Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 222

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 215

←

Archive 220

Archive 221

Archive 222

Archive 223

Archive 224

Archive 225

The article on the front page is called a Featured Article but i thought that meant that it was the article hat was featured for that day on the front page... but what it really means is that there is a group of super editors that decides if an article qualifies to be classified as one of about 4500 articles on Wikipedia that are so good that they are called "featured." Now, these Featured Articles are the only ones that you can choose from if you want to nominate an article for the main (or front) page. I wanted to nominate a number of articles that are about women, their works and their activities... ie a biography, a work of art or music or drama or literature by a woman, a woman's organization, a woman's sport or biology or philosophy... because there are not very many currently showing up on the front page. Finally i found out about the page with the list of Featured Articles and when i got there i discovered there are not very many women approved...

soooo.... how does one bring articles to the attention of these super editors and where are they? LOL really this is a lot of work and no wonder so few women have been represented here... its shameful actually... half the human race is female.

fluffykerfuffle (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

2601:1:9A00:592:7ACA:39FF:FEB0:6D92 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay and on top of all that... i thought i was logged in but i guess not and so some of my activity is registered under the ip address thingie and part of my activity is registered as fluffykerfuffle... this is really really really annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffykerfuffle (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question fluffykerfuffle. I agree it would be great if we had more featured articles about prominent women.

There are pretty rigorous criteria for what makes a Featured articles, but if you find excellent articles on women that you think are up to standard (or better yet, if you'd like to try to write one), then you can nominate it to be assessed by following the directions provided here.

There are also many articles about women that have already been through the assessment process and have been ranked as featured articles. As I understand it, any of these can be nominated to appear on the landing page as "Today's Featured Article". You can nominate an article to appear on the home page by going here and following the process. For a list of eligible women's biographies that you can consider nominating, check out these lists:[1][2][3][4][5]. Good luck! Keihatsu ^talk 02:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fluffykerfuffle. We have over 20,000 Good articles, which is the second best rating after Featured articles. That's nearly five times as many. So one strategy is to work to upgrade Good articles into Featured articles. That's a less daunting challenge than writing a featured article from scratch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

great!! thank you and i will follow up on those... and good advice on using the good list too! ...i looked at the list of not-used-yet featured articles and it really looked like there were not very many females there... that is my problem, see? i cannot tell which have been used in those lists you gave me ...maybe they have already been on the main page... and maybe that is okay that they show up again...

here is the thing... you mention Notable women and yet i keep seeing such obscure little subjects in those featured articles like some obscure battle way back when in god knows when or some obscure little general who happened to be 3 times removed cousin to the 27th swedish king's wife... and the thing for me is this... i have a playlist in my itunes just for women... it not only includes female singers but also instrumentalists and composers and lyricists... and conductors!! so a song may pop up that is a classical orchestra piece that has been either written by a female, conducted by a female or a soloist in the piece is a female :D

i want to see articles like that... not just female biographies... but all the other stuff .... what i really want to see is a truthful representation of the human race that this encyclopedia is supposed to be documenting!!! 50-50  !! The human race is half male and half female !!

fluffykerfuffle (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) I wrote a featured article about a female (Masako Katsura) which was featured on the mainpage and I've been floating around this place a long time and I assure you there is no pro-male bias in assessment of articles on women. But, there is a systemic bias always at play in who writes what. What that translates to is that if more writers are American and thus choose to write about American topics, there will necessarily be more articles on American topics (we see that at play a lot in the did you know feature). By the same token, if the people who are writing top quality articles happen to write about more men, then there will necessarily be more featured articles on men. Possibly of relevance is that more editors are males than females, and *may* tend to focus more on males as topics to write about than females. None of this is the direct kind of bias I think your post implied. There is of course a historical bias that interjects here, in that the world has spent far more time focused on the exploits of males in its writing than it has on the exploits of females, so there is, from a big picture sampling view, more male topics to write about than female.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

good points Fuhghettaboutit - here is the problem i am having...

when i say i want to see things be 50-50 i dont mean 50% of the articles that have been written on men and 50% of the articles that have been written on women... when i say 50-50 i mean i want to see that for every article emphasizing a male thing there should follow (and i truely mean follow) an article emphasizing a female thing... yes yes there are nongender topics and i am not being all anal about this... just 50-50... we can do it! fluffykerfuffle (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Also another thing is it would be very neat to be able to see on the actual article page if it has ever been on the front or main page... like your article, very good by the way, she was amazing! I looked to see if there was some sort of citation saying or signifying it had already been on the main or front page... yes i know about the bronze star... something else... fluffykerfuffle (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We cannot do it unless you vastly change how Wikipedia operates in a most fundamental and top down way, which I cannot envision. You have to understand how it works. There is no central authority choosing topics to write about – not at all. Instead, in the main, this is the path: an individual editor comes to Wikipedia and writes up some subject of their own choosing that they are interested in. They polish it to a point where it's good enough for a possible featured article nomination and they do so and are succesful. There is no one handing out assignments. It's all individual editors writing about what they choose with their motivations being their own interest (almost all featured articles, by the way, are the brainchild of one person – once in a while two – but the idea that any article reaches the stage through random edits by the world with a person adding a tidbit here, and another, there until it grown to a unified and polished whole is a fiction; it has never happened once). So we are left with the pool of articles that those editors, all randomly editing by their individual lights, have chosen to focus on that have wended their way to featured status. If that pool of articles is 10% on females, 40% on males and the remaining 50% on hurricanes, we cannot place on the mainpage anything more than that ratio of topics because that's all there is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. See also Jean Balukas, a good article I wrote. She was (and is) unbelievable; I played one game with her a few years back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. Found it; here you go: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "it would be very neat to be able to see on the actual article page if it has ever been on the front or main page", this is noted not in the article itself but on its talk page. See, for example, the third beige box at the top of the talk page of yesterday's featured article. Deor (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I recently edited a page to include a radio only pressing of a CD single. I thought it was important to the track listing section as the radio CD features a remix of the single that was not commercially available but was the version radio DJ's played. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_It_Together_%28Madonna_song%29) The CD was an official release from the record company with it's own catalogue number, but another user has removed my contribution stating that 'Promotional content is not allowed in Wikipedia'. As it's not personal promotion, nor company promotion this would not apply? For example, Janet Jackson's "State of the World" single was released as a radio promo only song and it has it's own page with promo CD listings as do many other pages. Could somebody clarify? Thanks ever so. Silencegrenade (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi I would like to create a a page for Wello, a product that has been the subject of extensive media coverage by various notable sources. The 'Wello' article on Wikipedia is currently being used as a redirect page to point to the 'Wollo' page which seems a superfluous role. Is it possible to create a page for Wello the product?Antweebs (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Antweebs. It might be best to submit the proposed new article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and then if it is accepted the accepting reviewer will deal with the redirect at that time. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is twitter a reliable source for a song? like if the artist tweeted a link to the song?Camcamhamham (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance is at WP:SELFSOURCE. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I submitted an article about Alexander Haim Pekelis which was rejected because the two links were 1. A book of his essays published posthumously by Cornell University Press 1950 and 2. A memoir by his wife in Italian (Sellerio, 1996) and in English (Northwestern University Press, 2005). Though those are both reputable publishers, the article was rejected because both sources were family memebers (ie himself and wife). There are many other sources. However, some of the periodicals no longer exist and the ten (10) references/ articles (an obiturary and an letter from Pekelis himself both in the Times) in The New York Times are from 1946 or before. The latter cam be accessed online through the Times archive by individuals for a small sum which I have done, but there is no way that I can forward them to Wikipedia or link them in the Pekelis biography. Should I just note them in the source section by citing the date the article appeared. Thank you, Simona McCray 2604:2000:8587:8901:216:CBFF:FEB1:A80B (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Simona McCray. There is no requirement that the reliable sources you use in your references be available online, or be available for free. Reliable publications no longer in business are valid as well. Cite the sources fully, so that someone who wants to find the source can do so. See Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Could someone please help me edit my Wikipedia submission so that it reads less like an advertisement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fischer_Homes

Thank you, Fischer Homes (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fischer Homes. To start with, your user name violates our username policy as it is the name of a business. Please change it. Your draft article consists of promotional material for your company, masquerading as an encyclopedia article. It is written in a style similar to a brochure put out by your company. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The article should avoid superlatives and should concentrate on the history and structure of the company, rather than the marketing names you give to various types of homes your company builds. A sentence like "The company has worked with leading designers from different regions of the country to create a unique portfolio of refreshing design offerings", referenced to the company website, is not encyclopedic and is "marketing speak".

The article should rely primarily on what independent sources say about your company, not material that you have published. Please read Referencing for beginners and fix your references. Please also read our Conflict of interest guideline, and do your best to comply with it. If the article is accepted to the encyclopedia, do not edit it directly in the future. Place edit requests on the talk page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm interning at TurboVote over the summer. When I was trying to find information on the organization I went to Wikipedia but found nothing. I wrote a draft for the Wikipedia page which is currently my user page. I'm not being compensated at all for writing this, but "turbovote" is googled enough to be on ngram and I figured a website would be useful for people like me who wanted to find out more. I absolutely don't want it to read like an advertisement or infringe on any of Wiki's policies, so would be grateful for any advice from more experienced editors about the article.Maxkennedy18 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maxkennedy18. I recommend you move your draft to your sandbox page, and disclose your internship on your user page. Many editors will be of the opinion that you have a Conflict of interest even if you are not being paid. Your draft relies too much on sources that are not fully independent. Please beef up the independent sourcing, and format the references properly, following the guidance at Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I created an article for Azoi, using information from notable sources but it has been identified as promotional. Is it possible to change the article so that it meets Wikipedia guidelines and the banner is taken off?Antweebs (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Antweebs, welcome to the TeaHouse. I have removed some templates from Azoi because those issues no longer seemed present in the current version of the article. The notability of the company is still in question though, so you may wish to continue adding inline citations to independent reliable sources that discuss the company in detail. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur goes shopping. I have made further additions to the article Azoi to illustrate why the company is noteworthy and provide additional examples of media coverage. Unfortunately all the media coverage focuses on the product as it is highly innovative in nature. I've also placed links to {Azoi]] on other pages so that it is no longer an orphan. I would be most grateful if you could peruse the article and review whether it still needs to be taggedAntweebs (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

On the main JavaScript page is a section: Use as an intermediate language. It details a number of JavaScript code generators. I would like to include 2 more: PureScript and FunScript. There are no page entries for either PureScript or FunScript in wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to redirect to the main PureScript and FunScript web pages: PureScript, and FunScript. Can I add Redirect entries do this or, are redirect entries only used for wikipedia entries? MarkPawelek (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC) MarkPawelek (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC) MarkPawelek (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mark, welcome to the TeaHouse. No, I am afraid Wikipedia does not provide for redirects from Wikipedia titles to external web pages. Instead, appropriate encyclopedic information about PureScript and FunScript should be added to the main Wikipedia JavaScript article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for PureScript and FunScript might even be possible if there is enough information from independent reliable sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
20:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I have just edited the entry Information Professional. I have added content, references, and what I believe is a globalised view of the subject. Could you please give me some feedback on this - would it now be ok to remove the globalize and Refimprove warnings from the top of the page? MargRouk (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MargRouk. It seems to me that you have resolved those issues nicely, so go ahead and remove the tags at the top of the wikicode. Well done. In the future, you don't need to ask permission. You know what you are doing, so just do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback and encouragement Cullen. MargRouk (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've searched hard and long for a way to change my watchlist to display the last 7 days, permanently. An absolute failure. It always comes back to the last 3 days. Is this permanent change even possible?

Please spell it out, what do I do first, etc. For7thGen (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello For7thGen and welcome to the Teahouse! In the toolbar, click "Preferences" and then go to the watchlist tab, then you should see "Days to show in watchlist". Then change the 3 to 7. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Direct link for your convenience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, AmaryllisGardener, for your prompt (and successful) answer. We WP editors are always trying to help our readers, For7thGen (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to edit a wikipedia page that has not been updated since 2010 and need to remove some citations that are external links that no longer exist. I am new to editing wikipedia and basically need to completely re-do the entire reference section but have no clue how to do so. How do I delete all of the dead links/citations and I do I begin to create new references/citations? Can someone give me a VERY basic, easy to understand tutorial, step-by-step guide? Ca33ie (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ca33ie. If by chance you are editing the article about the organization where you are an intern, then you have a Conflict of interest and should not edit the article directly. If so, please disclose your conflict of interest. Instead, you should place edit requests on the talk page.

As for dead links, the first step is to try to find equivalent links that are live. Not every reference needs to be available online, if it is a reliable, published source on paper. Please see Referencing for beginners for technical details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's also sometimes possible to 'rescue' dead links from the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive.[6] You do that by adding the |archiveurl and |archivedate fields to the existing {{cite web}} template. Revent (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ca33ie. In addition to things that have already been suggested, you might find the information in "Wikipedia:Link rot" to be helpful, particularly the stuff in "Keeping dead links". A link doesn't necessary lose it's value to an article just because it's "dead". I suggest that you try discussing things on the article's talk page before deleting any cited sources (even dead links). That way you'll give others who may be watching the page the chance to comment. You may also want to ask about this on the article's respective Wikiproject page(s) for more feedback. You can find the Wikiproject(s) for a particular article by looking at it's talk page.- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I want to embed a picture below the opening statement, "Not to be confused with" and above the description of the topic at the top of the page, "The Philadelphia Eleven are eleven women . . .". I've read several tutorial articles and attempted to follow their advice without success. I need step by step instructions on exactly how to do this. I want the picture centered at the top, with a caption under it that says, "The Philadelphia Inquirer July 30, 1974, reprinted with permission." I wrote the newspaper for permission to use the image on my web pages including my blog http://allabozarthwordsandimages.blogspot.com/p/the-philadelphia-ordinations-and-what.html, and elsewhere. I was granted permission and not required to pay a fee. I'd be so grateful for instructions because I am unable to make sense of how to do this from the tutorials. If I need to list the pixels, how do I determine the pixels from the jpg. in my files? The picture is waiting in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alla_Bozarth/sandbox The article seems lifeless without the picture, and this one is the best choice to describe the event. Thank you so much for your help and the invitation to tea!Alla Bozarth (talk) 1:12 pm, 17 June 2014, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC+9)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alla Bozarth. Just because the newspaper granted you permission to use a photo on your blog does not mean that they granted a free license to use the photo on Wikimedia Foundation projects and everywhere else. We favor free content, freely licensed for use by anyone for any purpose anywhere. We use non free photos only under strict guidelines described at WP:NFCI. So, to use the photo in question, it must either be freely licensed under a Creative Commons license, or fall under those ten exceptions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alla Bozarth. From your user name and your statement "I wrote the newspaper for permission to use the image on my web pages including my blog", I am wondering if you are one of the women referred to in the article Philadelphia Eleven. It looks like you have been the primary editor of the article according to its page history and it also seems to be the only article you edit on Wikipedia. So, it might be a good idea for you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you have not already done so. When an editor, particularly the primary editor of an article, is perceived to be directly associated with the subject matter of an article, the reliability and neutral point of view of the article may be called into question by other editors. This has already happened on Talk:Philadelphia Eleven. Furthermore, if said editor adds pictures from their own personal websites or external links to their websites then such perceptions will only be reinforced and possibly even considered to be a form of self promotion or original research. Therefore, it might be better in such cases for the editor to leave the major editing to others by making suggestions via the article's talk page per "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest". Moreover, it might even be a good idea for the editor to officially make it known to others that they have a direct connection to the subject matter in order to avoid any misunderstandings or problems with other editors. Once something is posted on Wikipedia, it is there for anyone to edit as long as they follow the rules. Once an editor posts material about themselves or something they are closely connected to, they lose all control over it and must follow the same rules as every other editor. - Marchjuly (talk) 4:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC+9)

Thank you very much, Jim, for helping me with my question about including a photograph, and thanks to the author of Marchjuly, for your help, also. I've withdrawn the photo from the sandbox accordingly.I did not originate or write the Philadelphia Eleven article, but I did add to the Background section and edited other sections for clarity as needed. I discovered the article by accident and found so many statements and references that needed clarification or correction, for both accuracy and understanding, that I felt it imperative to tend to them. As an author who wrote one of the books cited by the original creator of the article, and as an eye and ear witness of the events with first hand documentation, my purpose was to provide accuracy and context to some of the events mentioned that would have otherwise been misunderstood. The additions in the External Links area also are about or related to the ordinations as are the sources listed in the Notes area, and not promotional of materials.

For readers who were not familiar with the structure of the Episcopal Church, I wrote an explanation that would provide understanding of the events. I clarified the purpose, nature and significance of the 1970 change of the Canon Law on women in the diaconate. In order to provide information that would avoid the likely inference from text that the Philadelphia Eleven were the first women priests in the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the American branch, I cited the Anglican women ordained before the Philadelphia Ordinations, both as deacons and priests, explaining the significance of the Anglican Consultative Council and its 1971 decision which was also the basis for the Philadelphia Ordinations. So much essential background information was missing that needed to be included for the reader to receive a comprehensive understanding of the historical nature of the event, and in order not to omit significant others whose ministries led to the Philadelphia Ordinations. No self-serving was intended, only the provision of needed information in the service of historical accuracy. Even though I am one of the Eleven, I did not bring in personal impressions, only essential facts which I knew from being present at the events mentioned, and from knowing the persons involved and their background.

I'm grateful to all the dedicated Wikipedia people who keep a sharp eye out for compliance, and I'm deeply grateful to the person who wrote the article and worked hard to compile so much data. I preserved as much of the original writing as possible, while adding data or rephrasing certain passages for clarification. It took me a long time to edit the text because I was looking for typos, misspellings, and incorrect use of Wikipedia's format for references in both my additions and in the original text as well. My inexperience with Wikipedia processes and need to go over the material many times are why there were so many entries on the editing history page, which may have given the impression that I wrote the article.

With your help and the gracious help of other Wikipedia experts, I made all the necessary corrections I could find. I'm sure it will still be apparent that different writers contributed to the article, but Wikipedia readers understand that editorial changes are often likely. I didn't want to rewrite the article, out of respect for the original work, and was careful not to change what the original author had written unless it was absolutely necessary, as in the discussion about Bishop Pike's 1965 recognition of the Rev. Phyllis Edward's ordination the previous year. This has been one of the most misunderstood elements in the account of events, not merely by the author of the article, but by the various journalists who wrote articles on which future writers based their statements. The journalists did not know Episcopal Church policy and structure, nor did they know about the ordination rite used during the era of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the confusion that the old Canon on Deaconesses had caused, and it was essential that it be clearly explained. I knew Phyllis Edwards and the nature and purpose of Bishop Pike's recognition of her as a deacon virtue of her ordination by laying-on-of-hands the year before, in the same way that male and female deacons had been ordained historically. His intention was to end the confusion, and though it was instrumental in leading to the ousting of the anachronistic Canon Law on Deaconesses five years later, at the time it was misunderstood and misrepresented by secular journalists. That was one of the more serious misrepresentations that required attention and correction.

My editing was to take care that the meaning and context of historical events were described as accurately as possible. I hope that explains why I felt no conflict of interest. I tried to approach the material as objectively as possible, as a scholar of church history, separating my own participation in the events from the editing of the material in the original article as well as I could. The sections edited for content did not have to do with me, but with the women ordained before who had served the Church so well. To overlook them would be to imply that they were not the ordained women they and their ordaining bishops knew them to be. It would have been a grievous omission. I wanted so much for someone else to do the work, but none of the others still living and sufficiently knowledgeable came forward. It had to be done, and I was able to do it.

Thank you again for your concerns, Jim, and the author of Marchjuly. I appreciate the invitations to join you in the Teahouse, and hope that you, Marchjuly, are enjoying your time away and will feel greatly refreshed by your break. Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alla Bozarth (talk • contribs) Revision as of 23:32, 18 June 2014

Hi again Alla Bozarth. Sometimes even the appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to raise concern among other editors. Stuff that you have firsthand knowledge of may indeed be true, but it still may be considered to be "original research" by others unless it is properly cited by reliable third-party sources. So, if you're going to edit articles that you have a direct connection to, then it's probably a good idea to explain this relationship on either your user page or the article's talk page to avoid any misunderstandings. Furthermore, in such cases it's probably best to discuss any edit that might be seen as controversial on the article's talk page first before editing the article. This gives other editors a chance to comment and a consensus to be reached. Being an expert on a particular subject matter does not mean you cannot edit on Wikipedia, it just means you have to be careful on how you proceed. You might find the information in both Wikipedia: Expert editors and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to be helpful. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey teahouse, I really need something time-consuming to do. Any ideas? Thanks, SkaterLife (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SkaterLife, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have already been busy training and editing - congratulations for taking it seriously. If you are looking for more to do, there are plenty of projects that work on particular subject areas. Pick one or two that interest you, and where can make a contribution - see Wikipedia:WikiProject#Finding_a_project.

Alternatively, if you want to practice a particular skill then you could look at the lists of pages needing attention at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs. For example, I wanted to improve my referencing so I worked through a bunch of pages from Category:Pages with missing references list. And the Wikipedia:Community_portal also lists areas looking for assistance. So there is plenty to keep you busy. Enjoy! --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could start by reading up on things like page protection and user names for admin attention, so that you see what criteria are required to justify a request. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha, Guessing my request was denied. And yeah, I'll read up on those.SkaterLife (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned before: another way to find Wikiprojects is to look on the Talk page of an article which interests you, to see what projects (if any) it belongs to. For example, the National Library of China belongs to two: WikiProject Libraries and WikiProject China. I hope this helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the English Wiki article "Rosa Benozzi Balletti" is a stub, and there is a very good Italian Wiki article on the same person, "Silvia Balletti." I want to add a link (on the left sidebar) from the English page to the Italian page, and vice versa. I tried clicking on the "edit links" tool and filled in the 3-field dialogue box but the neither page was changed. I also tried to find help on this tool in the Wikipedia help pages and the Wikidata help pages and could not find anything relevant. (PS - you used to be able to do this very simply by editing the article page itself, but not anymore - why does it have to be so difficult now?) Thanks for help, Bmwilcox (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bmwilcox: I had a look; it was not working because the Italian language article was incorrectly associated with a Parisian cathedral on Wikidata - not a common problem to encounter so hopefully your next interlanguage link will be more straightforward. It should be corrected now, and you should see the Italian article link on the left bar. The change was made because as the number of Wikipedia language increased, listing each one on each page became inefficient (the total number of links increased at (N-1)^2, while with a centralized system (Wikidata) they increase at N). You can get the full details at Help:Interlanguage links and WP:Wikidata. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bmwilcox. I added that link for you. The Italian Wikipage is titled it:Silvia Balletti which might explain why you were having trouble. More information can be found at Interlanguage links. Since the English article is only a stub, information from the Italian page can probably be translated into English and used as long as it is properly credited using {{translated page}}. If you do not have either the time or the inclination to do the translation yourself, then you can request that it be translated by adding {{Expand Italian}} to the English article per. Hope that helps. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr, for fixing the underlying problem, making the changes for me, and providing the links to the help pages. Wish someone had thought to put them on the "Edit links" tool - I spent about 10 minutes trying to find them and couldn't because "Interlanguage" wasn't a word that occurred anywhere in the tool dialogue. Thanks, Marchjuly, for the info on translate requests - I've done as you suggest. I appreciate the instant, real-time help! Bmwilcox (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse - I am a Qmee user and noticed they don't have a Wiki page. I wrote one out and I don't want it to read like an ad at all - I think it would just be useful for people who are thinking of using it for the first time, but it was rejected for being too promotional! Do you have any advice on how to change this? Anything I've received so far has just been very vague! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Qmee&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks Yelaness (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Yelaness, welcome to the TeaHouse. You seem to have had a previous contribution about Qmee deleted for being too promotional, but Draft:Qmee has not been deleted, it has merely been declined for not providing sufficient references to independent reliable sources that talk about Qmee in detail. You can learn more about those requirements by clicking the links in the decline reason on the draft page itself.

To comment briefly on the references you do have so far on that page; Qmee's FAQ is obviously not independent (it's what the organisation says about itself); the lovemoney.com link appears to be user-generated content so it is not a reliable source; the karasdealsandsteals link appears to be a dead link; the nibletz.com link might perhaps qualify as an independent reliable source although it is a very weak one as it's merely some brief commentary on Qmee based on a quick chat with a Qmee member of staff at a tech show. So overall the reviewer is correct there is not yet enough there to prove the notability of the product or organisation. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to write an article about Proplend who is a peer to peer lending as Proplend's competitors all have articles on Wikipedia (Wellesley & Co, Assetz, Zopa, Rate Setter, Funding Circle, LendInvest) - but I keep getting rejected! 86.164.252.239 (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is, has the company received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? A Google search shows only 2,830 matches - none of which appear significant, so, currently, Proplend does not appear to be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.
Google hits are not a good measure of notability, but my totally fictional user name gets 6,240 matches, whilst my real-life company gets 176,000 matches and I don't think that deserves a Wikipedia article. As for trying to draw comparisons with other companies, this is not an acceptable argument on Wikipedia - please see WP:Other stuff exists. - Arjayay (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also the case that you were editing under usernames (Proplend and Proplend Limited) that are against policy and have been blocked by an Admin because of it. You are more than welcome to create a new account, appeal your block on your talk page, or request a name change and work your article through the peer reviewed draft process for feedback and critique. Regards, dsprc ^[talk] 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in building up a short list of articles about creatives and writers that I'd like to create/contribute to. I've read that there's a list of stubs that might have potential as fully developed articles. Where can I find this? And is there any reason why this might not be a good approach? MF SarahHorner (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Culture#Writers you will find an index of the categories of articles about writers which have been classified as stubs. This allows you to select an area in which you are most interested; so, if you click on one of these categories - like Category:American novelist, 1920s birth stubs you will finds a list of the 68 articles in that particular sub-category. Hope that helps you help the project - Arjayay (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you Arjayay. I've also been searching for the 'etiquette' on contributing verifiable links. Is it okay just to add or is there a protocol for notifying the original author of changes?

MF SarahHorner (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No-one OWNS any article on Wikipedia - you do not need to inform anyone if you alter any article, you are encouraged to be BOLD. If, however, any of your amendments are reverted, you should follow the BRD cycle, leave the article as it was after the revert (do not reinstate your additions} and discuss it on the article's talk page. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. BRD it is, Arjayay. MF SarahHorner (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi teahouse - thanks ahead. I submitted an article about fundraising for a little girl with SanFillipo Syndrome. It is a rare genetic disease & her parents took to GoFundMe to raise money for the clinical trials needed (in essence it is an orphan drug). They recently broke the crowd funding record on GoFundMe (by using a video that went viral) & have also been on many local, national & international news outlets (The Today Show (NBC), 60 Minutes Australia) to name a few. Can someone help me out? This article has absolutely nothing to do with me and can be restructured to talk about breaking a fundraising record, if I wasn't clear enough about that in the original article. Oddly, not only was it rejected, it was marked for speedy deletion? Thank you. -HopeHopesypert (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hopesypert, what was the title of the article you created? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hopesypert. Although every draft article is judged individually, I think that most experienced editors are likely to be skeptical of an article about a fundraising campaign to raise money for medical research to benefit one sick child. Please read the policy page What Wikipedia is not with attention to sections 2.3 and 2.5. Instead, you might want to consider improving the article about Sanfilippo syndrome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I uploaded 3 logos to a page I was editing before I got the right size/shape. I now want to delete the logos I'm *not* using and keep just the *current* logo. Does anyone know how to do that? I got this message in my email so it looks like they'll be deleted anyway if I do nothing? Orphaned non-free image File:FSI Logo vertical RGB.jpg[edit] ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:FSI Logo vertical RGB.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)********* Ksg15 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ksg15 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your image is tagged because you need to use it in an article or it will be automatically deleted. You can't request deletion of old versions (assuming the latest has not been deleted), they are kept in perpetuity, which I think is kind of odd but that's the way it is. I recommend that you add the image to an article as soon as possible, then remove the tag.  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I succeeded in uploading an image and inserting it into the draft article. But I only want it to be a thumbnail. Is there a nifty piece of code which can alter the size?

MF SarahHorner (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MF SarahHorner and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use code like this [[File:YOURFILENAME.XXX|thumb|250px|right|Type your caption here]]. You can change right to left depending which side of the page you want the image. Hope this helps!  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@MF SarahHorner: (e/c) Hey Sarah just place in the image code "|NUMBER px", e.g.,

[[File:Val Hennessy, journalist, portrait by Phyllis Dupuy.jpg|thumb|300 px|Val Hennessy, journalist, portrait by Phyllis Dupuy]]

You can just copy and paste that and then play with the number of px, but please note the following fixes: I took out "framed", I took out the stray "]" next to "thumbnail", and changed that to just "thumb", and I removed the URL from the description. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philg88 andFuhghettaboutit - thank you for your response - yes, I discovered that I had to take out the framed option to get the 'thumb' to work. How good to know it was as simple as that. I do try and find the answer elsewhere before I ask a Teahouse question, but it's great knowing there's a place to ask. MF SarahHorner (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's what the Teahouse is here for. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear wikipedists, I can't wrap my head around the possibility of setting up citing templates at my own wiki in a manner similar to the regular wikipedia. What I want to do is to just type in text <ref>{{cite doi | 10.doi}} </ref> and than in the references section </references> resulting in a nice formated citation used throughout the wikipedia. Which templates should I create and what should I fill them in with? I'm quite lost.94.113.101.41 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a few very tech savvy people who can answer this question much better than I – maybe they'll drop by – but in the meantime, since your question seems to be languishing, here's a partial answer to the best of my ability. Many templates cite other templates so you have to import every template that is involved. You also have to enable all of the extensions that the templates run on. In order to set up and use the <ref> elements and <references />, you must enable mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php. To use cite doi as is, it looks like you will have to import also {{Fullurl}} (and any templates it uses); {{Doi}} (and any templates it uses); and so on and I see a whole bunch of other templates and modules transcluded on that page when I go here and scroll down to a list, and I don't know if you need to import those and everythinng they use in turn and so on in some sort of deeper and deeper nesting, Matryoshka doll nightmare. Hope this helps a little bit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. There is a mediaWiki help forum at mw:Project:Support desk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wassim mallouli (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC) hi, i just want to know if i can make a wikipedia page for someone not famous or someone that if you google him you can't find him. suggestion: wikipedia for everyone! it must need time but i think it's a good idea (it's only a suggestion)Wassim mallouli (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wassim mallouli and welcome to the Teahouse! Creating an article for someone not famous/notable would be going against Wikipedia's notability policy which says that you must have multiple significant, independent, and reliable sources to pass the notability requirement. Especially biographies of living people. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

To expand a little bit on the previous answer, notable as we use that term on Wikipedia is not the same as "famous", as that term is commonly used elsewhere. Many notable people are not at all famous. For example, all state and provincial legislators, and all Olympic athletes are considered notable. But most people wouldn't call the members of the Iowa state legislature in 1874 or members of the 1928 Norwegian Olympic team "famous". Feel free to write biographies of such people. Sources are out there, with sufficient digging. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328 for adding to my answer, that's what I meant to say. I shouldn't have used the two terms interchangeably. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How are redirects edited? I see a category that has a page within it but the extra page is not needed. The page title should match the category title or they should be switched. How can I make this change?Efbeechwood (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Which page/category are you referring to? This will help us give a better answer. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For example: when you search aluminum composite panels, it redirects to sandwich panel. This is inaccurate. It should be the other way around. There are many kinds of sandwich panels (insulated composite panels, fire core panels, etc.) but an ACP is an ACP. Efbeechwood (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Efbeechwood: You can edit the pages by using a URL like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:REDIR&redirect=no Just replace the "WP:REDIR" with whatever the page name is you're trying to edit; in your case it would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminium_composite_panels&redirect=no . dsprc ^[talk] 18:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, (if you want to avoid having to edit the url) when you search for the name of a redirect you will get the target page, with a "(redirected from whatsis)" hatnote. "Whatis" is a link to the redirect page, and then you can edit it normally from there. Revent (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

An editor, Mcgeddon, has been removing posts vindictively. I have looked at his talk page, and others have also noticed that he seems to bear grudges against people he deems unworthy, and to remove their posts frequently. After a discussion about how I added my name to my alumni list, he removed the link.

Then, when I disagreed, he removed the whole thing

After I disagreed again, and reposted it in a form that was more in coordination with his ideals, he removed not only my posting, but several others on the same page.

He has been retaliating against me on my university's webpage, that of Kennesaw State University, by removing parts of it in response to my complaints against him.

I noticed that he seemed to be taking out vendettas against people when I pointed out that he had been in the same issue with an artist from South Africa, in a discussion from his talk page.

He acknowledged that he had done so, and his reason was that the article was about a white person from South Africa.

He is obviously better at using Wikipedia to control the information that people receive but is not being an ethical editor. To whom can I go about this serious concern.

Carl Spencer Krendel (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See this discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [7] - Wikipedia isn't a platform for personal promotion in political campaigns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been corrected by 1. a vandal, and 2. a user who calls himself "a grump. Now I know never to read wikipedia.
Thanks. Carl Spencer Krendel (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carl Spencer Krendel. I am sorry to hear that you are having problems with another editor. In a heated discussion when emotions are running high, it's easy for an editor to get frustrated and post something contrary to Wikipedia policy; Something that they may later come to regret. That is why in such cases, many editors choose to go take their dogs for a walk as a way of taking a step back and letting things cool down. You may think you're totally justified in referring to this other editor as having a "serious political vendetta", "vindictive", "a vandal" or "not being an ethical editor", but those are considered to be personal attacks and are not the best way to try and make your case. In fact, they could actually be used against you and lead to a block or other sanction being applied to you. There are various ways to try and resolve disputes with other editors as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but a key thing to remember is to always try and comment on content and not on the other editor. If you feel that this other editor is acting contrary to Wikipolicy, then you have to make your case using Wikipolicy. In general, if you're having a disagreement with another editor over content, you should try discussing it on the article's talk page first so that other editors can comment. If you can back up your assertion using Wikipolicy, then a consensus will likely be reached supporting your position. If, however, your dispute is more about another editor's behavior, then you should try in good faith to resolve the matter via their talk page. If their behavior continues, then you can try WP:RFCC or WP:ANI, but be advised that reporting someone means that your actions will also come under scrutiny and may lead to other editors recommending that action be taken against you. Good luck with whichever path you choose to follow. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I add the infobox I created in my sandbox to the article I'm drafting? (I can't seem to figure out how to add an infobox to the article,let alone how to import the one I created in my sandbox.) Thanks!Blitzenrupff (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Blitzenrupff: Hey Blitzenrupff. Just copy all of the code from your sandbox (except "{{User sandbox}}" and "<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->" of course), go to the draft article, paste it at the top, then click save. Yep, that simple. I suspect the issue you were having is that templates are often transcluded or substituted from where they reside to a new location, but what you have in your sandbox is not a template you created but an existing template that you filled out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It worked! Thanks, Fughettaboutit. Much appreciated!Blitzenrupff (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the page about Curtis Lee and noticed that it mention two groups who had covered the song but did not list a third that I knew of from watching them on Youtube and this was Sha Na Na performing Pretty Little Angel Eyes in one of their performances on their variety show. Many times I will add some information to a page and it will be deleted and I am wondering if the information shown on my sandbox page would work within the rules.

Kargandarr (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kargandarr. I am sorry but I have to disagree with your edits here. Mention of cover versions should be in Pretty Little Angel Eyes, not Curtis Lee. And we need references to reliable sources. For an example, take a look at a song article I wrote, They Call the Wind Maria. I listed many cover versions and every one is properly referenced. Did Curtis Lee write those songs, or was he just the first to have hits singing them? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what i wanted to know before i changed the actual page that the text came from. Thanks for the information.

Kargandarr (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at your page and I might have gotten the idea. I went and copied the coding for the "Pretty Little Angel Eyes" song page and made a few changes to that. Can I get an opinion on the new page text to see if that will be satisfactory.

Kargandarr (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

When I add a line to this box in an existing article it does not show up in the read mode. How do I edit the template. I also noticed that some existing lines in the box are visible in edit mode but not read?Robpater (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robpater - it's always good to give as many details as you can. For example, providing the line of code you're having trouble with is useful. You can also link to the edit itself, which is obtainable from the page's history.

Anyway, I'm assuming you're referring to this edit, where you tried to add a "supported host" parameter. That's not a proper parameter for the infobox; you can see a list of accepted parameters at Template:Infobox OS. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

My first few Wikipedia pages have all been met with the same response, that they are too 'promotional' - I have gone back through each of them and attempted to remove anything that might be considered promotional in tone or content and been met with the same response again. I wondered if anyone could offer more specific advice on what I need to do differently.

By way of reference, the drafts in question are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IGaming_Business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bluff_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jackpots_Review

Thanks. Alessandro Diamanti (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Alessandro. It all boils down to presenting the article in a neutral tone. Have you had a look at these guidelines?. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Alessandro Diamanti. I will comment on the first. It is not encyclopedic to call a magazine "award winning" in the first sentence, espcially when the award in question is a routine and non-notable industry award. Statements like "the sector's most widely-circulated print publication with a readership of more than 10,000 people in more than 40 different countries" raises the question, "who says so?" and must be cited to an independent source. Phrases like "key decision-makers" and "Its audience is comprised primarily of C-level executives and decision makers" are examples of promotional language that don't belong in an encyclopedia article.. We need to see references to significant coverage of the publication in independent, reliable sources, which are not yet in the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thanks for the reply. I would contest the description of the award in question as 'routine and non-notable', but I accept that it could be moved lower down than the first line. With regards to the readership, do you know if there is an equivalent of something like ABC circulation figures for trade press? If so, I'll look there. Finally, I'll remove those 'promotional' phrases before I submit it again, as per your suggestion. Thanks.

Alessandro Diamanti (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Some weeks ago a created two articles on footballers - sadly, these were deleted as they hadnt made a "Professional League Appearance"

With one of them likely to do so this season, can artilces be re-instated or will I / Someone have to do another..

ProudSalopian (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ProudSalopian. Once the player has appeared, and been written about, you can write an article about them, but probably not just on the expectation that they will appear. See WP:NSPORT for the appropriate criteria. When you think that they have achieved the required notability, if you want to start from your deleted copy, you can ask the admin who deleted the article to userfy it for you. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)