Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 309

This is an current talk page .

So I am attempting to make a page on the new Dave Davies album but I don't know how to do the picture of the album, group name, label, length, and genre opener that always greets people when they open the page on an album. How do I construct that opener for an album that is the standard Wikipedia format that is used in most album articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua0228 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! I think you are looking for the Infobox which can be found at Template:Infobox album. If you need anything don't hesitate to contact me at my talk page! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to appropriately edit our company (PMC-Sierra, Inc.) history pages, which is currently loaded with a bunch of one-liners about "In 200X, XXX people were laid off... In 20XX, XXX people were laid off... and on and on. It's not fair and it's not an accurate representation of our history. What can be done?

Ron

rmay2007

Rmay2007 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there lines of when the company was founded and milestones? I wrote on Rockview Farms you can check. Deesm (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Rmay2007, the information you removed was referenced and no valid reason was given for its removal. As you pointed out it is baldly written as a list, but that is a reason to copy-edit not delete. By your own statement "I am trying to appropriately edit our company" and "not an accurate representation of our history" it's clear that you have a Conflict of interest and should not edit the article - and certainly not just deleting information to make it more palatable to your company. If any of the information is factually wrong, or you have good references for other history that would make it less negative, I would suggest adding such information/requests for change to the talk page of the article. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Rmay2007, I have updated the history to reduce the list style - but all the information remains. A company having multiple rounds of redundancy is just as important as the acquisitions that you didn't attempt to delete. However now I think it represents the company as having had a bad number of years, but has since been growing/acquiring. I'm not a good copy-editor but hopefully its better. KylieTastic (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me if my article about RealSelf has enough notability? Also, let me know if there are any reference format changes that I need to complete. I'm still a beginner and would love the feedback! I want to make sure everything is correct.

Thanks! Realsimone Realsimone (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Realsimone, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, definitely, I would say that has enough notability and the references are fine. I would recommend that you add the "|date=" parameter to the cites (I added a couple), because often it's important when an article was published. I also added a "Cite needed" tag to one of the statements. If you can find a source for that, you can go ahead and delete the tag, or delete the statement, as it doesn't seem all that important to the article as a whole. Once you do that, I think it's ready to submit. Good job, thanks for adding this. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindly update the awards and nominations received by Kpop boy band Got7. I am fan. I knew they have already 16 awards for groups and 3 individual awards. but only 3 are recorded. These are: BEST KPOP ROOKIE GROUP OF 2014 from 1) SBS POP ASIA, 2)6th PHILIPPINES KPOP CONVENTION AWARDS, 3)2014 EATYOURKIMCHI AWARD and 4) 2014 INTERNATIONAL K-MUSIC AWARD (I.K.M.A) -JAPAKO MUSIC Another award for BEST NEW ARTIST from 5)2014 SBS MTV BEST OF BEST, 6)KPOP + MUSIC AWARDS 2014 and 7)JPOPASIA MUSIC AWARDS 2014(KPOP CATEGORY and 8)2014 SOOMPI AWARDS And also ASIAN NEW GROUP AWARD at 9)2014 YOUKU NIGHT other awards: 10) BEST FANDON VOTING in TWITTER, 2nd place. For individual award: There are 3. JACKSON for 11) MALE HOTTEST STAR at 6th PHILIPPINES KPOP CONVENTION AWARD, 12) BEST NEWCOMER ON VARIETY SHOW at 2014 SBS AWARDS and 13) BEST VARIETY STAR at 2014 SOOMPI AWARDS. Please update. Thank you. Jonah514 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Referencing for beginners for instructions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

02:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonah514 this suggestion is something best placed on the Talk: Got7 page, where you can discuss it with other editors that work on that article. :) Peachywink (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The talk page on the Universal Medicine article is a mess Talk:Universal Medicine. Responses are posted in the middle of paragraphs asking questions, and there are cites at the bottom of the page that related to a section rewrite that now sits no where near them.

What's the correct WP etiquette for editing the page to try and bring some sense of order and therefore meaning to it so the discussion can be followed by all and entered in to by anyone who is interested? 79616gr (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have changed the url in your question to a

wikilink. I have added {{reflist-talk}} templates to 2 sections of the talk page to keep the references in the sections to which they belong, but in both cases there seemed to be attempts to use at least one named reference without having defined it. I'll leave someone else to answer the rest, but if someone has posted responses in the middle of questions it might be wise to point this out to the relevant editor on their user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk

) 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I realise now that in at least one of these cases the person posting to the talk page has copied material from one part of the article without worrying about whether this leaves references undefined when they are pasted into the talk page. Hopefully anyone sufficiently interested in the detail will be able to follow to where the detail is given in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph that's a big help. 79616gr (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

My first article, updated one time, was in my sandbox and was deleted on the fast-track process. I believed the sandbox was a place where items in development would receive feedback. I am now puzzled. Do I start over or am I permanently barred from participating? titantenor 2601:D:3780:E33:980B:9C17:EF7:392D (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Titantenor. Your sandbox, as shown in its deletion log entry, was a blatant copyright infringement of existing copyrighted text, which was the

notability of the topic. That is not a problem that would have resulted in speedy deletion, but it was one that would have kept the article from being accepted. So please bear that in mind – citing reliable sources is the key to the Wikipedia kingdom. The best way to write an article is to gather sources, digest them, and then let what they say guide your writing hand (in your own words, but citing to them) rather than writing what you know and then trying to back into sources later, if they exist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 21:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to write a new page and an entity offered to pay me for my time. They won't have any control over the content but is this still a form of prohibited paid editing? Deesm (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes that would qualify as paid editing, but if your article is unbiased and well written it is ok. There is no specific rule against paid editing, but there is against biased articles. Read

WP:PAY for tons more information! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!}

) 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To editor

must disclose your affiliation. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs

) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. And disclosing does not reduce the chances of an article being accepted? I guess well written is the key. 2602:30A:2C89:9E50:21C:B3FF:FEB8:28C8 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral is the first key. Reliable independent sources is the second. I.E. avoid press releases and company published information as far as you can. You should insure that there is "significant coverage" (I.e. more than a passing mention, or directory entry) from "multiple reliable independent sources" or the company is likely to be deemed not yet notable enough for an article. Good luck and... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

For instance, I discovered something called { { od } } (extra spaces inserted to prevent the margin-shift within this question) in an article. It shifted the discussion off indent and back to the left margin. But what does { { od } } mean, and stand for? And where would be a comprehensive list of Wikipedia markup language? Bruiserid (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki markup has a brief general introduction and a link to a very detailed internal document about Wikipedia's own use. Jim.henderson (talk

) 23:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bruiserid. {{od}} stands for outdent. Also, you can use <nowiki></nowiki> tags to show markup like I did with {{od}}. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bruiserid. In addition to the comments above, I have found the Cheatsheet useful. If you want the details about a specific template (such as {{od}}) then you can just go to the normal Wikipedia search box and search for "Template:OD". This will tell more everything you could ever want to know, and more, about OD. In Wikipedia coding terms, a "template" is included inside double braces ({{...}}). Also, if you want to know how to do a specific task, such as making lists, then you can search for "Wikipedia:Lists" or just "WP:Lists" for short. And if all else fails, you can always come back and ask at the Teahouse! --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I just found a far more comprehensive listing, in case you need it, at

Help:Wiki markup. Hope this helps! --Gronk Oz (talk

) 00:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an editor that is making (what I consider to be) offensive and off-topic questions/remarks/edits on the TP. I have already spoken to them on their personal talk page about it, but they do not seem to care. What should I do? Darknipples (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - Topic replicated and covered above in section "Possible WP:UNCIVIL". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you please help me by giving me information of getting back my wikipedia account from deletion by the authority due to speedy deletion criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monirlawbd (talk • contribs) 06:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Monirlawbd, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account itself is not up for deletion, but rather the page you've written.

Please understand that Wikipedia is not for advertising, publicity, or social networking. If you want to have an article about an organization on Wikipedia, you need to find a significant number of reliable, independent sources that discuss it in detail (

more information

).

You should go to

Articles for creation to rewrite the article, so there is a lesser chance of it being deleted. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs

) 07:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, on the criticism of Wikipedia page, should there be a section that points out criticisms of the Treahouse on the English Wikipedia? like to know th. Thanx. Frogger48 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, @

reliable, published sources. If the Teahouse has received criticism that has been covered in such sources (such as news sources, articles, journals, etc.), then it could potentially be added - but there hasn't been much coverage, if at all, as far as I'm aware. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs

04:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there has been quite a bit of coverage of the Teahouse in reliable sources, and you can find links to five instances of such coverage in a yellow box at the top of the Teahouse talk page. The problem for Frogger48's proposal is that the coverage has been mostly positive instead of critical. If someone writes a critical article about the Teahouse hosts, I hope they mention me. I can always use some constructive criticism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What about critiscisms of Wikipedia from

racial realists and white supremacists/black supremacists? Frogger48 (talk

) 06:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia is unavoidable. In fact nowadays almost everything get criticized as different people have different opinions. We can not cover every opinion here on Wikipedia. But widely criticized areas usually mentioned. I believe we should first try to fix those issues rather than chasing after more criticism.--Chamith (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

{{ Hey, thanks for the help, your article could uuse a section on Wikipedia and

cyberbulling though.Frogger48 (talk

) 08:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi I am writing articles about former football players . Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.190.120 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to. What help do you need?Save Draft (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK I'm baffled. God Moves on the Water turns up (wrongly) under "C" in Category:Works about RMS Titanic. But (correctly) under "G" in Category:Blind Willie Johnson songs, Category:1929 songs and Category:Blues song stubs. W - as they say - tf? Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

PS I added that totally unnecessary DEFAULTSORT tag only to see if it made any difference. It didn't. Narky Blert (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Ok, I've gone ahead and fixed the issue for you. See what I did here. When adding a Category, don't put any of "|" in it. They will change where it appears in the listing. Just list each category individually. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See more at Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: @PrimeHunter: Gottit, thanks! (Slaps self on head, I've used that pipe trick before now to force list articles and the like to the head of a category, outside the alphabetic list.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The articles that talk about pseudoscience seem to be pro-skeptic and anti-pseudoscience, in that the article are harsh towards the topics. What do you thing about this? ex. Naturopathy article labels natural medicine as dangerous and harmful. Frogger48 (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be neutral but true as well. and it is true that they are dangerous as no proper scientific procedure or belief is used. though it may hurt some peoples' feelings, we can't help it.

For example; venomous snakes: like a cobra for instance. Cobra usually doesn't attack and bite until threat displayed. But when they do it is dangerous and thus it is there.

~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 08:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand. But, Lots of links used in these articles are from orgs that promote the Skeptic movement (like the Skeptic's Dictionary). Are sources like theses reliable, by standards of Wikipedia?Frogger48 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a whole noticeboard,

WP:FRINGE/PS. Nthep (talk

) 10:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I submitted an article about the pianist and composer Arik Strauss and it was declined for reasons I don't understand. I was asked for sources and I don't know what is needed by that. I did put in external links reviews on his work posted in two important jazz music sites. Is it not enough? I await your reply. Thank you.ציפור שיר (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the grey box inside the pink box at the top of your draft it says: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you." The words which appear in blue in the original message are

wikilinks, which in each case take you to useful information which ought to answer your question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs

) 11:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You will see that the same message, with the same links, appear in the feedback message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello David Biddulph. Thank you for your reply. As you advised I briefed through the instructions concerning adding inline citations and references to an article, but I still have a problem doing it. I wrote the article based on personal acqaintance with the musician and on the info he gave me. I don't have references except, maybe, those reviews I put in external links. Maybe he can find some more articles from before 25 years. He can try and look it up, but why couldn't it be accepted withouth it? (In the Hebrew version it was accepted as is). Please instruct me further. Again thank you.ציפור שיר (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia if there are no published

original research and is not acceptable as a source for an English Wikipedia article. The Hebrew Wikipedia may, of course, have different criteria, but they do not affect us here. If the subject receives published coverage at some stage in the future then of course an article can be written then. - --David Biddulph (talk

) 13:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please i am New to WIKI but i am interested in becoming an Editor i have started with a New topic on RAY BLAZE but was refused due to Citation and i have tried to read on how this works but Since am New still looking for may way around. Any Help will be Really appreciated on how to get the minimum standard for inline citations of my Article. Henryokeyia (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Two pages that will hopefully help you out:

this page explains the sort of citations that you need - many of those in your draft are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲_水

15:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I undid an edit on the page Mauritius starling on the status section wich reported it as extinct by the IUCN but if you search for the species on the IUCN it doesn't appear so I undid it but this morning I came to see that an user has undid my edit how can I leave a message to him about the reasons I did it?Owlsofeurope (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Owlsofeurope. If you click on the "View history" tab at the top of any page, you can see a list of edits made to it - for

WP:TALK. Yunshui ^雲_水

15:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

2601:6:1500:9600:9984:C4CE:15D5:E405 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It feels to much like a ad. Try rewriting it in a encyclopedic way.

Hello, 2601:6:1500:9600:9984:C4CE:15D5:E405. I'm afraid that you and your client are under a misconception about Wikipedia. To first approximation, Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject (whether a person or an organisation) has to say about themselves, or what they have published. Wikipedia is mostly interested in what other people, unconnected with the subject, have written about the subject, and published in reliable places. Ideally, every single piece of information in an article should be individually referenced to a reliable published source, and most of them to sources unconnected with the subject. I can't easily look at the references in your draft above, but it does not look to me as if many of them, if any, are independent articles that write substantially about SmileCareClub (The Nashville Business Journal looks from its title as if it might). You need to find several such sources, all unconnected with the SmileCareClub or its funders, and base the article should say almost nothing that is not in one of these sources.

Further, the article should be written in a neutral way, and take into account all published views on the subject (critical as well as approving). This is difficult for somebody connected with the subject to do, which is why editing with a

Paid editing

in particular is rather strongly discouraged, (and in my personal opinion, any organisation or person who pays somebody to work on a Wikipedia article about them creates the presumption that they are doing so for their own interests rather than Wikipedia's).

So, if you wish to continue, you need to declare your paid status (preferable create a Wikipedia account, in order to have a static user page on which to do this); find substantial independent writing about the organisation, published in reliable places, and base your writing pretty well exclusively on those; read the links above, and also about

your first article; and use the article wizard to draft it in a separate workspace and then submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk

) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Kind Regards, Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. While we can't change the behavior of other editors, I can suggest a few things. Make sure all contributions are supported by

reliable sources. Second, make good use of edit summaries explaining what and why you are doing something, maybe making reference to your post on the talk page. Third don't remove too much content in one edit. This concerns editors into instant reversion without thinking. Do it in steps with explanations for each removal. Good luck! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!}

) 22:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings here in the Teahouse to you Lucentcalendar. Your comment has piqued my interest quite a bit and I have been very busy in the sexism article trying to get it cleaned up. It reads more like a magazine article to me. I just wanted to point out one thing at this point, and that is that there are really no senior editors. We all have the same rights and responsibilities and privileges. I invite you to return to the sexism article and give me some of your thoughts.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I moved an article to its correct title, because I thought it was a new article. However, the article was a 2006 redirect that was correct, but had been incorrectly turned into an article on a different topic (where I moved it).

Can anyone fix the mess or tell me how to, as it seems that edit histories are very important and the original redirect with its edit history should remain.

I turned

I'll have a quick look and see if I can. For future reference Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is a good place for this sort of thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. It seemed straigth-forward, as if the article had just been created and left uncategorized, though. I am a little lost in the mess, and I appreciate the help. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's done, there was a little confusion as the page you changed was

Tuberous sclerosis complex ... both now redirect to Tuberous sclerosis. All the best: Rich Farmbrough

, 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

That's why when I looked again, it looked like it had been done on one end. Thanks! MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I created a sign-in but don't know how to id myself in these posts. Thanks for your help. jeannef 2601:6:1500:9600:9984:C4CE:15D5:E405 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. You currently aren't signed into your account, which is why you appear to be editing from an IP address. Head over to Special:UserLogin to log into the account you created. You can then sign your posts as you just did, by instering four tildes (~~~~) after your message. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Another way to log in is the "Log in" option in the top right corner of the screen. (This is on a PC; not sure where it is if you're using a phone.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I think an article should be created on the chips Australian snack food "Grain Waves". I have attempted and failed. I found this place on Wikipedia called articles for creation but I didn't understand it. I thought it might have been a place where you suggest an article to be made but I don't know. The snack itself is notable enough to warrant an article. It's is as notable as anything in the product list Here. You Can easily find references for it. If someone where to create it I would definitely contribute. But it's the initial creation process I am struggling with. Ping me of a reply. DangerousJXD (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@

red-linked). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S.

articles for creation is a guided forum for users to write an article and then submit it for review and acceptance. There is a dedicated forum to suggest that an article on a particular topic be created as you were looking for, Wikipedia:Requested articles, but in my experience it's like dropping a penny down the Challenger Deep. That is, there are numerous listings at that forum's various pages from years and years ago that haven't been touched.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 00:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)