Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 260

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 255 ← Archive 258 Archive 259 Archive 260 Archive 261 Archive 262 → Archive 265

Submission declined

Hello everybody ! I was writing for a very long time on the Cantata++ article which was proposed for review a few time ago. Yesterday I got informed that my submission was declined because the article seems to be "too detailed for the wiki encyclopedia". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cantata%2B%2B So, I'm a little confused now because that was exactly the reason (article was to superficial and not detailed enough) why the article was proposed for deletion a few months ago. I was really working and editing hard on the article to get it as detailed and sourced as I could, but now it is declined... May anyone of you please have a look on the article for telling me WHAT EXACTLY IS TOO DETAILED ? That would be very kind, because I really feel lost how to go on with all. Best regards and thank you very much! QARon (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings QARon and welcome to the teahouse. I took a quick look at your submission. There are two major issues I see. One is that the article as you said was too detailed (should be fairly easy to fix) and the other is that some editors are questioning the wp:notability of the topic (might be more serious). On the detail: I think a good rule of thumb is when you write a Wikipedia article for an IT topic think "overview presentation for the suits" rather than "how to article for developers". Too many wikipedia IT articles have long examples in C++ or other languages and 99% of users will just stop reading those. A Wikipedia IT article should focus on the WHAT not on the HOW. What is the problem the technology solves? Why is it hard and important? What is the new idea that the technology brings that makes it unique and interesting? What are the benefits (and the drawbacks) of using the technology? As for notability: several editors are still questioning whether Cantata++ is notable. Not every topic has enough coverage to merit a wikipedia article. BTW, I think one thing that might be going on here is due to the name of the product it generates a lot of false positive hits in google on a different topic. I tried doing a google search for just "Cantata++" and almost everything returned were on the musical term Cantata. My first reaction was "this isn't notable" too. But then when I searched for "Cantata++ software testing" I had much better luck. To be notable though there need to be articles written not just by the companies that market Cantata++ but independent magazines like InfoWorld or articles in journals and conferences. IMO that is the biggest problem. One editor here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cantata%2B%2B_%282nd_nomination%29 said: "There is no dispute as to the notability of the product: it's clearly not notable. [only] four references have been added. [1] A mention of the product in a book. The discussion of the product in the book does not constitute significant coverage. It is only mentioned on p. 214... [2] Mentioned only in a comparison to similar products. It is mentioned four times, but is again not significant coverage. [3] Only mentioned in the bibliographic notes section of the book... [4] Clearly not independent of the subject as it states that they are a "Partner to Meteonic" at the top of the page." You need to establish that Cantata++ is truly wp:notable. If it's not then it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article and the rest of the discussion is moot. Finally, are you associated with a company that markets solutions to customers based on Cantata++? If you are you should review the rules about wp:conflict of interest --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny meta description

I started a new article and everything looks and works perfectly. However the meta description that shows up in the search engine is text from the last sentence of the article (including the word [edit]. Is there a way to make the description be the first sentence?Art Stevens (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Art Stevens, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you created Clumsy Thief but I haven't been able to reproduce the search result you describe in any of the tested search engines for a search on "Clumsy Thief". Which search are you making in which search engine? We don't control external search engines and cannot choose which text they display. The text is often influenced by the searched terms so if you search something not present in the first sentence then something else may be shown. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia integrity?

Hello,

I am new to wikipedia and would like to highlight a problem that has occurred.

As a lifelong resident of the Isle of Wight I had noticed incorrect information that there are no wild deer on the Isle of Wight.

According to the local newspaper archives deer have been seen at large on the island since the 1970's and in various emails between myself, the IW's MP and various Govt. bodies also the British deer Society they have acknowledged this to be the case.

However a problem has arisen,that I had hoped not to draw wikipedia into.

There is apparently an ongoing campaign led by the Forestry Commission to turn the Isle of Wight into a long term deer free experimental zone - I have this in an email from them.

This is apparently supported by the IWC and Mr Matthew Chatfield of "Naturenet" is their Parks and Conservation Officer.

It is inconvenient to them for the public to be aware that it is wild deer being killed and not "Deer Farm Escapees" or "Escapes from captivity" as they claim.

This has twice resulted in my wikipedia edits being removed.

How do I move the situation forward? I am sure that wikipedia wishes to reflect accurate information and a controversial biodiversity issue probably does not belong there anywayTimbrayford (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timbtayford,I checked your contributions and noticed that your edits have been reverted because another editor marked them as original resources.Original research are materials such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable,published sources.In your case you have to provide your magazine/article's info as a reference.You can do it by following this instructions.You can't provide your own wordsas a trustworthy reference,(even if you have read about somewhere).Point of adding reference is allowing reders to check whether information is accurate.Make sure to add you references within <ref>....</ref> tags.You can learn more about referencing by reading this guideline.I hope this helps.Cheers and happy editing.Chamith (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Timbrayford: You wrote that local newspaper archives support what you put in. Simply include the information from an appropriate article and then add that article as a reference. Kdammers (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the local newspaper archives is that it is only possible to view them via their website and for a fee, I am currently unable to link to these.

Likewise the NBN Gateway is currently inoperative so I can't use that.

Regarding independently verifiable information I have quite a lot of emails from the Forestry Commission, my MP and BDS which are relevant but I can hardly use these either.

Again I have photos taken of wild deer, their footprints and even a wild hind with a deer calf, again unusable.

I am also disappointed that without the merest hint of verification wikipedia has repeated the allegation that the Isle of Wight is "free of deer". Where is the absolute proof for this? Is it not entirely conjecture?

The Forestry Commission have recently clarified a misleading impression that they may have given about the Isle of Wight having a deer free status.

To quote Simon Hodgson, CEO, Forest Enterprise England :-

" This is of course a relative term which compares the minimal deer numbers on the Isle of Wight with significant populations on the mainland".

Minimal numbers do not mean no deer!

Is it really too much to hope for accurate information on wikipedia?Timbrayford (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely not the case that, as Timbrayford alleges, "without the merest hint of verification wikipedia has repeated the allegation that the Isle of Wight is "free of deer"". This source (which Timbrayford removed in one of his edits) states, under 'Distribution and Population', "The Isle of Wight, just off the coast of Hampshire, is generally considered free of deer, except for those held in deer parks on the island [...] – there are certainly no endemic populations. However, there are some reports to suggest park escapees may have been living in the wild on some parts of the island". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In response to PALECLOUDWHITE it was me that originally me that put that citation on wikipedia but the article was written in 2010 with information from the late 1990's. The world has moved on since then, the deer that had escaped from captivity have long since bred in the wild and evidence of deer swimming over from the nearby mainland to colonise has emerged, even the Forestry Commission and DEFRA have acknowledged this in emails to both myself and the IW's MPTimbrayford (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully local newspaper archives are also available via a library serviceSovalValtos (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Timbrayford. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of what you have said, but make a general point, which is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia may not be used to campaign for any cause, no matter how worthy. If an issue has been reported in reliable sources, then information from those sources may be put in a Wikipedia article. If only one side of a disagreement has been reported, and neither another view nor even the fact of there being disagreement has been reported, then I'm afraid only that side may appear in the article. (Consensus may decide that it should not be, but an opposing view cannot be if it hasn't been reported). The fact that a reliable source is behind a paywall does not prevent its being cited, and if you need to see what is in a paywalled source you may find somebody at the resource exchange who can help. --ColinFine (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Timbrayford: If you have access to the physical archives, you need not give an electronic reference. In addition, though pay walls are not pleasant for readers, it is acceptable to refer to material behind a pay wall. Kdammers (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree entirely that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but it would be reasonable to expect the information contained therein to be accurate. Unfortunately in removing my edits, whatever their limitations, Wikipedia has been drawn into what is locally a very controversial issue and it may well be for the best if all deer references and edits for the Isle of Wight are removed for the time being until the matter is resolved.

Moving on to the newspaper archives, these contain numerous references, if I include them all it might make for very cumbersome reading, especially the citations page at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, is this what the editors would prefer or would a reference to the IWCP archives page suffice?Timbrayford (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

While we encourage the use of strong (reliable) sources when justifying the inclusion of material, we generally discourage the use of large numbers of citations intended to justify or "force" the inclusion of material. So for example it would not be acceptable to cite a sentence "The Isle of Wight has a wild deer population" with eight citations, six of them from two newspapers and the other two from a conservation website. That is just excessive, and indicates a problem with the statement almost as serious as if it had no citations at all.
Instead, you would at the most use a couple of newspaper citations and perhaps the website (three citations in all for the one statement). That said, Wikipedia is not paper, and there is plenty of space in the "References" section, since ordinary readers will not look there first. Thus a recent wildlife front page featured article American white ibis has 73 cited sources, most of them very detailed. (Some featured articles have hundreds of sources cited.) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Vertical bar

Are there any alternative ways instead of using Verticle bar?If not,I think it will be better if there is designed any alternative ways of these symbols in order to have capability of editing with any internet device, won't it?Would anybody like to answer this question,Please?Jojolpa (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jojolpa. I edit frequently using Android smart phones, currently the HTC One H-2. I have no problem creating the Vertical bar character, which is somethimes called the "pipe" character. If you mention the device you use, maybe you can get some more specific advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The device I now usually use is Spice X-1,old Model.Unfurtunately,I am not able to create Vertical bar(pipe) because the device doesn't contain this symbol.Jojolpa (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the device. Does Wikipedia:Piped link#Use help? Or maybe the cumbersome {{subst:!}}? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I am greatful to you for your help.Jojolpa (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know any-thing about cell 'phones, but on my desk-top computer I use C&P to get things like German umlauts, which aren't on my Korean/American keyboard. Also, does a cell 'phone allow ASCII? If so, then use code point 124 (0x7C). Kdammers (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I see you wrote {{Ping|PrimeHunter}} so I guess you figured out a way to do make a pipe. Was it {{subst:!}}? Maybe that method should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Piped link#Use but I don't know whether there are devices which can make curly brackets and not pipes. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for cancellation of re-direct

I have been trying to get the re-direct of Currey Road railway station to Curry Road cancelled by placing a request at the admins page for moving pages that cant be moved but have been unable to format the request correctly. As with most suburbs in Mumbai, the railway station and suburbs have different pages hence the re-direct should be cancelled.Superfast1111 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Superfast1111. The problem is that you copied the entire hidden template, including the symbols that keep it hidden (<-- and -->). I have corrected the error (see this version of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.RockMagnetist(talk) 17:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Weird link chain following move

In doing some work on Wikiproject Biography, I came across this odd case here. Apparently in February Tom Cullen (actor) got moved to Tom Cullen, replacing an older disambiguation page, but something went weird with the talk pages. I started at Talk:Tom Cullen (actor), clicked on the Article link at the top, and found myself at Tom Cullen per the redirect from the move. Then I went to go back to the talk page, clicked on Talk at the top, and found myself on Talk:Tom Cullen (disambiguation). From there I click on the Article link, and find myself at Tom Cullen (disambiguation). It seems like the link from Tom Cullen needs to get to its own, yet to be created, talk page. I have no idea how to straighten this out so that each page is properly matched with its own talk. Any help? 1bandsaw (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi 1bandsaw and welcome to the Teahouse. Orphaned/misplaced talk pages occur sometimes after page moves - I will fix it up. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! 1bandsaw (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to combine two dab pages (and related queries)

(1) Brian Hill and Bryan Hill relate to people with similarly-spelled and identically-pronounced names. Both are small dabs, with proper dab redirects into them. I'd like to merge the smaller (Bryan) into the larger (Brian). The obvious and necessary first step would be to move the data. What to do then with the Bryan page? (1) make it a plain redirect to Brian, or (2) ask for it to be deleted? #1 feels the better (more flexible) solution, but I'd welcome guidance.

(2) Is this the best way of placing an intitle-template-type "See also" in a page with a similar but slightly different title? All pages with titles containing "Bryan Hill" (I like to add that sort of thing to name-dab pages. It (1) is a good way of checking for entries missing from a page, and (2) provides an easy way for future readers and editors to check for others.)

(3) On a related topic, is there a list of templates anywhere? especially for the ones which are currently recommended, where there are two or more which seem to do the same sort of thing? (Examples, using parentheses rather than braces in the hope of not screwing up my post: (1) ((redr|...)) vs ((R to ...)) (2) ((hndis|name=...)) vs ((dab)) vs ((disambiguation)).

Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

OK if a smiley won't post in here, I'll delete it lol Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
(4) I'd also like to merge Dave Hill (disambiguation) into David Hill for similar sorts of reason - not least because the former of those pages seems to be misusing the (disambiguation) format. Advice? Narky Blert (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Pages that need the most editing

Hi there,

I'm new to Wikipedia. When I created my account, I was happy that I was asked to edit random articles, and now that I've settled into the website I can't find that page. I don't remember what it was called, something like, "Pages that need editing"...or a link of some sort to pages that needed editing. I've tried looking, and it seems like it must be on a certain page.

Can someone direct me to that area in Wikipedia?

Thanks!

D.Steller (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi D.Steller, welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like the feature described at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. It's only shown automatically to new accounts but others can see it by adding ?gettingStartedReturn=true to a url, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagunas,_Oaxaca?gettingStartedReturn=true. Another way to see possible articles to edit is clicking "Community portal" under "Interaction" in the left pane. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings D.Steller I think what you are probably referring to is this page: Wikipedia:Community_portal If you scroll down a bit to where it says "Help Out" you will see various categories (fix grammar, add wikilinks,...) of articles that need work. Note that next to each category there is also a link that says "Learn how" which give you guidance as to how to make the various changes. BTW, once you have done a few edits I suggest you check out User:SuggestBot. Its an automated program that can give you suggestions for articles to edit based on your edit history. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear D.Steller welcome to the Tea House,
On the left side of this page you can see ""Recent Changes"" under heading ""Interaction"" You can patrol the page, and check and edit bad links, spells and vandalism etc.
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 02:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why has a newly created page been deleted?

I have been asked by a person new to editing why the new page she created - her first - was deleted. I'm no expert myself. Here is part of her message.

"So I made 'theSkyNet' page with info from the website - it was just a few short paragraphs about our history and info about the project and also mentioning that we were the first Australian based project on BOINC. Then it got deleted, seemingly after someone changed it to something about SkyNet from the Terminator movies. I made it under 'theSkyNet' - and now I want to remake that page. How do I go about making it fresh and new again, my original method was just to link to the page from the list of distributed computing projects article and edit the page that resulted, but now that page has been deleted so I'm a bit stuck. "

'theSkyNet' is the name of a distributed computing project, of which I am a contributor. I can verify the name is legitimate, if unusual. Was it rejected because of the first three letters? or the capitalisation without spaces? or because it clashed with one of the other Skynet pages?

Is there any way that the page which she entered can be retrieved?

Also, when setting up a new page with a name which may need disambiguation, (if it turns out we need to use 'Skynet' instead of 'theSkyNet') I am not certain how to do that.

Thanks!

Ggreybeard (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Ggreybeard: welcome to the teahouse. Do you know what user ID your friend used when they created the draft article? The way you have an account called Ggreybeard what was their account? Or what IP address if they were logged in that way. Knowing that will make it easier to find the deleted article. If the article was rejected there should be a message on the article explaining why. Are you familiar with the concept of wp:notability? The article needs to demonstrate that using good wp:sources If it's a distributed computing project I assume there are journal articles about it in refereed journals. If that is the case those are usually great sources. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, @MadScientistX11, I appreciate your interest. I have asked her about Wikipedia membership, login details and IP address and will get back here when I have that info.

As far as notability is concerned, when the page is restored or recreated I will monitor what is posted. The project is of similar standing to seti@home and einstein@home - both of which have wikipedia pages, so maybe she might use them as a guide.

Ggreybeard (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. BTW, I'm a mad computer scientist so I'm not just being polite it does sound cool. One more thing, it sounds like you and the original editor were members of the project. If that is the case you should also take a look at the article on conflict of interest: wp:conflict of interest I'm not sure what the specifics are for say scientists working on a project. At a minimum you should be transparent when editing and make it clear in talk pages that you had a role in the project. If you need help in the future feel free to drop a message on my talk page or of course you can always post additional questions here. Good luck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi @MadScientistX11 I have now been informed that this deleted page was probably created under the name of 'Kiato84' or possibly 'raspberryastro'.

If it is possible to find out what happened to the page that she created: 'theSkyNet', I would be grateful.

If I do not hear back within 24 hours or so I will probably create a page stub again myself for her and monitor what happens.

Yes, you are correct, we are both involved in the project and I understand your comments about conflict of interest. I am not a scientist. Just a wannabe scientist......

Ggreybeard (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that it was deleted as patent nonsense, meaningless or incomprehensible here TheSkyNet Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Theroadislong. On that basis Kiato84's theory that it was under attack from people interested in The Terminator movie seems to have been verified. I will probably just advise her to recreate the page in the sandbox and make sure she retains a private copy of the raw text when she goes live, in case it happens again. Thanks!

Ggreybeard (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume it was under attack? It was deleted by an admin called User:Deb. Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Theroadislong Yes, got that. As mentioned in my initial request above (2nd para), my contact said "Then it got deleted, seemingly after someone changed it to something about SkyNet from the Terminator movies.". Thanks again.

Ggreybeard (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ggreybeard: I'm an administrator so I can see deleted pages and edits. The only content of TheSkyNet (same page as theSkyNet, the first letter is automatically capitalized) was the sentence "is a computer program that decided the fate of the human race in a microsecond". There are no other versions in the page history. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 117#TheSkyNet was declined since there was nothing meaningful to undelete. Eckley has made no other edits than that request. User:Kiato84 added mention of theSkyNet to a list [1] but has not created a page about it under any title. User:raspberryastro added mention to another list [2] but has not created a page under any title. If a page has existed somewhere at the English Wikipedia then it was not called theSkyNet and was not created or edited by any of those users. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @PrimeHunter for that valuable information. I think I will leave it there and advise Kiato84 to just start afresh. Thank you also @Theroadislong and @MadScientistX11. I appreciate your time spent answering my question.

Ggreybeard (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection request

I went to WP:RFPP but didn't get an idea where and how to edit for request.Would anyone like to get me the idea please?I wrote this same in the middle of this page due to mistake.Jojolpa (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jojolpa Welcome to the Teahouse and sorry for the late response.To request you have to click [edit source] button next to "Current requests for increase in protection level" Then place your request at the top of the page.You can do this by adding a level 4 header (i.e. ==== {{lx|Example}}====, where "x" stands for the namespace i.e. la for article lt for talk).It should be like this,


==== {{la|Example Article Name}} ====
'''Semi-protection:''' High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~

  • You can replace "Semi-protection" with protection you are requesting for (i.e Temporary semi-protection,Temporary full protection,Indefinite pending changes,Temporary pending changes)
  • Also you can replace "High level of IP vandalism" with your reason.
  • Remember : ("la" for article "lt" for talk,You can find the namespace table at WP:RFPP

Hope this helps.Cheers and happy editing--Chamith (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

ChamithNI I am greatful to you for your help. In some device input space is less(not more than 2000).When we get into input of large page to edit with such device,we can't see entire page(letters).We cannot put letters in such edits as well.Is there any idea to come over this problem?Would anyone like to response,please?Jojolpa (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jojolpa,I can post answer to your talk page.Would that help?--Chamith (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about AFD Process

If there is an article that is about a legitimate topic but the article has essentially zero content that meets basic Wikipedia standards and it's been that way for a long time is it appropriate to nominate that article for deletion? The specific article I'm thinking of is this: Hierarchical_classifier That article has no references and IMO there is essentially nothing worth saving in it. I'm a pretty technical guy and I can kind of make educated guesses as to what the person writing had in mind but that's it, it makes no sense to me. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: If you're able to fix the article, then by all means, be bold and do so. Improving an article is always better than deleting it. I'd advise against AFD if it is, as you say, a legitimate topic. Deleting is only a good idea for articles that cannot be improved. Perhaps bringing it to the attention of a relevant WikiProject will cause the article to be improved if you don't wish to do so yourself. --Jakob (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: There seem to be plenty of sources out there that can be added to the article. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) might be a good place to start.  Philg88 ♦talk 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't feel competent enough to fix it. I've edited a lot of computer science articles. Actually I created this article: Deductive classifier That was what I thought the Hierarchical_classifier article was supposed to be about originally but although they solve similar problems the way they do it is totally different and what this article calls Hierarchical classifiers are so different in the way they work it's too far from my expertise for me to feel competent writing about it. For what it's worth I don't agree with this policy. It's actually something I see often here "oh don't remove X because someone may come along and do Y some day and that will make X useful" This is similar to my feelings about red links. Creating a new article (in the sense of just setting up a new file, that's really all it takes) is trivial. If someone eventually wants to write an article on this great but in the mean time (IMO) we shouldn't leave crap lying around that makes the Encyclopedia look bad on the hope that some day someone will fix it. If I were a computer science professor and the first time I came to Wikipedia I saw that article I would think the stereotypes about Wikipedia that I sometimes hear from academics are actually true -- that it's just another place on the Internet where anyone can say anything. But anyway thanks for the feedback. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: Fair comment but don't forget that Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline for its "completion". "Hierarchical classifier" is a valid topic for inclusion and sooner or later somebody will come along and do what needs to be done to the article. Whether that happens next week or in 100 year's time doesn't matter. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 17:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Philg88: I realize at this point I'm wp:beating a dead horse but I just couldn't resist one more whack at the carcass. Wikipedia is both a work in progress and a work that at any given point in time represents a certain standard of quality. If an article has no references and the content is so incoherent that it's not even wrong I think it should be deleted until and unless someone can write something that at least meets some minimal standard. It very much does matter IMO if some terrible content remains in the encyclopedia for 100 years. Every day that bad content is there means more chance for someone to come to Wikipedia and see it and think "oh it's just crap the way people in the media say" or even worse to read the article and think it means something. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: I nominated an article for deletion once for reasons similar to the ones you have given above. During the ensuing AfD discussion it was correctly pointed out to me that I should've followed the steps laid out in WP:BEFORE, before going to AfD. The article actually ended being improved during the AfD discussion in ways that, in all honesty, I did not even consider. So, in a sense, my nominating the article for deletion brought it to the attention of other editors who were able to improve the article; editors who might not have known about the article otherwise. Although something actually good came out of my haste to nominate, I'm not sure this is a case where the end justified the means. If you really feel the article deserves to be deleted, then go ahead and nominate it. If, however, it can be improved as Philg88 suggests is possible, then it is likely that result of such an AfD discussion will be "Keep". Personally, I feel that AfD should be the last resort when there are no other options available, so I would avoid going there unless you're absolutely sure that your reasons for deletion are sound.
Currently the article is not associated with any particular Wikiproject. If you can figure out which Wikiproject it best fits, then you might be able to find editors there who are familiar with the subject matter and are willing to take a crack at improving the article. Somebody assigned it to Category:Data management. Maybe working from there you can narrow down which Wikiproject(s) might cover this article. You could also nominate the article for peer review which might be another way of bringing it to the attention of other editors.
Finally, one last thing about editing. You mentioned at Talk:Hierarchical classifier that you are an "expert on this topic", but not sure if that was before you actually figured out what the article was about. Regardless, although the contributions of "experts" are highly valued on Wikipedia, sometimes such statements can put others off or lead them to question your neutral point of view. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you check out WP:EXPERT. It's only an essay, but there's some interesting stuff written there. -Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: It seems that you've already asked about this article before at the Teahouse in this post. At that time StarryGrandma, like Philg88 did above, pointed out that lots of sources on the subject could be found so I'm not sure what has changed since then. It's OK if you neither have the time nor the inclination to improve the article; After all, we are all human, are all volunteers, and can only do so much. However, others might eventually get to it, so that's probably not a good reason to nominate it for deletion. Just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

didnt quite understand why my entry is inaproriate

hi editor/s, new to wiki but learning on the go...was experimenting something but got an instant deletion msg..i do understand the warning and quite agree with it,,about to read entire guidelines before trying agian..just hoping this warning wont somehow disqualify me from modified entries..thanks Sapphire mirza (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse and Wikipedia! According to your contributions, the page you've created was tagged for speedy deletion under G11 and A7. Your page may have not confront Wikipedia's article's guidelines such as notably guidelines and content guidelines. A good suggestion when starting an article is using Article's for Creation and the article wizard to assist you when starting your first article! Best, ///EuroCarGT 04:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sapphire mirza. Generally pages are marked for speedy deletion under A7 if the article doesn't provide enough information/reference to indicate why it's subject is important. That doesn't mean you edits aren't important , they are! but as you can see your article which is about somekind of foundation called "MY foundation" doesn't even provide a description about the organization.You just mentioned it's problems.I think it'd be good to test your article using your sandbox first, then submit it for review. Cheers and happy editing--Chamith (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
To address another of your concerns, by no means will this "speedily deleted" article disqualify you from further editing. Most of us made mistakes when we first started editing, mistakes are often the fastest way of learning. The only danger would be if an editor refused to listen to their fellow editors, and continued to create articles on obviously non-notable subjects, they might be blocked for disruption, but it would take a lot more than once (or in your case, twice) for that to happen! That warning is mostly for your information, so that you have an opportunity to contest the speedy deletion. For example, you might contest if you are still working on the article, gathering sources and writing prose. You can avoid this if you use the draft namespace to flesh it out before moving to the mainspace (let me know if you want further information about how the various "spaces" in wikipedia work.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

question about images

Hi, I am a new editor. I noticed an image does not match an article that I recently made a few adjustments on. It is an article for a neighborhood in Philadelphia but the image is in a different neighborhood. What is the proper way to go about removing this image? Thanks- colorfields1 Colorfields1 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Colorfields1, firstly you have to make sure whether you are doing the right thing.(Some neighborhoods may look alike in pictures). If you're confident that the image is linked to the wrong page you can post a discussion on that article's talk page.Just create a new section explaining that you are suspicious about a certain image in that article. See what other editors have to say about that image .If they agree with your points then you can remove that image.Cheers and happy editing --Chamith (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Colorfields1. You got some good advice from ChamithN above. If the article in question has a lot of editors contributing and active talk page discussion, it is excellent advice. But many Wikipedia articles have few if any editors paying attention. If you see an obvious problem in a low-visibility article, then go right ahead, be bold, and edit it as you see best. Explain your thinking in a brief, concise edit summary, such as: "Removing photo taken in neighborhood X from article about neighborhood Y".
If someone reverts your edit, then you must discuss it calmly and productively on the article's talk page. We call this the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle, and it is a key element of successful Wikipedia editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Chamith and Cullen328. Colorfields1 (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I will post this question to your talk page.Would that help?--Chamith (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
ChamithN that would be great. thanks. Colorfields1 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Different ways to monitor pages

I'd like to be notified when pages I've edited are modified. I currently check my watchlist irregularly and I feel that format eats a lot of my time. Is there a way to be notified when articles are edited so I can review them? The idea is I'd like to keep an eye on certain articles that I eventually want to improve. I'm also quite interested in the lifecycle of the editing process in general and would like to watch a page grow *as* it happens versus when I remember to review it.

Is there a "better way" to watch and maintain a set of pages? Sudopeople (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @Sudopeople:. welcome to the teahouse. The way your watchlist is supposed to work is that when a page on the watchlist gets modified you receive an email message to the account you have specified in your preferences. Which sounds to me like what you are asking for, although when you say you "check your watchlist irregularly" that confuses me, you shouldn't really need to ever check your watchlist, you should just receive an email notification when something on your watchlist is modified. Is that not working for you or am I misunderstanding your question? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sudopeople: Hey Sudopeople. You can enable the watchlist email feature User:MadScientistX11 is talking about at Special:Preferences, by ticking the box for "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" under the Email options section at the bottom of the page. Another option is to create a Public watchlist. @MadScientistX11: Mad, most people check their watchlists by actually going to them and reading them. I don't know what percentage of users have the email feature enabled but I doubt it's a majority among regulars and actually looking at your watchlist is normal. If I had the email feature enabled I would get a few hundred emails per day.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I set my preferences a long time ago and then forgot about it :) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sudopeople:If you are really, really intent on having a kind of live feed from your watchlist you could try having a separate window for the watchlist open on your screen and set your browser to refresh your cache/update every one or two minutes. I don't know what that would do to other windows you might have open at the same time where you might be, say, editing. But it is a on/off "function" since you can alter the browser settings whenever you like. w.carter-Talk 11:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You can also set an RSS or Atom feed for your watchlist (or for an individual article), if that floats your boat. Yunshui 雲水 11:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! I pretty much did want to be emailed, at least that was one of the considerations. Ideally, I would like an option to have notifications (upper right "You have new messages") for my watchlist. Whenever I start reading an article on Wikipedia I start editing things that need work, and that leads me to check my watchlist occasionally, but it's just laborious to see what's changed and when. If I had notifications I could quickly see a handful of changes when I'm specifically in a Wikipedia mood. Anyway, part of the reason I never noticed this email feature is because I'd seen so many other options under the Notifications tab. Watchlist notifications are mysteriously missing from there. @MadScientistX11: I doubt I disabled the feature so I'm pretty sure it defaults to off. I'm sure that would annoy a lot of new users, and as @Fuhghettaboutit: said, it would annoy big editors as well. I'm probably in a sweet spot only making a few edits a month and have only edited ~40 pages. Great idea about the RSS feed @Yunshui: - too bad Google Reader is no more, that would have been ideal for me last year :( Sudopeople (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it allowed to create a Wiki for your company?

Hi,

I am reading a lot of mixed message when it comes down to creating a Wiki for your own company. I just started as an intern for this coffee brand and was surprised they don't have a Wikipedia page yet. I am pretty sure they are notable enough since they sell their products in the two biggest supermarkets in Australia and have won several awards.

I am not sure if I should either create the page myself ( I read somewhere this is not allowed due to conflict of interest ) or request the page over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment#Food.2C_drink_and_nutrition

Although on the request page I don't really see an option to add the request, just the edit option where I can add the request I guess ( is this how I should add the request? )

Anyone with a little bit more experience want to shine some light on this issue? RepublicaOrganic (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! All articles on Wikipedia must have a neutral point-of-view and be backed up by reliable sources. Creating a page about your company or a company your affiliated with is not recommended by Wikipedia as stated at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." If you are connected and/or affiliated of a company then you must declare a conflict of interest by listing your affiliations on your user page as well as listing/disclosing any other activities regarding your position with that company per the agreed terms when you created this account. You may read the official Wikimedia policy regarding conflict of interest at foundation:Conflict of interest policy & foundation:Resolution:Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest. Regards, ///EuroCarGT 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello RepublicaOrganic. I'd like to add a couple more things to the good advice EuroCarGT has given you. Nobody "has" an article on Wikipedia: Wikipedia has articles about notable subjects. The reason I'm making this point is that if Wikipedia does have an article about your company, it will not be your article, and your company will have no control whatever over it - in fact, in a way they will have less control than other editors because of the conflict of interest that EuroCarGT wrote about. Secondly the word 'notability' is used in a special way in Wikipedia: it doesn't matter how many supermarkets you sell in if that hasn't got you written about at length in reliable published sources, independent of the company. (The awards may help, if they are major ones). Your best bet to get an article about the company is to find the multiple substantial independent sources which you will need to establish notability, and add a request on the page you mentioned, including the references you have found. I was going to warn you about your unacceptable username, but I see it has already been blocked.--ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fault found in Wikipedia website application!

How comes the 'Your user page', 'Your notifications' and the 'Your talk page', and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions links alert you when you receive a message, in the 'Your notifications' link page and not when you receive messages from other sections such as, from the Wikipedia:Reference desk link pages? Can somebody fix this technical issue asap please? Priority level: 3. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC))

Hi User:Russell.mo, you have probably made false assumptions about which events are supposed to cause a notification. Replies outside your own user talk page only give a notification if the reply linked to your user page (like I did here), and there are exceptions even for that. If you specify which edit you expected a notification about then we can check it. Or you can see Wikipedia:Notifications. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi PrimeHunter, I think I understand what you have said, still, can you test the following path please, i.e., when I receive a e-message in the WP:Reference Desk (from the catagories), in my query section (just like this one we are discussing in on), I don't receive a notification, but I do when someone leaves me a message in this WP:Teahouse/Questions page. I received two messages in my notification page because you e-messaged in my section, also because you mentioned me in the e-message. I was expecting this same functionality from all the WP:Reference Desk category page links. Is there any way you fix this error? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC))
@Russell.mo: may I suggest inspection of the notifications tab in your preferences page. To access preferences see the top of the scrolled area here. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I've ticked all empty boxes in both sides from the "Notify me about these events" section. I hope this works... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC))
@Timtrent: doesn't work. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC))
It's not an error. It's the intended behaviour when editors make their replies in different ways. My above reply contained the code [[User:Russell.mo]] to produce a link to your user page User:Russell.mo. It is this link (also present in my new reply) which causes a notification. It is not a general difference between the Teahouse and the reference desks. When you ask a question outside your own talk page, you are usually expected to watch the page yourself to see whether there are replies. Some editors will link your user page or post to User talk:Russell.mo to say they have answered, but this is voluntary. If they don't then there is no notification. None of the replies at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Assurance required. did it, so none of them caused a notification, and none of them were supposed to cause a notification. Teahouse helpers are encouraged to post a message to User talk:Russell.mo saying they have replied to a post by you, so you have a better chance but no assurance of getting a notification at the Teahouse than at the reference desks. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I received two messages this time. Just like the way you mentioned earlier and now. I guess you did not understand me clearly PrimeHunter. ::::Please don't mind the following.
I understand what you have mentioned so far btw. Before this discussion, every time I e-messaged in the WP:Teahouse/Questions page, and after someone replied with or without the [[User:Russell.mo]] code, I have received a notification for commenting on my section(s), I have also received a notification when others used [[User:Russell.mo]] code, two notifications if they commented with the code, just like the way I have received your first comment. After I made it clear to you with my reply to your first e-message, the functionality of the web application in this particular topic seems to have changed, now backing your first as well as the second statement, meaning, I received only two messages now, one from you and the other from Timtrent. My aim was to help, to make Wikipedia better, fit to user's needs as I am a user. I did not imagine that a functionality will be omitted to back a statement. The main purpose of this discussion was to change what you mentioned in your second e-message i.e., make all the categories available in the WP:Reference Desk just like WP:Teahouse/Questions page, how it notify's, as aforementioned.
I classify this as a fault in the web application, I wish for this discussion to conclude by meeting the user's needs/requirements i.e re-alter what's just been omitted and imply notifications for feedback s and "user name" code for all the categories available in the WP:Reference desk page if possible.
(Russell.mo (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC))
It would be nice if editors could choose to get automatic notifications whenever any post is made to a section they started or maybe contributed to, but that feature has never existed in our software so it's not something which can just be turned on. I have omitted linking your user page in this post so you can see (assuming you come back here by yourself and read my post), that a Teahouse post doesn't automatically cause a notification. There are different ways to create a wikilink to your user page. I wonder whether this has caused you to think no link was made when you received a notification. The notification system only registers whether a link is generated and not whether it was made with [[User:Russell.mo]], [[User:Russell.mo|Russell.mo]], {{U|Russell.mo}}, or some other code. PrimeHunter (talk)
I’m lost! I don’t get what you are saying. All I want/wanted is a notification alert in the ‘view notifications’ page every time I receive a feedback(s) for my post(s) from others, with or without them having to insert my 'username' code, from most of the categories (pages) available in the WP:Reference desk, whatever functions similar to WP:Teahouse/Questions page, just like the way it was in the WP:Teahouse/Questions page. Is this possible to create/activate? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC))
No, it isn't. The Teahouse notifications are sent manually (or at best semi-automatically), using a script. A similar script could be written for the Reference Desk pages, but even if that were done, you would still not receive notifications about Reference Desk replies if the replies were written by people not using the script, or people who chose not to send you a notification when replying to you. Likewise you do not receive notifications about Teahouse replies in the same circumstances. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Arthur goes shopping: @PrimeHunter: Well I received notifications with and without others having to use my 'user name' code when they replied via my post(s), surprising how things changed during this discussion. Take a look at the following, what's provided by Wikipedia when I received notifications with and without others having to use my 'user name' code:
1) This is for mentioning me on my post, using my 'user name' code:
PrimeHunter mentioned you on the Teahouse/Questions talk page in "Fault found in Wikipedia we...".
2 days ago | View changes
2) This is for leaving a message without using my 'user name' code:
2.1) PrimeHunter left a message on your talk page in "Teahouse talkback: you've g...".
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|Fault found in Wikipedia website application!|ts=
2.2) W.carter and 2 others left a message on your talk page.
I wished to receive a notification regardless of whether others used my 'user name' code or not, just like point (2), and wanted to help Wikipedia by voluntarily advising that this system Point (2) must be used for all/most of the categories available in the WP:Reference desk pages links, whatever is similar to WP:Teahouse/Questions page. - This would've, indeed, improved the quality of the web application. Note, the second fault found, this system/functionality which use to exist, use to provide two message when used the 'user name' along. It should provided one with and without the 'user name' code, e.g., either say 'left you a message' or 'mentioned you' [View Point 1 &2].
Can you kindly reactivate this please, at least, if you can't fix the issue, rather than omitting it? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC))
Hello again Russell. Nothing has changed during this discussion, and therefore nothing can be "reactivated". The message you describe in point 2.1 above was not an automatic feature, but was left on your talkpage by PrimeHunter choosing to use the Teahouse script (as I explained above) to send you a notification. There is not, and never has been, an automatic feature to notify someone that their message has been replied to in circumstances where their username is not mentioned in the reply. The confusion here seems to have been caused by seeing non-automated notifications and believing that they were automated. Teahouse talkback notifications are not automated; "mentioned you" notifications are automated; "left a message on your talk page" notifications are automated. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As we keep repeating and repeating, such an automatic feature has never existed. Some users choose to post to User talk:Russell.mo to inform you they have replied on another page. If they choose to make such a post then you get a notification, because you get a notification for any edit by others to User talk:Russell.mo. The post could have been about anything and would still have generated a notification. Some Teahouse hosts choose to use a special Teahouse script which makes it easy to post a standardized message to your talk page saying that you have a reply at the Teahouse, but even if they install the script they still have to choose to go to your talk page and use the script. They also have to manually copy the section heading here at the Teahouse so the link goes to the right section on the page. In addition to or instead of a post to your talk page, some editors choose to link your user name in the reply outside your talk page. An optional post to your talk page and an optional link to your user page on another page are independent events in independently made edits. If both events occur then you get a notification about both of them. If only one of the events occur then you only get a notification about that one. If none of them occur (this is the most common for most discussion pages) then you get no notification. The only thing which has changed during this discussion is whether editors have chosen to do one of the things or the other or both or none. No software feature has been turned off because no such feature exist. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, I guess you guys are not understanding me what I'm trying to say. Thank you all anyways. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC))

We understand you. The problem is that we are convinced you have misunderstood the cause of some of your notifications. I will give it one last try. Others cannot see your notifications but earlier you quoted this one:
PrimeHunter left a message on your talk page in "Teahouse talkback: you've g...".
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|Fault found in Wikipedia website application!|ts=
You apparently think that notification was made automatically because I made this post here at the Teahouse. That is not the case. The notification was actually caused by this post to User talk:Russell.mo. First I made a reply here at the Teahouse and then I chose (it didn't happen automatically) to make a second post a minute later at User talk:Russell.mo to tell you about my reply. It was this second post which caused the notification. Posts to your user talk page always cause notifications whether your user page is linked or not. Note the quoted notification says "Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|Fault found in Wikipedia website application!|ts=". That text is not in my reply here at the Teahouse, but it is in the post I made to your talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter:This new user seems to get confused when someone mentions "codes" and has yet not grasped all the intricacies of communication here at the WP. I have taken the discussion to their talk page and am trying to explain from another angle to see if it works better. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you post pictures on articles?

Hello!, How do you post pictures on articles? Please help. Scoooter3 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,Scooter3,to add pictures to an article first you have to upload them to wikimedia servers,You can do that by using File Upload Wizard,or else you can upload them at Wikimedia Commons.Wikipedia has a strict policy against copyright violations.So make sure you read copyright policies first.Cheers and happy editing--Chamith (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
After uploading the picture you can put them in infoboxes or anywhere else in the article,to do this all you have to do is type the name of the file you uploaded on that article (i.e image=[[File:example.jpg]]Here,
  • Example.png is the name of your file with extension
  • Typing file name within [[File:......]] is necessary
Hope this helps--Chamith (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I wrote this essay a while back, which might be of some use. Yunshui 雲水 14:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you User:Yunshui & User:Chamith I appreciate your help! Scoooter3 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Photos should be uploaded to Wikipedia, not Wikimedia, if they meet fair use requirements but copyright problems would prevent them from being used on Wikimedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_260&oldid=1138689206"