Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 510

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 505 ← Archive 508 Archive 509 Archive 510 Archive 511 Archive 512 → Archive 515

Curiosity

Hullo!

I am Amy2563! I had a question concerning about a creation. I wanted to ask that what is a Bot? As I was scrolling through this wiki page, I found out that somebody wants to create a bot. Can anyone tell me what a bot is, how is it used and if it is safe, then can I make a bot of my own?

Thanks! Amy2563 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi again Amy! A bot is short for "robot", it is a software tool that can do boring editing tasks almost automatically. You can read more at Wikipedia:Bots. To create one requires programming experience. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A bot also does tasks that would take us humans twice as long to do on our own. For example, we have ClueBot NG, which detects and reverts most of the vandalism that happens here. We also have BracketBot which lets people know when their editing accidentally broke a reference. Another would be SineBot, which automatically signs most comments that people forget to sign (That's when you see "Preceding unsigned comment by..."). -- Gestrid (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
However, to answer your question, can you make a bot of your own, the answer is that will require both considerable knowledge of Wikipedia and considerable knowledge of coding in the language in which you will be writing the bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Use photo found on Afrikaans Wikipedia

Recently I tried to use a photo I found on the Afrikaans version of Wikipedia. It did not work. See my Sandbox. I have used photos found on English Wikipedia on the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Why do I have this problem? Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems you may be talking about User:Vaaljapie/sandbox. It looks like you submitted, as a article for creation, a page that had only an incorrectly formatted link to the image. You should be able to transfer the image to WikiCommons so that the simple [File: ...] linking syntax will add it to an article. That should be your first step.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
jmcgnh The image in question is [Lêer:Johannesburgkerk.jpg this]. It looks like that image has some weird licencing, not sure if those licences mean it's a free image or not. If it is a free image, it should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, from where it is easily accessible. Joseph2302 08:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The image is at af:File:Johannesburgkerk.jpg. An image can only be displayed at a wiki if it's either uploaded at that wiki or at Wikimedia Commons. I guess the photos you found at the English Wikipedia and used in the Afrikaans Wikipedia were uploaded at Commons. For example. File:Johannesburg.jpg and af:File:Johannesburg.jpg both display the image at commons:File:Johannesburg.jpg, and both have a Commons tab to get there. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help. Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Are personal interviews adequate to verify information & remove warning box ?

I am in the process of creating pages for Indian athletes. I shall be verifying and adding personal information about these people based on interviews that I personally conduct. I have no conflict of interest, I am not paid for this work and not formally linked with them in any way. Once I interview them, is this adequate reason to remove the warning box on the top regarding biographies of living people needing verifiable citations ? Thank you in advance. Shortindiangirl (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Shortindiangirl and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, the answer is no. When we say "reliable sources", we mean previously published sources. If you base an article on interviews you have conducted, Wikipedia becomes the first place where that information has been published – the reader cannot verify that information anywhere else than Wikipedia. This is called putting "original research" on Wikipedia and is not the purpose of the encyclopedia. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to summarize what previously published sources have said. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikinews is a better place for self-published interviews. However, there are circumstances when we can use self-published sources posted by the person in question. So, if the self-published interview were posted to the athlete's official website, we might be able to source uncontroversial, non-promotional facts from it. I have sourced information like birth date, full name, and education from such sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. So if I used my blog to first publish the outcome of the interview, and then I reference my own blog as the source, would that constitute a previously published article ? My intention is not the manipulate the system or intent, I'm just wondering what is the overall right way to get information about these athletes available to the world. Shortindiangirl (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Not an expert here, Shortindiangirl, but I don't think your own blog will cut it. See WP:BLOGS. Drdaviss (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio(s!?) in Sexed up

I started copyediting Sexed up, fixing capitalization, punctuation, grammar, content, and links. I flagged most of one paragraph, the second in Sexed up § History, with {{subst:copyvio}}...{{Copyviocore bottom}}, but soon discovered that the page seems to be full of copyvios. Specifically, the sections Psychology, Criticism, and History consist largely of semi-readable sentences or quasi-sentences, some of them citing a source in "Further reading", and at least some of them directly quoting their sources.

E.g., the non-sentence

Evolution and emotional arousal theoretical framework, which states that people are evolutionarily predisposed to attend to emotionally arousing cues such as sex and violence (Lull & Bushman, 2015).

is a straight pull from the abstract, a fragment of

We based our predictions on the evolution and emotional arousal theoretical framework, which states that people are evolutionarily predisposed to attend to emotionally arousing cues such as sex and violence.

This one

Advertising is only a part of a broader set of marketing and company decisions. Advertising must communicate the business value proposition to the intended target market (Kotler, Burton, Deans, Brown, & Armstrong, 2013).

cites a source not mentioned at all; websearch indicates that it's probably Marketing (9th edition).[1]

This one

Sexed up ads gains the attention of the audience but the product must retain the attention of the audience in order for the promotion campaign to be successful (Anabelia et al., 2015).

even misspells the author's name (Anabila, P., Tagoe, C., & Asare, S. (2015)).

I haven't got the time or spoons to go through all of this page and check out each reference, even if I could. Anabila et al., for example, is behind registration and possibly a paywall, and/or possibly accessible only for associates of University of Technology. What, then, to do?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu. I agree that the article is a mess and needs a lot of copyediting, which should include clear indication of quotations (usually by use of quotation marks) and properly formatted inline citations. However, a brief, properly cited quotation is not a copyright violation. A good faith misspelling of an author's name does not create a copyright violation. Quotations are acceptable, especially in an article about terminology, which naturally includes discussion of usage.
The automated Earwig copyvio detector indicates a 46% chance that the article violates this Guardian column. That is not conclusive. When I skim the two articles, I see discussion of the same very narrow topic but from a very different angle, which can often include similar phrases. In conclusion, I see a bit of a mess here but no strong evidence of overt, unambiguous copyright violations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Cullen328, does it matter that none of the quotes are cited as being quotes?
I just used AWB on a phrase in one of those segments, "no matter which one it be", and found that that segment, and almost all of the sections I mentioned, were inserted in a single edit by User:Wellshitimessedup, who is "BLOCKED, 2 edits since: 2016-04-01, last edit on 2016-04-01".
--Thnidu (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said in my previous answer, every quote should be clearly indicated as a quote, either with quotation marks or, in the case of longer quotes, with another format such as blockquote. The referencing needs improvement as well, and the structure and prose may also need work. I see the immediate issues as a matter for copyediting, and I commend you for taking on the task. As for a six word phrase consisting of common words such as "no matter which one it be", it is very hard for me to see that as a copyright violation. The fact that edits were made by a blocked editor may hint at possible problems, but the simple fact that the editor has been blocked is not conclusive proof. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Cullen328 Thank you for the advice. It's clear, though, that I wasn't (clear, that is): I didn't use that phrase as evidence of plagiarism/copyvio, but simply as a convenient and comparatively distinctive string to search for with AWB in previous versions of the article, not with Google / Yahoo / etc. on the Web.

--Thnidu (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Thnidu, I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least I try. Slightly sharper than average is my goal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is about a phrase, not a person, thing, event, concept etc. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think the whole mess should be deleted. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

* Truly, I mean no irony or sarcasm. --Thnidu (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ National Library of Australia's online catalogue
@Thnidu: That deletion discussion dates from way back in 2009. If you think that the article should be deleted (as a violation of WP:NOT, presumably), there's nothing untoward about nominating it again at AfD. Deor (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

current page is not shown

after editing a page and saving it, the page accessible from another account does not show the update. do i need to do something besides "save"???Simakenett (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Simakenett, and welcome to the Teahouse! Our server is currently having an issue where it shows an outdated version of a page to users who aren't logged in. It will eventually update the page on its own. However, if you want to update it manually, you can try purging the page. I hope this answers your question. If not, please let us know by replying here. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

How can I keep the category items in the correct format?

Here are the category entries in an article in my sandbox. Category:1942 births Category:American women poets Category:20th-century American poets Category:21th-century American poets Category:University of Wisconsin alumni Category:Goddard College alumni Category:Louisiana State University faculty

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has repeatedly changed these to the following format, which erroneously repeats the word "category" each time. (Notice the extra colon.) Category:1942 births Category:American women poets Category:20th-century American poets Category:21th-century American poets Category:University of Wisconsin alumni Category:Goddard College alumni Category:Louisiana State University faculty

How can I solve this problem before submitting the article? Thank you. Dolzhnikov (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does this because it does not want articles from draft or user space enrolled into the categories. Adding the colon makes the entries visible so you are reminded to remove the colon once the article is moved to article space. (Don't neglect to correct the spelling of 21th to 21st.)  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Another method, which you may find easier to implement, is to surround the category block with a <nowiki> pair of tags. Arguably, that's what gestrid might have done to make the appearance of your question here less mysterious.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dolzhnikov: If you submit it and a reviewer accepts it then the reviewer will add it to categories so you don't have to do anything (unless the reviewer forgets it). The colons were added in [1] to prevent the category pages from listing User:Dolzhnikov/sandbox among the real articles. Please don't change this unless the page has been accepted as an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Trying to add references to the Tony Rose page so it won't be deleted

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Tony Rose is an NAACP Image Award Winner for Outstanding Literature. He has numerous European Gold Albums for his work with Prince Charles Alexander as the Manager and Co-Producer of Prince Charles Alexander and Prince Charles and the City Beat Band. He had three Production Deals with Virgin Records, Atlantic Records and Pavilion/CBS Records in the 80's, as well as one Gold and one Platinum Album for his work with the album "Merry Merry Christmas" by New Kids on the Block, for his work with Maurice Starr and New Kids on the Block, along with two Ampex Golden Reel Awards also for his work with New Kids on the Block.

I have several links that don't work. They may have been put up wrong but someone did it for me and I tried to fix them and made them worse. I also want to replace some of the reference links because I have better ones. One of my replacements ended up becoming a template by mistake. How do I remove that? I have been reading a lot of instructions but still can't figure it out.

Thank you. If there is anything else I need to approve submission please let me know. YMARI (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, YMARI, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've fixed your template problem. You can see what was wrong and what I did to fix it here. Is there anything else you need help with there? -- Gestrid (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

How many references should I at least to an average length article in Wikipedia? Amy2563 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amy2563: There isn't really an easy answer to this. There are a few applicable guidelines and policies than can give you a better idea. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage" but leaves interpretation to editor discretion. To establish notability, a topic merely needs to have existent coverage, not to cite those sources.. So, in theory, the number of sources listed in an article should not affect its chances of being deleted. In practice, this is not true. Outside of notability, there are two other major concerns: verifiability and neutrality. Unsourced statements can be challenged and removed, and they should not be restored until cited to a reliable source. Especially contentious statements may require multiple sources for verification. The weight of sources tells us how much emphasis to place on a topic and whether it is the mainstream view of the topic. So, the number of sources affects whether a topic gets its own article (notability), what the majority of content in that article should be about (neutrality), and whether contentious statements should be included (verifiability). If you're just looking for a number, three or four good sources will often save an article from deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no hard and fast rule. A short article might be acceptable with just two. Long articles often have hundreds. It's not the number of references which is the relevant criterion. You want to make sure that each fact in your article has at least one appropriate source.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Choosing right name for renaming an article?

New article Escarabajo (cyclism) was recently added by another wikipedian, User:Voodoo14. I did a bit of copyediting of the article, including changing several instances of "cyclism" in the article body to "cycling". But "cyclism" also appears in the article name, so it should be fixed there as well. But I'm not too familiar with naming guidelines. Should it be "Escarabajo (cycling)", "Escarabajo (cyclist)", or should the parenthetical part be dropped altogether because there's currently no need for disambiguation? -Fëanor (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Feanor~enwiki, and welcome to the Teahouse! Would WP:TITLE be of help? -- Gestrid (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The last, Feanor-enwiki. We only use a parenthesis to distinguish different entries which would otherwise have the same name. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Gestrid and ColinFine. --Fëanor (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

My edits not showing on Nurburgring laptimes page

Recently I corrected GTR Nismo laptime and 650s spider lap time at that page but it is not shown in history or it is hidden.I want to know why because I don't think I have done anything wrong. ThanksAbc12345 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

Hello, AVP1234, and welcome to the Teahouse! Our server is currently having an issue where it shows an outdated version of a page to users who aren't logged in. It will eventually update the page on its own. However, if you want to update it manually, you can try purging the page. I hope this answers your question. If not, please let us know by replying here. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks,it s pulging solved my issue.Abc12345 04:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

Behavioural Optometry Page Edit

I have been trying to work out how to edit this page. Technically no problem, but there seems to be considerable resistance from an Ed. The information on the page is outdated, innaccurate, and the intent of the original paper has been interpreted in a particular way. I have written an extensive rebuttal of the information backed by high quality references. Seems like every way I go there is a rule to prevent me altering the page (see the talk), and I am now thinking its not about the truth or facts. I have offered to discuss with the Ed but to no avail. WHere to from here? Loomis Ideology (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC) When I try to upload the document I get a message about an Abuse Filter??Loomis Ideology (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is now a redirect to another article. To see the history of the article before it was merged, see here. The talk page of the original article was not merged. This answer will likely require someone who is versed in WP:MEDRS. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Loomis Ideology. The article you mention has been merged with Vision therapy. Discussion on the talk page of the old article indicates that several editors, not just one, disagreed with your additions. Contested changes to Wikipedia articles must be based on consensus among interested editors so you must convince the other interested editors of any changes you want to make. We have very strict standards for reliable sources used in medical articles, and survey articles that give an overview of the range of published journal articles on a topic are among the preferred sources. I understand that you feel passionately about the theory that you espouse, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We summarize all the reliable sources, pro and con. You cannot upload any copyrighted document to Wikipedia. It simply isn't allowed. Provide a link instead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cullen328 and thanks for your reply. I understand the requirements for scientific evidence, and I do not believe the main paper quoted here by Barrett (2009) fits into that category for many reasons. Not the least of which is that it is now at least 8 years out of date. This is a problem with meta reviews. The paper has also been misrepresented and selectively quoted in the article, as it is often done in its public and professional use. For example, Barrett continually refers to the treatment of Dyslexia by behavioural optometrists. They do not treat dyslexia. They treat the vision problems ocurring concurrently with dyslexia. A study in 2015 in the UK showed that dyslexic kids have twice as many vision problems as normal kids. Their vision improves, and as a result so does their function. Its sure does not help to have dyslexia and poor vision. Might I suggest that you read the paper, then review the Wikipedia entry and I think you will agree it is completely misleading. The edit I did was intended to be balanced and fair, and provided close to 60 academic references from credible authors published in reliable journals. Some of these were missed and/or ignored by Barrett, and time has not helped. Barrett also confined his review to a limited scope of publications which caused some important omissions. To get this straight, I am not an optometrist, or any sort of health professional, and have not had or been involved in behavioural optometry treatment. I do not have a theory to espouse, just facts arising from published research that contradict this entry in a subsstantial way. Sure there is controversy as with all science, but this is not a form of complimentary or alternative medicine. It is taught in some of the best Universities in the world and has a vast repositiory of scientific evidence to suport it. Regarding the merged article, vision therapy is a treatment modality within behavioural optometry. All that has been done is to copy the erroneous text to the Vision Therapy article. Evidencing Behavioural Optometry is a bit like providing evidence for neurology. Its a broad subject with many aspects. All I am suggesting is a balanced article based on evidence, but there is pretty stiff resistance to even discuss the subject.Loomis Ideology (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Loomis Ideology. I am sorry but I am not going to read that article. I have no expertise in or even interest in optometry, except the mildest sort of interest that comes from being a patient of many optometrists over the course of 60+ years. The Teahouse is not a place for lengthy discussion of content disputes about technical topics. We do not resolve content disputes here, but instead advise newer editors about how to edit Wikipedia productively. The proper place to discuss the content of this recently merged article is the talk page for that article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Why was my content deleted?

I wanted to notify and inform about a Tv Channel which started in Australia on 15 July 2016 but it was removed saying unambiguous advertising Simarau7 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Simarau7. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which have already been written about at some length by independent commentators in reliable published sources - we call this test "notability". New things - products, companies, bands, channels - hardly ever qualify. When several independent writers have written pieces about it (not based on interviews or press releaseas), then there can be an article, based close to 100% on what these independent writers have said. Please see WP:Notability and WP:TOOSOON. --ColinFine (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I make an existing article into a Template and still retain the article ?

I am creating articles for Indian olympic athletes. I have created the first one and several more of them will have run the same races with different timings / positions. Thus citations, references etc. would be similar, and I'd like the overall look to be consistent.

Is there a way for me to take the first article that I created and make a template out of it, while still retaining that article ? Currently the way I'm understanding it has to be done is to request the article to be "moved" into the Template namespace (ie, moving it to be renamed as Template:Name). But if I do that, I assume that the original article will be lost as it will become a template, and then presumably after I'm done I'd have to re-request a move of the Template article back to being a regular article ?

I'm not sure I'm thinking about this correctly and it could just be that I don't even have the terminology to ask the question correctly. I thank you in advance for help. Shortindiangirl (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You can copy-paste the wikitext of the first article into a new one and make necessary changes. Ruslik_Zero 18:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean, Shortindiangirl. No, what you are talking about is a template in ordinary speech, but a Wikipedia Template is something a bit different: it is a bit of a page which is included as a whole in different pages, but you can't then change bits of it unless that possibility is programmed into the template in the first place. So an Infobox, for example (the box containing standard information that appears at the top right of many articles) has built into it parameters to specify all the individual data for the subject. If one particular part of each article you write is going to be the same or nearly the same, you could create a template for just that part, and include it in each article, perhaps with specific parameters. But I don't think it's likely that a whole article will ever come from a template, if only because if the information on the individual subjects is so similar, I doubt that most of them will meet the criteria of notability required to have an article on them in the first place.
So Ruslik0's suggestion is probably the best for you - but bear in mind that if you copy material within Wikipedia, for any purpose you must attribute the source: see Copying within Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Two edit summary questions

If I make an edit, and save it but forgot to write in the "edit summary", is there any way to go back to write the edit summary ? How to handle this?

How do I put in the edit summary which section of the article I'm editing, e.g., "Early Life"? I know there is some wiki markup somewhere.

Thanks Eagledj (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The second is the easy question. Usually the section that you are editing is inserted automatically for you between slashes, and you just have to add a general comment in addition to the location. As to the first question, you can't modify an edit summary, but what you can do if you forget to put in an edit summary is to do a dummy edit and include an edit summary for the previous edit. (The fact that an edit summary can't be modified after the fact, by the way, is one of the reasons why uncivil edit summaries and personal attacks in edit summaries are even worse than incivility and personal attacks on talk pages. Edit summaries, in extreme cases, can be redacted by an administrator, which is occasionally done if the edit summary was purely disruptive or grossly degrading. However, you weren't asking about insulting edit summaries, but about forgetting the edit summary.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find answers to both questions at Help:Edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not too much ?

Good day !

As my first experience, I began to create pages for a Charity organization (Caritamo Foundation). I'm still struggling with the way that someone arrives and threatening of deleting the page. So far the job was not easy for me as a volunteer and it took me hours of doing such simple job that probably takes 5 minutes for a programmer or an expert of Wikipedia. I experience now a huge deception. You understand the feeling that you do a job for a charity organization as a volunteer and suddenly all your efforts disappear ?

The message says : It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: No additional reliable sources other than the organization's own website.

When an organization is recently resisted, what it could have except the act of constitution in Canadian law (the number is provided) , a phone number that Wikipedia doesn't need really, a website with a domain name and four extensions (.org, .net, .com and .ca) This is not too much that you are asking more sources ? I'm honestly giving up the idea of helping Wikipedia. You don't understand the anger that you cause for the public. If this happens again, I stop editing and I will definitely boycott Wikipedia's family. That's my last word. I hope that someone takes my complain seriously and helping us to solve the problem without being threatened again !

Best regard, A deceived volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontrealEditoring (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@MontrealEditoring: All articles must be based on multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are unaffiliated with the article's subject but still specifically about it. See WP:GNG for more information. This is true even for articles about charities. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It isn't clear why you think that you were deceived. Not all corporations are notable. Maybe you misunderstood what Wikipedia is and thought that all corporations are notable, but, as you know, any group of people can create a corporation. (At least I assume that the law in your province is similar to that in most US states.) You may have misunderstood, but I don't think that you were deceived. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel deceived, MontralEditoring. It sounds as if you have a (very common) misconceptioon that one of the functions of Wikipedia is telling the world about something new. It is not. It is for summarising information which independent writers have already considered worth writing about. You have also (again like many people) joined Wikipedia and plunged straight into one of the most difficult tasks there is: creating a new article which will be accepted. I see somebody has added a number of useful links to your User Talk page: I recommend you read Your first article, in particular. --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it better to request a redirect or request deletion on a redundant, potentially useless article?

I recently created a discussion on an article's talk page to discuss whether an article which was redundant should be deleted or redirected. Of the four users I pinged, two responded. One suggested redirecting the article, the other suggested doing away completely with the article. What would be the best way of going around this? I've allowed time (one week) for other users to contribute, but there have been no other contributions; I'm thinking now is the time to take action on the article, only thing is, what should I do?

Also, who do I go to to request the article to be redirected/deleted? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ElectrodeandtheAnode, and welcome to the Teahouse! In general, it is better to redirect an article. As for the second question, it would be best to let the discussion play out. To draw attention to the discussion, you can post about the discussion in relevant places. However, you should be careful that you don't notify people in inappropriate places because you might then be accused of canvassing. For help about where you can and can't notify other editors of the discussion, see WP:CANVASS. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
First, in my opinion, it is generally better to redirect an article, if there is a reasonable redirect target, such as an article with a broader subject, than to delete it. That way, if readers type in the name, they will get something rather than nothing. Second, as to how to request a redirect, you don't need to request a redirect, because you can turn an article into a redirect by editing it yourself and replacing it with a redirect. (If the article has readers, turning it into a redirect will be controversial and should not be done without consensus.) Third, you ask how to request deletion. Read the deletion policy. There are three procedures for requesting deletion. We can discuss which one to use in more detail if you think that the article should be deleted, but, in my opinion, redirecting is usually better. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Read the deletion process guidelines as to the three deletion processes, but a redirect is usually better if there is a reasonable redirect target. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you please tell us what the article is, and we can offer our opinions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Gestrid, Robert McClenon thank you both for replying so quickly to my question! I'll look into canvassing now. There is a broader article which it redirects too, so I'll just double-check with the other editors involved in the conversation and ensure that the decision is a mutual decision and not one made on my behalf. Thank you both again. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I do sincerely apologise for replying to this so late – I didn't see your second reply! This is the article: List of Casualty cast members. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

original sources vs. research

Sometimes I see a page criticized because it has too much original material (primary sources) and does not cite any references. Other times a page is criticized for the opposite. Why?

What is wrong with simply stating what you know from personal experience? 2601:285:400:B26C:94BC:6A8C:E073:49CB (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The basic reason is that, unfortunately, your own personal experience is not considered a reliable source. I assume that you personally are a trustworthy source, but, if we allowed information to be added based on what an editor said was personal knowledge, a few dishonest editors would use this to insert lies. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work which is successful because of its three core content policies. Those are verifiability, writing from the neutral point of view, and not allowing original research. Adding your personal experience to articles violates all three policies. There are many places on the internet to discuss your personal experiences, such as Facebook, Twitter and blog platforms. But not in Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Besides the reason Robert McClenon gave, there is the issue that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Even if you are completely trustworthy and the information you put in is impeccably true, next week or next month or next year somebody may change it: because they think your data is wrong, or because they make a mistake, or because they're vandals. It doesn't matter what the reason is: anybody can change it. For this reason, the content of Wikipedia is never entirely trustworthy; but in a good article, every piece of information will be referenced to a reliable sources which a reader can check (it might take some effort, but they can do so). Articles without reliable published sources are, in a sense, worthless, because the reader has no way of checking their accuracy. (We do have many thousands - probably millions - of substandard articles, from before we were as careful as we are now). --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Changing 'retrieved date' when fixing dead link?

When you fix a dead link, should you leave the retrieved/access date the way it is or change it to today's date? AmaliaJansen (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi AmaliaJansen Check that it actually verifies the information it is cited to in support of, and then change it to today's date. The purpose of retrieval dates is to provide information that "at least as of X date, the source cited verified Y". It is for sources that may change – and may allow someone in attempting to find a replacement link once it goes dead (just as you are doing), to search for a version of a source as of a particular era. (That is why you don't need retrieval dates for fixed sources, such as citations to paper books). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

who is the longest serving admin

im curious which person, aside from staff, still has his admin powers. i mean through an rfa 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:BB (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Try looking back through the archives at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship to see who is still active. Nthep (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
That won't help, as originally RFA took place off-wiki so isn't logged. The oldest still-active admin whose RFA date is known is User:Enchanter (11 August 2002), although User:Magnus Manske—whose RFA date is lost—almost certainly preceded him. ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You asked that question two days ago also. It is still here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a different question; this one is about admins who didn't get the bit from being staff. ‑ Iridescent 21:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, there was no RFA because the original UseModWiki software didn't have admins, IIRC. When MediaWiki went online January 2002, myself, Brion Vibber, and Tim Starling (I believe that was the initial geek group) became admins by "software decree" (write access to the database). --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm still here! I'm sure there are others who have been admins longer than me, such as User:AxelBoldt, who is still a very much active. Enchanter (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: No, I wasn't around so early, I only created an account in October 2002. My RFA was done on wikien-l in March 2003. Maybe you're thinking of Lee Daniel Crocker. But I have studied the August 2001 UseModWiki backup, including the source code. At the time, administrator status was based on entering a shared password in the relevant places, so everyone who knew the password was effectively an administrator. The password was "aidepun", i.e. Nupedia spelt backwards, which was also the Mailman site password. Since the Mailman installation predated Wikipedia, presumably everyone in the inner circle (Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Tim Shell, etc.) knew the password from the outset. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is standard of English Wikipedia now too HIGH? Or is the attitude of admins here sometimes too arrogant?

Hi, today, I write article finger fork which contains 2 sentences, 2 references (1 from a magazine) + stub template and 2 categories. But after 5 minutes, KevCor360 give me speedy delete template when I were writing. That's make me frustrated and my decision was to delete this article. I remember how THIS WIKIPEDIA WAS BUILD AT THE BEGINNING WITH EVERY SMALL BRICK of contributors who came from everywhere in the world. Do we need to change the speedy template looks more friendly? Why we can easily accept this bad quality article Hicoria, Florida but immediately want to delete the article with 2 sources? How do you feel about admins of English project? They sometimes like a robot, come and delete or follow orders instead of thinking what is good for Wikipedia or they stayed here too long to recognize how they changed compared with when they first came to Wikipedia? I don't think many ppl care about my case, even Jimmy Wales never never know if I still want to write here to say that English project may be too mature now so nothing to contribute here. Alphama (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alphama: You may want to develop your article in your own user space rather than in public article space. One way to do this is to create a "sandbox" by clicking on the Sandbox menu item at the top of the page (or it may be hiding somewhere else if you are using a non-standard skin for WP). Once you have the article in what you believe is the proper shape, you can submit it to Draft space and request a review by other editors.
It's entirely proper for an editor to recommend deletion of an article that does not appear to meet WP's standards for notability and reliable sources. An article in a sandbox, or in draft space, however, is considered a work-in-progress and people who look at it are more likely to help improve it.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I proposed for deletion the ghost town article about which you complained, and someone promptly added sources and removed the tag. So articles actually do get improved. Also, please read about Articles for Creation, which allows you to submit draft articles for review so that they will be declined for future work rather than deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Alphama, Wikipedia is a very different animal now from what it was when it started. Many articles were added then which would not be accepted today, qand there are many substandard articles still around, because nobody has improved them (or deleted them). There is now a well-established path for creating articles and getting them reviewed before they are moved to main space: please see your first article, and Articles for creation. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll add to that that your Finger fork article gave no indication why the topic was noteworthy (Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything that ever existed, but only of things where it can be demonstrated the topic is significant), and the reference was to an article in the Daily Mail which read—in full—When grasping cutlery with flexed fingers becomes too much hassle, a finger fork insists promises add to simplify the eating experience. Designed as more of a novelty product than a serious revolutionary invention, the finger fork resembles a metal elongated cuff that wraps around the finger, and has a four-pronged utensil at the end. Available in the UK, the diner uses their finger to jab lasagne, twirl spaghetti and pursue other fork-related endeavours. If you can demonstrate that there has been non-trivial coverage of finger forks in significant academic or press publishers (which definitely doesn't include the Daily Mail, a dubious tabloid with a well-documented history of fabricating stories and of reprinting press releases verbatim and unquestioned), we'd be glad to host an article on it. ‑ Iridescent 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Here [2]. It's OK? Alphama (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing family section of information

I would like to know my responsibility in adding a child's name to the family section of informationLadyliz2000 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks MaryLadyliz2000 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ladyliz2000, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your question is a little vague. Could you please tell us the name of the article you're talking about? -- Gestrid (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
If in doubt as to whether to add the name of a child to the biography of a living person, remember that the child is also a living person, and probably not notable, so exercise even greater care than is required in biographies of living persons in general (and a high standard of care is required in biographies of living persons). I am trying to find a guideline or policy that specifically has to do with information about children in BLPs. Can some other experienced editor help me? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ladyliz2000 and Robert McClenon. Although children are not mentioned specifically, I think that WP:BLPNAME is relevant here, which says: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."
Also relevant, I believe, is that we have had no biographies of the famous minor children Malia and Sasha Obama over the last eight years, who are instead covered in an article about the Obama family. Malia Obama became an adult a few weeks ago, and is receiving increased media attention, so perhaps an editor will now take on that task. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Are refs archived by bot?

Hi, does internetarchive bot automatically archive links in references onto the wayback machine? Think it means that at User:Cyberbot II but not positive Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at present. If you mark a link dead explicitly or if the behind-the-scenes database considers a link dead, Cyberbot II will try to patch things up.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, will make sure ones I add are archived Atlantic306 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Complex reference: Did I do this right?

One of the examples listed in Scunthorpe problem § Refused web domain names and email addresses revolves around the string CUM, which was the initials of a community in Montreal (Communauté urbaine de Montréal, in French). The English slang meaning of that string was defined, but with no citation. The best source I found online was of uncertain reliability, yourdictionary.com, but it credited its definitions to the reliable Webster's New World College Dictionary (1910), with permission "Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc." The definitions were listed under "come"; "cum" was listed simply as "variant of come".

I used {{cite book}}, putting yourdictionary.com in the url and via parameters, and the definitions and permission in "quote". I put the cross-reference from "come" at the end, inside the ref but outside the cite book. The result:

come. Cleveland, Ohio: Wiley Publishing, Inc. 1910. Retrieved 31 July 2016 – via YourDictionary.com. INFORMAL to have a sexual orgasm: somewhat vulgar. ... SLANG: semen: somewhat vulgar ... Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Cross-referenced from cum: "Slang come (): somewhat vulgar"

Is this a good way to cite such a reference? --Thnidu (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu. Another possible source is Green's Dictionary of Slang, which is a more contemporary source published by Oxford University Press. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen328, that looks like a good source to bookmark. I'll try to remember to switch to it next month in the morning.
Still, such complex cites are apt to come up occasionally when obsolescence is not an issue. So is this a satisfactory treatment?
ETA: Make that, a good source if you can get it. Full access seems to be paywalled. And at least the first page of that link, with items 1–10 out of 130, has ONLY examples, no definition.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu, If you click on each of the first two listings for the verb form and the noun form, you will get definitions which are not behind a paywall. There is no restriction on sources behind paywalls, partially in this case. I prefer a more contemporary academic source for slang usage, and doubt that the unambiguous slang spelling "cum" was in use in 1910. Of course, I could be wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, Cullen328. Yes, a modern source will be much better. And I'll take the next steps from my laptop instead of my phone, so I can see those pages better.
Since the 1910 Webster's New World College Dictionary cross-refers "cum" to "come", with the usage tag "somewhat vulgar" (see above, in the ref as I pasted it), I think we can be confident that the unambiguous slang spelling "cum" was indeed in use in 1910. But since I intend to switch to Green's, that's neither here nor there. --Thnidu (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How to create pre-filled "new section" edit form

For once I'm asking a question instead of answering it. Anyway, I'm currently working on improving the look of my talk page, and I'm wondering: How do I create a pre-filled edit form (such as those generated when using the AFC wizard or on other user talk pages)? -- Gestrid (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Uhm, what would you want to preload on your own talk page? Why not just use a plain link with &action=edit&section=new added? Sam Sailor Talk! 03:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sam Sailor: At the moment, I'm trying to think of ways to reduce the clutter on the talk page, and having each conversation (not including the section header) inside the {{cot}}/ {{cob}} templates would be one way to do that. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you should do that per default; I'm just going on my gut feeling here, I have never seen pre-emptively collapsing of discussions (or "hatting" as it is also called, cf. {{Hat}}) done this way, it's normally something we do exactly as a bit like you have done it here, with big chunks of text that are e.g. OT or just tl;dr, see WP:TPO. Your talk page looks nice and tidy. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Addendum: The cot/cob on your talk page could maybe have been for only the long list of references. Leaving just the editors greeting and signature visible might be misunderstood. They were very friendly. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Gestrid: I also think the suggested use sounds problematic. For the technical part, you cannot do it for the new section tab but you can display a link like New section elsewhere on the page. This will preload User:Gestrid/Preload and display User:Gestrid/Editintro above the edit box. You can change the page names at preload= and editintro=. You can omit one of them if you don't want both. Depending on their content, some users may find them annoying. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, both of you. After your input, I probably won't do that. Perhaps I'll just request via Edtnotice that long lists like those references be placed inside it. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow

Whoa, i wonder. Someone a bot invited me to Teahouse, and i wonder that its the place to meet other editors like me. And i also wonder that how wikipedia's other users are soo much active, as they suddenly reverted my edits.FxdhMxdh (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, FxdhMxdh! If you want to meet other editors – some new and some more experienced – you've come to the right place. You were probably reverted so quickly because some editors had those pages on their Watchlist. Having pages on your Watchlist lets you easily an instantaneously see if a page has been edited. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Referencing problem

I am not able to use this with proper ways in this page Kayla Day

http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=100203304

The page is nominated for speedy deletion. I tried to add it properly instead of bare URL, but always it showed error. Rainbow Archer (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Refil could not generate a cite, but Yadkard could, except for the title. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The article's speedy deletion was declined, so the article is now being considered for deletion. You have a few days to revise the article. Note that the main reason it's being considered seems to be this, so I suggest you revise the article with that in mind. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:Upload - post nonprofit logo and pics?

I want to add a logo and three pics to Wings of Hope (charity). In doing this, I want to protect these images from use from others. c:COM:OTRS allows broad access for anyone, so is there a way to use special:upload to upload some of them only to the English Wikipedia as fair-use?WoH62 (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The logo should be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, under a claim of fair-use - see Wikipedia:Logos for the reasons, rationale and how-to. The other photos would almost certainly not qualify for "fair-use", so your choice is either to freely licence them, or leave them out. We do not have "only for use on wikipedia" licences. - Arjayay (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
WoH62 I see you have already had 6 files, three logos ??, and three photos, deleted from Commons. The article only needs one logo, and as stated above, this needs to be on en.wikipedia, not commons.
I note there are several "Wings of Hope" pages, Wings of Hope about a Werner Herzog documentary, Wings of Hope Children's Charity and Wings of Hope (charity). Although a hatnote on the documentary points to the (charity) page, there are no other interlinks. I think there should be a disambiguation page, be that Wings of Hope (disambiguation), or by moving the documentary to Wings of Hope (documentary) and using the straight title as the disambiguation page. I am not clear if the documentary is the prime subject, - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Strike my suggestion as I have created Wings of Hope (disambiguation) - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arjayay Thanks for all of your help, and thanks for creating the disambiguation page.WoH62 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi WoH62. Notwithstanding Arjayay's comments above, I think there are other issues with the article that you would best focus on before worrying about images. The tone of the article is a bit promotional sounding with a few sentences such as "We work in Africa, the Americas and Asia, partnering with communities to improve their:" not really written according to WP:NPOV, and the "History" section you added here is completely unsourced, so it may be removed per WP:V. FWIW, much of the information in the article is not supported by citations to reliable sources, so any such content too may be challenged and removed by another editor. So, instead of trying to add images, it might be best to focus on finding better independent, secondary sources which allow verification of the article's content and show how the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. As it is, the Wikipedia notability of the subject is not clear, so the article seems like a candidate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Finally, it appears from your choice of username that you are somehow connected to this particular organization in some way. Although Wikipedia does not expressly prohibited conflict of interest editing, it is something highly discouraged. If you have a COi, then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to familiarize yourself with what is expected from COI editors. Please understand that even the appearance of a COI can potentially lead to problems. So, if you are completely unconnected to "Wings of Hope" and just are interested in improving the page, then you might want to consider changing your username to avoid any misunderstandings with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My page was being deleted due to G11, A7 regulations, Can wiki mates assist on this?

The page on "Global Halal Data Pool" was being deleted, can you review again or give some guidance on how to write the right wiki page? Thanks.. Martinkhu (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Martinkhu, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, be sure to check what those deletion reasons mean: G11 means that the article was written like an advertisement. This has got to do with what kind of facts you present about the topic, and how you present them. A7 means that the article did not have enough context to determine why that topic is important in its field. Both of these together must mean that you have probably written the topic by using adverts or other source material that is not reliable, and have tried to replicate their tone which is not neutral. You have probably also assumed that the reader knows what the topic is about, even when they've come to read the article to find out. You should give the reader enough context. You should read this help page to learn how to write proper articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_510&oldid=1057493504"