Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 537

This is an current talk page .

This is a contentious question, so I hope I don't get blocked for asking it; as I question an average Wikipedian's rights here at this society. Anyways, here is my question: How can this be an online encyclopedia and anything, any part of history, not be notable!? If the page is poorly written or is short of references to back up its information, I can understand the subsequent AfD that might and should take place. But what kind of cause is notability? That is completely biased. What is notable to one might be absolutely meaningless to another. That's like developing a concept on how a person should act; how radical. People have various opinions on how they should behave, and people should also have various opinions on what is notable. So that's my question: Why can't everything be notable if this is an online encyclopedia dedicated to making the world a more educated place; the one source for all-around information. Infopage100 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello

reliable sources for their articles. Not everything in the world meets that criteria. Other editors may have other links to provide for you to help explain things. MarnetteD|Talk

14:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

interesting thought, worthy of discussion. I suppose it would create an overload of work for Wiki, plus the data load (although I would think that value would be going down.)Philip.mark.powell (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question, Infopage100, and in my view it points up exactly why "notable" was such a particularly unfortunate choice of word for the concept. I believe that the answer is an operational one, not a philosophical one. An article with no references is, in a sense, worthless: you simply cannot trust it. In fact, an unreferenced statement in an article is, in the same sense, worthless. That is why we now operate a high standard of referencing before accepting new articles (we were not so careful in the past, which is why there are so many substandard articles around).

But what does this have to to with notability? The answer, as I see it, is to stop people wasting their time on articles which are never going to be of any value. If there are no reliable sources, then there is literally nothing which can usefully be put in an article. "Not notable" is a shorthand for that situation. It is unfortunate that a word was used which in normal use contains a value judgment; but that is not relevant in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Rjlabs/2016 US Russian cyber conflict was a stub article under development. It was marked for notability and deletion early on. The notability tag proved false and was removed. The article was expanded and continued to evolve, and it remained stub status.

There was growing interest in the article as it had 100's of page hits per day. During its live period it was independently marked as within the scope of:

• WikiProject International relations
• WikiProject Computer Security
• WikiProject Internet
• WikiProject Politics
• WikiProject United States
• WikiProject Russia

Many weeks later it was subject to a speedy deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 US Russian cyber conflict.

I'm trying to "diagnose" the specific problems with the article. Would deeply appreciate specific (granular) feedback. It takes a long time to author, and a very brief moment to delete. Hoping to learn more so my future efforts here can have more positive results. Rick (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Only admins can see the former content, in order to provide "specific" feedback, but, as a non-admin, the reasons seem clearly enunciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 US Russian cyber conflict. The fact that it was a stub is not relevant to the outcome, and the article was NOT "subject to a speedy deletion" as you claim. The AFD discussion period is seven days, and in this case it ran from 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC) to 11:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC), so it was not closed prematurely. - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone assist me in resolving the page issues on the article I built for my nephew Antonio Penn please.Imabossap (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not much else to say, the title says it all. >>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)<<<

Yes you are allowed to do that, but if you have uploaded the image to Commons, it can be used by any editor. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

???>>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)<<<???

@AppleCrumby16: Please see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1. RedPanda25 17:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I was going to re-create Category:Wikipedian WikiSloths, when I noticed that it was deleted by a deletion discussion. However, the discussion mentioned having "a zoo of WikiFauna categories, which has, in fact, happened. Should I re-create this category or not? RedPanda25 17:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: Welcome to the Teahouse. Here is my opinion. How would re-creating this category help to build the encyclopedia? I see nothing about this term that facilitates collaboration among editors, but perhaps I am missing something. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, this is not a social media site. The category was deleted in 2007, nine long years ago, and consensus was pretty clear back then. In my opinion, there is even less acceptance in 2016 for things not clearly related to building an encyclopedia. We have Facebook for unlimited goofing around, after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@

nominate for deletion

these categories:

• Category:Wikipedian WikiBears
• Category:Wikipedian WikiCats
• Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies‎
• Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes‎
• Category:Wikipedian WikiHobbits‎
• Category:Wikipedian WikiPumas

? If not, please don't accuse me of

@RedPanda25: "WikiGnome" is a widely recognized designator which has real meaning to many active editors. There are thousands of editors in that category. Evaluate each category on its individual merits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Guys I'm writing an article on Difference between diamonds, pearls, and rubies.Jesus loves me (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Original research, which is not accepted in Wikipedia articles. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk

) 19:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you use the JavaScript on Wikipedia for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prahlad balaji (talk • contribs) 21:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Prahlad balaji. I'm not certain what you are asking. If you mean, when do you write Javascript when working on Wikipedia, then the answer for most people is Never. If you mean when do you make use of Javascript when working on Wikipedia, the answer is, most of the time when editing. The editing widget, with all its buttons and shortcuts, is written in Javascript. So are many other gadgets, if you have them enabled. There are also many User scripts written in Javascript, that you can choose to use if you wish, for various purposes. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How do exactly add a specific picture on a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RunningForMyLife1010 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Donating copyright materials. If it is a picture you found on the internet, you probably cannot use it at all, though there are exceptions. If that doesn't answer your question, please come back here with more specific information. --ColinFine (talk

) 20:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried to archive the page Talk:Russell Peters but it isn't working. I used the

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo          = old(5d)
| archive       = Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive}}
}}

template. Can someone help me out? Verified Cactus (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Verified Cactus. You added it a minute before posting here. The archive bot runs once a day. Come back if it hasn't archived in two days. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Today I Learned. Verified Cactus (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the archiving bot isn't working at the moment, see the message on User talk:Σ. Joseph2302 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Does someone here know Bengali, and can someone, at a minimum, give some advice to an enthusiastic new editor who is creating inadequately sourced articles with too many redlinks, or, even better, mentor an enthusiastic new editor? User:Badol1234 submitted a malformed sandbox for AFC review, which I declined, and then posted to my talk page, but now I see that they have created several articles in mainspace on actresses with inadequate references and with too many redlinks. I don’t know for certain what this editor’s first language is, but I think it is Bengali. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Robert I think a post to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics might work here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Fuhgettaboutit - Are you saying that someone should give them advice in Bengali, or that I should give them advice in Bengali? If I knew Bengali, I would write to their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what

competency issue. At that point, it might be a good idea to encourage the editor to participate in another language Wikipedia instead by adding something from Category:Non-English welcome messages. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

...Precisely:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone help me on to publish Sundaykart article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatateja (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Your first article, and come back here if you have questions. --ColinFine (talk

) 20:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

See also the feedback you have received on

WP:NPOV for guidance on this. Cordless Larry (talk

) 20:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tatateja: Your draft includes these sentences:

"It has 20 employees who are a pool of dedicated professionals who can think innovatively. They are highly skilled in finding creative solutions for all kinds of IT/Marketing/Sales related to the needs of organization"

That is the sort of promotional language that belongs in a company brochure or advertisement, not in a neutral encyclopedia article. All of that type of language should be removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have tagged Kilt article with a "Requested move" template. Not sure I done it correctly, could someone check Talk:Kilt please? thanks. Nmclough (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I can see no attempt to place a "Requested move" template. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The markup is visible at the bottom of the Talk:Kilt#Ancient_.22celt.22 page - few lines above bottom - but I am not sure it is being processed correctly. Nmclough (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello

common names section of the article titling policy? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 22:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that Fuhghettaboutit has got it quite right. It isn't a question of just removing "tlps|". The instructions for the template {{requested move}} say that it must be substituted, so you need to replace "tlps|" by "subst|". --David Biddulph (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

True, forgot about explaining substitution, though when you place it without, it displays a screaming crimson red notice saying "This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"

Thank you both. I am grateful, and think I fixed it. @Fuhghettaboutit My request to rename article may be controversial but verifiable sources use term "kilt" more neutrally since no other word in English language fits. But I am sure this will be discussed strongly on talk page. Thanks. Nmclough (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Monday - October 24, 2016

I've taken a look at the Tennessee Williams Talk Page and while I haven't studied the full entry in detail, I could clarify much of what's been proposed or counter-proposed. However, I'm not sure how long ago these questions were asked or resolved. I'm also uncertain who's involved or interested.

I realize that anyone (almost anyone) can edit a page but there must be a respected source who has the final say and vets it all. I'm just trying to add a line or two and as soon as I figure out exactly how sources are cited and all that, I'll try it again.

If anyone has the time and interest in helping me through this maze, it would be appreciated.

Regards,

Robert Carroll Robert Carroll 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Carroll (talk • contribs)

@

Referencing for beginners

. This is an important skill for new editors.

Anyone is free to edit the article as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Other editors may review anything you add, or they may not since this article is infrequently edited. No one is the "final authority" on this or any other Wikipedia article. I will add the article to my own watch list, and am always willing to answer good faith questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@

conflict of interest regarding this article. I suggest that you propose any changes on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

18:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert Carroll, can I check that you are signing you posts using four tildes (~~~~), rather than manually? Your signature isn't working correctly - hence the "unsigned comment" message above. If you are using the tildes method, check that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" is not ticked in the signature section of your preferences. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@

conflict of interest policy. Biographies of Williams verify the relationship and it belongs in the biography in my judgment. Accordingly, I have added a paragraph about the relationship to the article, cited to two reliable sources. One presents the relationship in a positive light, and the other less so. We are obligated to summarize the range of reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I REALLY NEED HELP... Jesus loves me (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with what, Jesus loves me? Joe Roe (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: check six sections beloweight sections above this one.

@

WP:Your First Article as he suggested? What specifically don't you understand? Rojomoke (talk

) 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Section changed location when archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone I have been trying to write an article about an influential person Uebert Angel. He is a business mogul recognised by the BBC and Forbes Magazine. H e is a founder of The Angel Organisation and The Good News Church. He has a lot of followers and has influenced a lot of people world wide. I need help in writing an article that is neutral and not in contention for deletion. I have tried several times but to no avail

Simon Mugava (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello

notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You need to find and cite more sources so that it's easy to see if he has been picked up by reliable sources. If he is noted by Forbes, then please cite Forbes. If he is featured in more than one BBC article, then cite more of them. A few passing mentions here and there will not make a subject notable, no matter how prestigious the sources. You need to cite many. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs

) 09:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/User guide. Nthep (talk

) 10:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously guys I try and I try but all anyone keeps saying is rejected, rejected, no cites, insert links followed by incorrect links when I insert them. I have referred to all of the articles you point me to but still it seems I'm wrong. Surely it shouldn't be this hard. Surely someone could send a simple email explaining exactly what it is I'm doing wrong, explain in lay mans terms on how to fix the problem and that way I can amend where necessary. Yes I've tried posting on the 'Teahouse' and used the 'Talk' and 'Help' pages but as an old school programmer I'm now beginning to understand and believe as to why so many of my colleagues over the years have simply given up trying to contribute to Wikipedia................. GabeGabe Cooney 10:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabecooney (talk • contribs)

One link which you were given in both of the rejection messages was Help:Referencing for beginners. Another user gave you an example in this edit, so you need to do the same for the other references you need to add. As has been pointed out in answers to numerous other questions here, starting a new article isn't a simple job, and it is normally better to get experience in editing existing articles before embarking on an attempt to write a new article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, @Gabecooney:. First - David is exactly right above: writing a new article is not a task for newcomers.

But to try and help sort this out - it's all about references. It's all about references. If there are a good number of good references to support the article, the rest can be fixed. If not, no amount of technical work will fix it. Start with the references; they need to come first. Perhaps if you list what you think are the very best half-dozen or so references on the Talk page at Draft talk:Caroline Guthrie, then let us know so we can help. When I say "best" references, that means independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. So not just IMDb (which can be edited by the subject) and not just passing references which confirm that she acted in a particular work - looking through the references there at the moment the lengthiest mention seems to be just over one sentence in the review of Blair's Children. It needs references that spend significant space discussing her. Again, I have cleaned the article up a bit, but firstly you really need to find the references. Oh, in case I forgot to mention it - find good references first.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I said above that I "cleaned the article up a bit", but apparently those changes were lost in an edit clash. Never mind; other, more experienced editors jumped in and the end result is probably better.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gronk Oz, that'll have been me. But I made much the same changes as I imagine you were making, removing all the direct external links and all the citations of IMDB. Maproom (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right @Maproom: - it was quite disorienting at first because it looked similar to what I had changed, but specific parts were different. I had actually got carried away and converted all those IMDb links to references with the idea that they at least supported the claim that she acted in each show - but as you say it's not reliable anyhow. I did put her own IMDb link back since under External links.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The draft in question appears to be

notability as an actress. I see that the Original Poster has also helped out by editing existing articles, and they can continue to gain more experience by doing that while trying to improve the draft. Creating a new article is not the only way that new editors can contribute to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk

) 13:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember a page, but don't remember what it's called.

Resolved

Hey guys, TPM here. As stated in the title, I remember seeing a page, but I don't remember what the page was called. I know it had a box where you could type in a title for making a article (could've been for making a userpage subpage, my memory on this is extremely fuzzy.) After that, it took you to another page to show you how to make such a page. So... does anyone know if there's a page that looks like this?

Thanks,

The Phase Master (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. What about

WP:AFC which leads to Wikipedia:Article wizard? --David Biddulph (talk

) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

David Biddulph No... I think I'm thinking of WP:Drafts. Here's what I'm trying to do: I'm trying to use that new draft box in a subpage that I'm going to make. Said subpage would be a page where you could make a subpage for a chess game. (Remember Shaun's chess game?) The subpage for making the subpage would use the new draft box like the original box, but it would be pointing to User:The Phase Master/Game name, with Game name being whatever you typed in the box. Also, the box page would have a list of my chess games, both ongoing and finished (in seperate categories, of course). Any idea on how I can go about doing this?

The Phase Master (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia as a host to play online games, which is flat-out forbidden. If I'm misunderstanding you and you're actually asking for how to document the moves in an existing, noteworthy chess game in a Wikipedia article about a particular game (e.g.

Iridescent

19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

DoF

. So... the Wikigames aren't forbidden, are they?

Let me explain a little further.

If you'll look at User:Shaun/Chess, you'll see that he made a chess game on Wikipedia. However, since he's now Semi-Retired, the game's not being played. What I'm trying to do is revamp his game, and perhaps improve on it a little by making a homepage for it (which would be a subpage addressed as User:The Phase Master/Chess). At this point, I've asked Shaun about this, but I'm not expecting a fast reply from him.

So... Ideas?

The Phase Master (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wkipedia is not a games website, it is an encyclopedia. Neither his game nor your proposed one belong here. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Okay then. Sorry.

The Phase Master (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@

Iridescent

15:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah... Got it, thank you. --The Phase Master (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding in conversation over what defines cited references on The Jayhawks Talk Page and an Ip was literally banned. Then another person's computer in our camp used the same log in and password on their computer not knowing about the ban, and suddenly that IP was banned and they were called "abusive". Is there a way to get this straightened out so at least we don't have this over our heads, in particular the IP address that unknowingly logged in with this banned account? 173.22.109.176 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Never share accounts. That's the rule, and it also avoids this problem.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think IPs logged in or used passwords. (?) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, they don't. If these editors had created and used accounts, the problem would have been avoided. Maproom (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In some cases, a block on a user account

automatically blocks the IP addresses they were using. If the autoblocked IP address is shared among good-faith editors and bad-faith editors, it can lead to collateral damage. But it appears in this case, multiple users were sharing the same account, which caused multiple IP addresses to be autoblocked. In other words, yes, creating separate accounts for each user would have avoided this problem. Mz7 (talk

) 22:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What the title says, actually. Thanks in advance. Doctorjimmy (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The ownership of the photos is irrelevant. What matters is the ownership of the copyright in the photos. If you own the copyright (which is unlikely without owning the photos themselves, unless you are a professional photographer), you may upload them. And if the copyright of the photos is in the public domain you may upload them. Otherwise, generally not. Maproom (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have an image (from an online source) in mind and have a link to it, we can check and see if it's eligible for upload to

talk | _contribs

) 23:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am (or was) very familiar with Wikipedia editing a few years back... but in French! Could anyone of you be so kind as to visit the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Vouillot and help me correct my poor English?

Thank you very much in advance! GBantrek (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@GBantrek: Welcome to the Teahouse. I did a little bit of copy editing of your article, but your English prose is not poor. I have seen far worse. Thank you for contributing to the English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I just did my first article titled Francis T. Giesler. He is a recipient of the Legion of Merit. I see the name is in the recipient list and the link goes to the article. 1. Is this just a draft? 2. Is it accepted or do I have to do something? 3. I want to add a picture in the info box. Do I have to wait four days and have ten edits to upload the picture? Thank you for your help. Gieslerm (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately you have fallen into the trap of trying to write an article before understanding how Wikipedia works, and you have not submitted a draft for review but have published it straight as an article. Because there are no

WP:SOLDIER, and then to see whether you think that it could be improved to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. --David Biddulph (talk

) 01:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gieslerm and welcome to the Teahouse. Just to add on to what David Biddulph posted above, I will try and answer your questions as well.

1. You added the article directly to the
   Wikipedia:Your first article
2. Any article within the article namespace may be deleted if the
   articles can be improved over time and unsourced content sourced by other editors
   . Failure to provide at least a few solid reliable sources establishing the subject's notability, however, is almost always going to lead to the article being (at least) nominated for deletion, absent any special circumstances.
3. You may upload image files after your account has attained
   confirmed status, which is 4 days and 10 edits in your case. However, image use in articles can be tricky because they are various rules regarding copyrights, etc., so I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Uploading images
   and familiarize yourself with what needs to be done.

Finally, your choice of username seems to imply some kind of connection between you and Giesler. Persons who create or edit articles about subject they are personally or professionally connected to are considered to have a

conflict of interest with respect to that particular subject. COI editing is not expressly permitted per se on Wikipedia, but it is something that is highly discouraged. If you are connected to Giesler in any way, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and familiarize yourself with the kinds of editing considered acceptable in such cases. If you're not connected to Geisler at all, then you might want to consider changing your username to something else per Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names to avoid any misunderstandings with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Mike

Gieslerm (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again

Template:Submit to the top of the page when you think its ready for article status; an experienced editor will review it and make suggestions on what it might still need to become an article. Since the draft is a biography of a former soldier, you might be able to get more specific advice from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Just post your questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Per your request, I've moved the article to

WP:Primary. Rojomoke (talk

) 04:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed an AfC Draft:NUGEN Audio which I have a COI for. I have tried to make it as neutral as possible and have mainly used external independent published references, but it has been declined as being too much like an advert.

Please could someone tell me how to improve it to make it publishable?

Thanks

PaulTapper (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@PaulTapper: Welcome to the Teahouse. The draft reads more like a product catalog rather than an encyclopedia article about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen: Thank you for the feedback - I'll pick up the discussion with you on your User talk page PaulTapper (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

East Azad Nagar metro station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Azad_Nagar_metro_station Need help in correcting Krishna Nagar link in infobox bottom of above metro station.

Link should direct to below page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Nagar_(Delhi_Metro)

I have tried but just couldn't get it right.

Jazze7 (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, and the link works - what do you want it to do differently that what is there now?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I see - there are duplicate articles named

Krishna Nagar metro station. The first task is to merge these articles, probably into the second of these, then make sure the {{S-line}} template is set up to refer to the correct one.--Gronk Oz (talk

) 09:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that you had tried something similar at

Krishna Nagar metro station or whether disabiguation is required there. --David Biddulph (talk

) 09:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jazze7 (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank You David Biddulph. I have applied same correction to Karkarduma Court metro station. It is neatly sorted out. Much appreciated.

Jazze7 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

How can I format the following from the Italian wikipedia so that it appears correctly in the "Bibliography" section of the English version of the article?

• bibliografia|Assisi 1999|Assisi non più Assisi. Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco, a cura di Giovanni Morello, Milano, Electa, 1999.
  ISBN 88-435-6672-5

TimeForLunch (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello TimeForLunch and welcome to the Teahouse. Use {{Cite book}}. Here that would be something along the lines of:

{{Cite book|editor-last=Morello|editor-first=Giovanni |title=Assisi non più Assisi. Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco|location=Milano|publisher=Electa|date=1999|isbn=88-435-6672-5|language=it}}

which renders as:

Morello, Giovanni, ed. (1999). Assisi non più Assisi. Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco (in Italian). Milano: Electa.

ISBN 88-435-6672-5

.

If you want to give a rough translation of the title in English, add |trans-title= somewhere inside the brackets and fill in. I hope this helps. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much (User talk:Finnusertop). Could you refer me to the wikipedia page that lists all the details for this kind of citation? I am having some trouble locating it though I'm sure it exists. TimeForLunch (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@TimeForLunch: There is an extensive documentation for all parameters here: Template:Cite web. For more general information on citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Citation templates, and Help:Referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, (talk ⋅ contribs. I'll check it out. TimeForLunch (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how what went wrong with the page. I used quotes and an external link. There is a colored block around a portion go the quote. Not sure what the colored block means; if is means I need to correct this part or if I did the quotes wrong??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_House_1823

Thank you for your time,

Optimumhunger (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The coloured block is because you started a new paragraph with one or more leading spaces, so you need to remove those. As far as the external link is concerned, you shouldn't have included it in the article text, see

reference. --David Biddulph (talk

) 14:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have writen an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiquets_Copenhagen and want to link it with the catalan version that already existed https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiquets_de_Copenhaguen. Could someone please tell me how to do this? Thanks! (

It is done through Wikidata, where I added the links to wikidata:Q20102264 through the "Add links" option under the "Languages" menu item on the left hand toolbar of the English Wikipedia page Xiquets Copenhagen. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is exactly what I needed to know! (

talk

)

@Xiquets: I went to your article to see if copyediting was called for. No problem there! And the subject was interesting, to boot. But it is full of links to Catalan articles, with no indication to the reader that these articles are in another language -- except the titles, which are not always dependable (e.g., Castell, which is in this, the English Wikipedia).

I have changed two of these links to use {{

ILL

}}. (I prefer the all-caps form of the short name because I i l | can be hard to distinguish in sans-serif fonts: {{ill|...}}, {{Ill|...}} .) I urge you to use these as examples to do the same for the other links to other Wikipedias.

The forms of ILL that I used provide redlinks plus the abbreviation of the other language, ca, da, or whatever. If English articles are later created with the same name, the links will become normal links and the (ca/da) will disappear. --Thnidu (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been expanding Niemica (river) by using the corresponding Polish article (I speak Polish reasonably well). However, two of the links there (specifically numbers 2 & 4) do not work. Can I still use those links as references (because they clearly used to prove the statements, and it's not like the sources' disappearing will make the facts false)? I've added 'citation needed' tags in the places in the English article where the links would be.

Thanks in advance for any help.N Oneemuss (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Ref 2 was easy, as you had http:// twice. I've cured it in this edit. I'm not sure where your other problem is, as ref 4 looked OK at first glance. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume that the other problem is on reference 5, & I see that this link is broken on the Polish equivalent too. It's probably worth looking to see whether it was archived. I looked at web.archive.org, but apparently the Polish website cited has a robots.txt which prohibits access by such searches. Perhaps you could enquire on the Polish article's talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but I'm actually referring to the Polish article https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niemica_(rzeka). There, sources 2 and 4 lead to a blank page and a page that says 'you do not have the authority to access this' respectively. My question is whether I can still use those sources in the English article (to replace the 'citation needed' tags I put in).N Oneemuss (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to enquire at the Polish talk page now. Thanks for the help.N Oneemuss (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@N Oneemuss: Hello. Speaking to the broader point, you should not use any source that you have not read yourself to confirm that the source verifies the assertion in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.N Oneemuss (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(Fixed URL: restored ")" after "(rzeka".) --Thnidu (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I eliminated the spaces, one corrected. The bottom one is still in a highlight box. Any suggestions?

I'll work on the external links.

Optimumhunger (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Template:WikiProjectBannerShell that allows you to tag those WikiProjects as inactive on the talk page, but what I have seen some projects do is replace the WikiProject templates themselves with Template:Inactive WikiProject banner. To do this, taking WikiProject Mythology as an example, you would change the first line of Template:WikiProject Mythology to read {{WPBannerMeta/inactive, rather than {{WPBannerMeta. This only works for projects that have their own banner, however. WikiProject Vaishnavism doesn't appear to have its own banner—you add it as a parameter of the Template:WikiProject Hinduism banner. One possible solution might be to remove Vaishnavism from the Hinduism banner entirely, but it might be helpful to preserve the parameter in the event that the Vaishnavism project is revived in the future. As far as I know, there is no way to mark projects as "semi-active" on talk pages. Mz7 (talk

) 22:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mz7. I started trying to create User:Thnidu/Template:Defunct WikiProject Banner by copying Template:Inactive WikiProject banner, but gave up on it, not being familiar with the syntax for such complex templates. So I put a {{divbox}} on Talk:Arjuna listing the status of all the "interested" projects that are less than fully active. It would really be better to add "defunct" and "semi-active" to the options in {{WPBannerMeta}}, but I don't know how. --Thnidu (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@

Template talk:WPBannerMeta, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I do have a few more thoughts, however. My impression seems to be that an inactive WikiProject is one that editors simply lost interest in naturally, whereas a defunct WikiProject is one that was abandoned perhaps by consensus or by becoming obsolete. If that's what defunct means, then rather than flagging them, I would consider removing the talk page banners of defunct projects entirely, since the projects do not have a high likelihood of being revived. Additionally, a "semi-active" WikiProject is, as I understand, one that is still active, but "activity is slower than it once was". It might not be necessary to flag semi-active status on talk pages if there are still a couple people interested. Mz7 (talk

) 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks, that advice sounds good. --Thnidu (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Feh. I edited the wiki project Hinduism template, using HTML comment tags to comment out all the references to Hindu mythology and vaishnavism, but they're still showing up. Do I have to delete them?.....And change ALL the tf... and TF_... numbers as well? --Thnidu (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu:It looks like you typed <--! rather than <!-- while you were commenting them out. I have switched them. Does that resolve the issue you were seeing? Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: (Facepalm) D'ohhh! Exactly, thank you! And I've taken the mentions of Hindu mythology and Vaishnavism out of the divbox. --Thnidu (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Excellent. Glad I could help! Mz7 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Can an established user please link this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Revolution to Ilana Mercer's main wiki page?

Thanks

~kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that someone has done it. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
in the context of deletion discussions, I have repeatedly read the term "salted" (like in "should be deleted and salted").
What does that stand for? It's not in the list of abbreviations.
Thanks, --84.190.88.113 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. See

WP:SALT on this. Basically, it refers to protection of a page to prevent its recreation. This might be done where an article has been deleted and disruptively recreated a few times. Cordless Larry (talk

) 21:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! On that page I found a link to this page which was useful in understanding that expression. So I was wrong in assuming it to be an abbreviation. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As an example, our pages on biology rely on the truth of the theory of evolution, and our pages on environmental science support anthropogenic global warming. These views are supported by scientific evidence, but millions of people disagree with them. So, who decides which views are reliable enough to include under NPOV? Thanks! Reason is Immortal (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that as long as the article is properly sourced from reliable texts etc and the editor makes no personal judgment about the subject matter then NPOV is covered. There are plenty of articles about Creation and Creationism as well as those covering non-anthropogenic global warming which also ensure that the encyclopedia as a whole is NPOV. Iadmc (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Usually on controversial issues, the views of both sides are discussed without favoring either. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It might be added that these controversies should not be carried out in each and every biology article but only in those that explicitly have those topics as a subject.

That is, if you have good and reliable pro-creationist sources about the origin of the Darwin finches, that might be an appropriate article for leading that discussion. But leave the robins and the chickadees alone. Even if someone has used a pro-evolution source in those articles. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is also relevant. --ColinFine (talk

) 22:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 22:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Any assistance you can provide to help me solve the above issues would be greatly appreciated.Moazalshami92 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The article in question appears to be Moaz AlShami.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:AUTO about autobiographies: "writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged." I notice that the article has also been tagged to identify this.--Gronk Oz (talk

) 23:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The orphan warning gives you a

wikilink to WP:Orphan. That explains that being an orphan means that there are no links from other articles to the article in question. (It does not relate to links from your article to other articles.) You can see this by clicking on the "What links here" link in the menu on the left-hand side of your article. As for the point about history merge, this was explained to you on your user talk page at User talk:Moazalshami92#Cut and paste move from draft. In this case it might be argued that the attribution point is not so significant because you had been the only significant contributor to the draft, but I see that you have raised the question at WP:Requests for history merge, so hopefully it will be addressed there. --David Biddulph (talk

) 00:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)