong and the drawing is of another castle, I removed the photo from the English wikipedia but now I saw that the article have been translated to several languages and all have used the misinformation I caused. I tried to remove the photo in other articles but it gets undone by other users. What should I do? Pouyakhani (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Pouyakhani. Probably a good start would be to correct an obvious error in the file name on Commons. What sources are you using to determine that the original information was incorrect? GMG ^talk 12:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The source for the photo is provided in Wiki Commons,the name of the file is correct,tho.Pouyakhani (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating an entry where there's nothing but primary sources

I do research on a topic that no one has written on since around 1890's: the history of the steel (dip) pen industry in the US. As far as I've ever been able to find, mine is pretty much the only secondary source ever to write about many of these topics. You can see the topics on my site https://thesteelpen.com/.

I'd like to add some of these topics to Wikipedia, formatted for Wikipedia complete with sources and all, but I'm afraid of it's pretty clearly crossing over the line into Original Research. And I feel I'm in a bit of a Catch-22 in regards to notability as well. Few people even know about this topic, so few people care. It's not notable because it's not known. It's not known because no one has published on the topic before. (at least in the US, in Britain, there are several publications about that side of the industry)

I've started one example entry on a once major steel pen manufacturer in Philadelphia, Turner & Harrison (1875-1952), but no one has ever written anything about them before. My whole history is a compilation of primary sources, so I'm fairly sure it crosses the line into Original Research. Now, there aren't too many "conclusions" being drawn that would be controversial, mostly the account is pretty factual, so I don't think I'm in danger of creating controversy, (Was John Turner truly a recruit of Richard Esterbrook, or is that mere speculation and coincidence? Off to the barricades!) but I'm not relying on secondary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Turner_%26_Harrison

I'm just wondering if it's possible to add entries on this information, which is available nowhere else except my own website? I'd hate to just write an entry and do nothing by point to my website, which wouldn't be considered a reliable resource anyway.

I suspect the advice will be to get this published first in a legitimate source, and then come and create the entries. Unfortunately, it has a limited audience because so few people even know about this once important industry, and among those who even use these dip pens anymore, (mainly calligrapher) only a sub-set are interested in the history of the industry. (how many drivers of cars are interested in the history of the US auto industry?)

Any guidance would be most appreciated

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlucinumMaster (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey GlucinumMaster. You're pretty much right on the money. While primary sources are allowed in limited circumstances with careful use, one of Wikipedia's rules for them is that we can't base whole articles on these alone. I'm afraid the topic will have to wait until it has been written about by more people. But there is no deadline, and even though it may take a long while for that type of coverage to emerge, we're still perfectly happy to have an article on the topic once we reach that point. GMG ^talk 12:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected so. This brings up a related question. In existing entries there are some inaccuracies, such as the entry on Dip Pen, which I would like to correct. The evidence for the corrections, though, are primary evidence, not secondary. I'm assuming that is ok? The problem we run into is that very little has been written about these topics, and what little was written back at the turn of the 20th-century was wrong and the myths have perpetuated ever since. I can make corrections to the parts about the British history from published secondary sources, but the US side, not so much. Thanks. GlucinumMaster (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey GlucinumMaster. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but Wikipedia values verifiability over truth, in addition to preferring secondary over primary sources. So in effect, we prefer untrue information in an otherwise reliable secondary source, over correct information based on original extrapolation from a primary source. This approach isn't perfect, but it does mean our articles are probably right more often than not, so long as they're following those rules.

So if the information is unsourced, and the sources you have can be used in accordance with guidance at WP:PRIMARY, then we can correct it using a primary source. If the information is cited to an otherwise reliable secondary source which happens to be wrong in this case, then we would need to wait until some other reliable secondary source corrects the record. GMG ^talk 15:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

wikilink to heading on a page/article

Can't find how to wikilink to heading within a page/article. BrucePL (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the answer at WP:ANCHOR. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Help with constructive editing

Over 5 years ago, I was topic banned under Discretionary Sanctions for discussing a source[1] I'm not concerned with the details of my content dispute, but I am interested in getting help to enable me to collaborate constructively, as suggested by one of the other editors.[2] --Iantresman (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Iantresman, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not clear what sort of help you are asking for. I take it that you are not at this time appealing your topic ban. Any sustained constructive contributions woulkd no doubt help. Are yoiu asking for suggestions on how to do that? Are you looking for a mentor? What exactly do you want here? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel I guess a mentor. I'd like to know how I should go about discussing a difference of opinion in a way that doesn't get me banned. I'm not appealing my ban here, but I'd like to know what I could have done differently. --Iantresman (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Everybody!

Hi my name is Calculator bag and i am new to wikipedia. I am thinking of working in the genre sections of music articles. so if anybody has advice they could give to me that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculator bag (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to say the obvious, the genres themselves would be related areas to work: Synth-pop, new wave, post punk, etc. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Calculator bag (I like the username, by the way!). Others might have more specific suggestions, but I would advise you to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and its sub-projects. You could also introduce yourself on the talk page of that project, where other editors with experience of editing music articles might be able to offer you advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Calculator bag (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Hello Cordless Larry!! Thanks for the advice, the username was a result of me trying to think of the most random amalgamation of words! Anyhow i will head to wiki project music asap for advice. I would also like to say that when the idea of wikipedia was novel to me i did make a minor vandalization as a joke, but did not think of the after effect it could have, so all i can say is sorry and i hope this does not damage my reputation as a wikipedian. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculator bag (talk • contribs) 21:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~ Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calculator bag:, you have the right idea, but please do sign at the end of your comment. It confuses SineBot if you don't. And the past vandalism is fine, as long as you aren't doing it now :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Recommendations Please - or Direction

Hi there, I hope I am in the correct place. (If not, my apologies. Could you please direct me to the appropriate place?) I have just created a draft of an article and am looking for recommendations. I am currently waiting for media, which I will insert, after checking for media's (pics) copyright status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:12_Days_of_Pizza

Is there anything outstanding that I should correct/delete/modify? Thank you very much for your help.

Jkcproject (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jkcproject: As a start, don't put links to other Wikipedia articles in a reference. Use a Wikilink to link to the relevant article See WP:LINK and WP:REFB. Also, read the information at WP:YFA for how to create an article, you will find good info there that you can apply to improve your draft. RudolfRed (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forget about media until you get the basics right. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and then read about how to add references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. References to Wikipedia are not acceptable, see WP:CIRCULAR. References to the organisation's own website are not independent. If, after removing the unacceptable sources and the text which they have been used to support, you are left with a sufficient number of reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject, then expand those references from bare URLs to include sufficient information to allow reviewers to assess the sources, preferably using templates such as {{cite web}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Jkcproject, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, One Wikipedia article should never cite another as a source. So all your citations to Wikipedis should be removed. This leaves only one news article, cited three times, as independent coverage, and that seems to be purely local coverage. This is not nearly enough to establish notability. Additional reliable sources that cover the program in some detail would be needed, and they should be regional or national coverage. See out guideline on the notability of organizations, and Wikipedia's Golden Rule. I would advise you to concentrate on finding additional sources to establish the notability of the topic before worrying about images. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the incorrect citations to Wikipedia articles, and combined the duplicate cites as a single named reference. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, both of you! I have submitted the following links: External Links http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/local-businesses-feed-families-in-need-with-days-of-pizza/article_29e5800c-3f0c-5f08-990f-bf9902bc78b0.html http://www.blackhillsfox.com/content/news/12-Days-of-Pizza-helps-48-families-this-year-408093315.html http://www.bhpioneer.com/deadwood/days-of-pizza-take/article_efc1a0a6-cd10-11e6-be88-5b5d3a67ae28.html http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/days-of-pizza-takes-a-bite-out-of-hunger/article_72ef5156-ecb6-11e7-89b7-ff72578868d1.html http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/gooddeeds/our-good-deeds-days-of-pizza-program-takes-slice-out/article_27c79145-c3f7-5ba3-9a0f-bbd4ce639a0f.html

I hope this meets with your approval. If not, I will be happy to modify as instructed.

Jkcproject (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

How do I see the files I've uploaded?

On Wikipedia, not Wikimedia, I mean. The Verified Cactus 100% 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey The Verified Cactus. See here. GMG ^talk 15:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

... which is accessible through the "uploads" link at the top of your contributions page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, missed it. Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 22:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Date format question

Is the date format used here always "1 January 2018"? Because usually (in America at least) it is, "January 1st, 2018". The format I keep seeing here is actually the military format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomorrow is Yesterday (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tomorrow is Yesterday. Wikipedia is a worldwide project and we do not mandate American preferences. Our software accepts several date formats, including "1 January 2018" and "January 1, 2018" for use in date fields. Note that the second contains a comma. The software does not support "January 1st, 2018". For details about various acceptable ways to format dates, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And just to clarify, DMY is the standard date format almost everywhere in the world except the US. Its use on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the (American) military. – Joe (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tomorrow is Yesterday: At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering you can select the date format in log entries like page histories, user contributions and watchlists. It doesn't affect article content. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Rationale behind removing red links?

So, I stumbled upon this user [3] and noticed that most if not all of his edits consist of removing red links. Take for example these recent edits: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Could someone of same mind as he elucidate me on what's the reasoning behind these edits and why are they justified? NinuKinuski (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:REDLINK, it depends on what the link is. If it's for something that we really should have an article for, then the red link should be left to encourage its creation. If it's something we're probably not going to have an article for, then we should leave the link there.

As for Dhruvh's edits, I don't know what that user's reasoning is. In some cases, the removal seems justified, and in some cases I don't know why they removed the link either. You could try asking them. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

deleting your article

Someone decided to delete my part of an article can people just do that without reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winbarker23 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I can only find that one person removed one edit of yours, here, and they gave a reason in the edit summary. If you don't understand their reason, click on the "talk" link next to their name and ask them to elaborate. They should be able to provide you with a more thorough answer if you didn't understand what they meant by the reason they already gave. If there is another edit of yours which has been undone, please let us know WHICH edit on WHICH article, so we can help you further. --Jayron 32 14:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Another reversion was this one, also the article James Barker (photographer) was deleted under criterion G7, but you are correct that the OP needs to tell us which edit or which article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Winbarker23: First, it's better to think in terms of "ours" instead of "mine" and "yours."

Second, users can remove content that does not cite a reliable (usually professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic) source. They should give a reason in the edit summary but there's nothing forcing them to. I see here that a reason was given but here a reason was not (although most links to Youtube face problems of reliability and maybe even copyright violations).

Third, whole articles can be deleted if they do not meet the general notability guideline: new articles must cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject. Websites like LinkedIn and Yelp never establish notability; neither do directories or the subject's own website.

The one that the person did not give a reason makes no sense, i used multiple second sources and google internet archives from the artist to back it up.Winbarker23 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)winbarker23 Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winbarker23: As I said, links to Youtube face a variety of problems with reliability and even copyright violations. Also, there's issues of whether it's noteworthy or note. Independent sources are generally a better indication if something is noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

EditWatch this pageRead in another language South West Africa campaign

Dear madam / sir

I am not sure If this is the correct medium for this remark. If not could you kindley redirect me.

I was looking at the Wikipedia page concerning the South West Africa campaign in 1914-1915. German force strength is stated as 3000 schutztruppen and 7000 militia. I think this is a very much inflated number which i only come across in british propaganda of the period. German sources and more recent english language research gives a German military strength of about 5000 in Total. At outbreak of war the following forces were already under arms or mobilised:

Schutztruppen: 1967 officers and men Police: 483 officers Treaty police: 50 officers Landwehr 1 and 2: 823 men mobilised Landsturm: 900 men mobilised

African troops: 200 (since relations between germans and indiginous population were bad this represents the only localy reqruited troops of which part came drom Kamerun)

Total German strength adds up to about 5000 men which were virtually All germans. This is from a Total colonial German population of about 13000. To het to a strength of 10000 would have meant units consisting of grandmothers and Todlers and stoping All essential functions to run a society.

Possible reasons for the 10000 estimate are German disinformation efforts. For instance platoon size units were designated ad companies giving the impression of a far larger order of battle. British wartime propaganda mat be Another reason.

Kind regards, Jos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.200.58 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The place for discussing the article South West Africa campaign is on the article's talk page, Talk:South West Africa campaign. You will need to support any suggested changes with references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

i was removed from NPR access but why??

i was removed from NPR access but why?? Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The log says concerns over CSD tagging. You presumably read the various concerns before you deleted them from your user talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: Please see this version of your talk page (the "Your CSD tagging" section, second from the bottom). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Adamstraw99, if you are serious about editing Wikipedia and want to obtain and keep advanced permissions such as NPR, you should immediately stop deleting contents from your talk page and instead start archiving it. I do it manually, but there are automated solutions available. These are discussed a few sections up this page. To many, if not most Wikipedians, deleting talk threads make it look like you are not being transparent about your activities, something that is highly valued here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

ok, got it, thanks everyone for help -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Want to change username

I would like to change my username from PorkchopGMX2 to PorkchopGMX. How do i do this? Thanks, PorkchopGMX2^talk 12:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello PorkchopGMX2, welcome to the Teahouse. For changing your username, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What should I edit

I love meteorology,so I was wondering...can anyone give me meteor..(blank) topics to edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanillaEditor (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@VanillaEditor: Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Meteorology. You will find a list of articles that need help and other editors with similar interests. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@VanillaEditor: You can also try introducing yourself at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject_Meteorology and explain a little bit about what specific aspects of meteorology interest you, and the folks there can probably give you some recommendations of what to work on.

@VanillaEditor: If you follow the helpful link given by RudolfRed above, you'll see a rather scary-looking table. It's actually rather helpful because it lists every meteorological article, both by quality and by importance. The shortest articles are called "Stubs" and these are often crying out for someone to enhance. Just click on the total number (in this case, 946), and you'll see this list of titles. You might well find something worth working on that matches your interests. We always advise starting out by making just small edits first, and listening to any feedback you get from other editors. Whatever you do, please never add stuff that you 'just happen to know', because this is not how Wikipedia works. We need you to only add factual statements that improve an article, based on references which you really have to 'cite' in that page as proof the statement is true. I know it's tempting to add a few random bits of trivia like you did to a couple of articles, but that's not how we operate, and so that's why you had a few notices asking you not to do that. Just so long as you appreciate why it's not OK, everything here should be fine. Remember, we're helping to build the world's greatest encyclopaedia that anyone can use or edit. I'm guessing that you're a pretty young editor (judging by the bit about an elementary school you put on your Userpage. If so, do please be careful not to reveal any personal information about yourself here -where you live/go to school/emails etc. We care very much about protecting youngsters, and can arrange to have any personal info permanently deleted should you ever need us to, because everything else can normally be found in the history of all the edits you have so far made. We also offer a little bit of guidance to young editors in the hope that you'll stay and become the amazing Wikipedians of the future. Do check this page out.) I'll now drop by and leave a few helpful links on your userpage, and maybe we can help you out here again, if you need it? Regards from a rather damp, 8/8 cumulo-stratus-covered England, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Summerwind Mansion book by Devon Bell

Hello,

I noticed that an editor on here mentioned my book about the mansion, but didn't post it because it had not yet been published. I'm the author of the book, but must admit, I don't know how to go in and edit it. It released in 2016.

Can one of the users add it for me?

Here's the link to my book which is sold on Amazon.

Best regards, Devon Bell

https://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Summerwind-Ghostly-History-Wisconsin/dp/1626194378/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522307299&sr=8-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinder38 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cinder38. The correct place to alert interested editors to possible sources is on the article talk page. However, it looks like the comment you reference was all of four years ago, so it's not certain that this editor in particular is still actively working in the topic area. GMG ^talk 12:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cinder38, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please also note, that books and other publications should only be added if they have an encyclopedic purpose in the article, or provide additional reliable information about a topic. As you have a "conflict of interest" regarding this edit, you should read WP:COI and suggest the addition on the article's talkpage instead of adding it yourself. If you can briefly describe in your request why the addition would be useful, other editors will be more likely to add it. You can also add Template:Request edit to your article talkpage message - this template will notify other editors to check your suggestion. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Screenshots that are not what they claim to be

The Pump It Up (video game series) article is generally a disaster, but one issue in particular is that some of the screenshots on that page (for example, File:Pump_It_Up_NX_Stage_Select.jpg) aren't actually from the games they claim to be from (they're poorly-done StepMania themes, it looks like). Can I rewrite the descriptions for these files to reflect what they actually are or should I just ask for them to be deleted? I don't think they would be useful in any way. Blah2 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead, you don't need permission to edit most Wikipedia pages. If someone comes along and disagrees with your changes, then you can discuss them on the talk page of the article as per WP:BRD. Iffy★Chat -- 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

is there cpp plans for people with low income?

i was told there is a support plan for people with low income is that correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:7D1F:F9F4:197E:7722:75D0:635E (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is a forum to ask questions about using Wikipedia, and is not a general question-asking page. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for an answer, but we have an article Canada Pension Plan that might answer your question, or some of the linked references might help. Dbfirs 15:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability

My name is Liam, I am a musician. I would like to create a wikipedea page for my Music as i like to be as accessible as possible. now after reviewing the wiki guide for uploading a page. I don't believe at this stage i am notable enough As i haven't yet had major success. Would a page like this be possible or would this be a no go. This page would be strickly in the format other artists pages would be presented and i do not see this as a means to gain a following or a promotional tool. but as a informative tool for people interested enough to look. can you please get back to me and let me know if this is something that would be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLKY (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, BLKY, no notability = no page. Wikipedia is not intended to cover every possible subject. I will also say that one man's "informative tool" is another man's "spam/promotion".

Notice that the criterion for notability is not exactly "major success" but "has been written about by independent reliable sources" - which is absolutely not the same measure as artistic talent or sales or whatever of the kind, even if it is often linked.

Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

BLKY In your case, you would need to meet at least one of the criteria listed at the notability guidelines for musicians, WP:BAND(maybe you've read that already?). Per the autobiography policy, it is strongly advised that you not create an article about yourself even if you do meet the notability criteria. It is best to let others unaffiliated with you write an article about you, as that is one indication that you would be notable enough. As Tigraan notes, "informative tool" is no different than "promotional tool", at least as Wikipedia defines promotion. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Judgement of Conflicts

Some articles don't have good references but they still become notable and some pages which has good reference becomes not notable. How is the article judged on the basis of notability?--AJ5500 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@AJ5500: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to read more about notability at WP:N, the notability guidelines. Many subjects have more specific guidelines, such as WP:BAND for musicians/bands, WP:BIO for biographies, and WP:NEVENT for events. Articles must meet at least the basic notability guidelines to merit an article on Wikipedia. Without you providing specific examples it is difficult to help you, but if you wish to challenge the validity or reliability of a reference, you can do so on the relevant article's talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@AJ5500: Just to be clear, notability is a property of subjects, not articles. There are many articles with junk references, or many non-existing articles, when the topic would warrant a good, well-sourced article.

As for the logistics, when an editor finds an article and has doubts about its notability, the usual process is to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for discussion; see that link for the process. (Before listing, you are supposed to make a good-faith effort searching for sources to salvage the article.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this draft likely to be accepted?

Hello guys, yesterday i created this draft, is this likely to be accepted, because i think it has more reliable sources. Is it likely? Newroderick895 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Newroderick895, welcome to our Teahouse. At a very quick glance (and without Google translating all your sources), this doesn't look too bad at all. I note there is a Swedish wiki page which you might wish to link to after it goes through WP:AFC/is put into mainspace. Personally, I'd make the lead much shorter and move stuff like its environmental activities lower down the page. I don't like the promotional sound of the second half of this sentence: "In Sweden, Laastari has begun to work with Kronans Droghandel Apotek, the pharmacy chain that agrees that cooperation will generate mutual benefits.", so I think that should go, especially as it's a verbatim copy of a phrase used in one of your sources! I reiterate, I've not had time to check for organisational notability - which is absolutely critical - but my guess is that it probably will meet it. I hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Does that mean it is fine to google translate my sources? newroderick895 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can use Google translate to understand what a source says, but you must still cite it and write the content in your own words to avoid risk of copyright violation. (The citation templates allow you to indicate what language a reference is in.) Should you wish to translate a foreign language wikipedia page into one in English, that's also fine, but you would need to indicate where that translation comes from. There is brief but very helpful info on how to do that here: WP:TFOLWP. I hope this is what you meant. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

thank you very much for telling me, I understands right now, See you! newroderick895 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Uploading files

Hi! Is it possible to upload files with a mobile device or do i need to use PC to upload them? Not a very active user (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it's possible to upload files from a mobile device. But using a PC will be much easier. Maproom (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Not a very active user. I do most of my editing on an Android smartphone. I use the fully functional desktop site on my phone for routine editing, which works just fine. I often upload image files without too much trouble, usually using the Wikimedia Commons Android app. Sometimes the app gets sluggish and I need to reboot my phone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Uploading UK and US patent diagrams; copyright implications

Hi there,

First time in the Teahouse. Hope you can help.

I'd like to upload some diagrams in US and/or UK Patents, in order to illustrate inventions. The patents are all over 100 years old.

While I have read what I can in Wikipedia help pages, I am still confused about several aspects of the process.

Specific questions:

1. In order to upload an image in a Wikipedia article, do I upload it to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia commons?

2. If I upload an image from a US patent, I seem to be OK on the copyright front. Correct?

3. It seems I should tag the US patent image with "PD-US-patent". Where do I put this tag?

4. On the UK front, I see from The UK National Archives that Crown Copyright seems to apply to patent content, no matter how old, if earlier than 1 August 1989. However, the official UK position is that "no steps would be taken to enforce that copyright (notice of this was given in our Official Journal (Patents) on 25 June 1969)" for non-commercial use. How does Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons deal with this?

5. Is there a different place I should be asking these questions on Wikimedia Commons instead?

Thanks for any help you can give!

ElectricFeet (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@ElectricFeet: I suggest asking at WP:MCQ, which is where the folks knowledgable in copyright answer questions. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks RudolfRed. Do you (or anyone) have advice on question 1? ElectricFeet (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@ElectricFeet: That will depend on the licencing/copyright of the image. If it is out of copyright or freely licenced, then upload it to commons. Otherwise it will need to pass the criteria at WP:NFCC and then you upload it to this Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Great. That makes sense. Thanks RudolfRed! ElectricFeet (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey ElectricFeet. Works first published in the US before 1923 are fair game, otherwise it's usually 70 years after the death of the author. If it pre-1923 or post-death-plus-70-years, you can take it with Template:PD-1923 or with Template:PD-old-70 in the "Licensing" section of the file. In the US specifically, as Template:PD-US-patent indicates, patents themselves may be public domain if prior to 1989, but content of the patent (such as an illustration) as far as I know would not be covered under this and would need to go via 1923 or 70 years after death. For the UK (since you know the author and publication date of the patent) it would pretty much be 70 years after the death of the author across the board.

To upload to Commons the file needs to be public domain in both the US and the source country. If this is true, it's better to upload to Commons, and not the English Wikipedia. If it's only public domain in the US, and not in the source country (the US is generally less strict than the UK) then you can upload it to Wikipedia with Template:Do not move to Commons, and it can be later transferred to Commons when it falls totally out of copyright.

For the purposes of Commons, the content has to be public domain or licensed in a way that is compatible like CC BY SA. Being copyrighted, but not enforced is probably not going to cut it if it gets nominated for deletion. For the purpose of Wikipedia, it's probably similar, since I doubt it would be usable under our fair use policy, which is stricter than fair use laws. GMG ^talk 17:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Thanks GreenMeansGo. That's a very comprehensive response! I see now why the copyright questions are fundamental to the response to the others. ElectricFeet (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)