Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 390

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 385

←

Archive 388

→

How do I stop someone deleting content before I can read it ?

This is about Wikipedia Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus . I am trying to read a really interesting article translated from the German Wikipedia Trolley Bus page (which I think might be from this page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberleitungsbus ). But every time I try someone with the name of Anmccaff keeps deleting it as soon as I know it is there. I don't think there is anything wrong with this article (though I haven't been able to see it for long enough to be sure) and there are full citations on the German web site I think and no-one has taken it down from there. What can I do about this ? Is this person allowed to keep doing this ? I un-deleted it so I could see the article but as soon as I tried to read it, it was deleted again. I tried, when I undeleted it, asking if this person could leave it until I had read it, but to no effect. I thought edits were supposed to be for incorrect information, not simply because someone doesn't want the content to be added. Thanks for any suggestions as to how to approach this. I don't want an unpleasant argument with this person, but just want to be able to read the content before they delete it again. Also I would have thought that lots of other people would like to read it too. Anmccaff may be a traditional Trolley enthusiast, and there is lots to be said for traditional trolleys like the San Francisco cable cars. But there are also so many disadvantages to installing a de novo new Trolley system in this modern world where driverless electric buses are now possible and it would make for a more balanced page if the information from the German website were allowed to remain. We are trying to oppose an attempt by our local Council to install a new Trolley system at immense expense and disruption, including land take from our small park, a system which no-one but the Council seems to want and this article may have lots of useful information for us based on the German experience of Trolleys. Other councils here are installing trams or, now, electric buses, London is building new tube lines; ours alone wants juggernaut Trolleys (where most of the passengers will have to stand). Thanks Janet Janwww (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Janwww: and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the situation it appears you're not trying to read content, you're trying to edit war so that your preferred version of the article stays publicly readable. Instead, without adding the text back, start a discussion at Talk:Trolleybus and arrive at a consensus on how to proceed forward. --Jayron 32 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Janwww, ~~I don't really understand your comment that you want the chance to read the material you're adding. If you're adding it, then you presumably already know what it says?~~ Oh, I see - you're trying to restore an edit made by another user. In any case, the relevant course of action here is set out at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. An editor was bold, adding lots of new material to the article. Another user reverted this, so now is the time to discuss proposed additions to the article on its talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if all you want to do is read that version of the article, you can do so via the article history by clicking on the time/date of the revision you want to see. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Janwww, the San Francisco cable car system is not a trolleybus system. It operates with metal wheels on rails rather than rubber tires on a roadway. The cars are unpowered and there are no overhead electrical wires. The cars are propelled by a moving cable under the street, which is accessed through an open slot in the pavement. The power source is stationary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jayron32, Yes there seems to be an edit war between the person who posted this and someone else. I hadn't realised that people do this ! It seems so wrong for someone to keep deleting a valid post and stopping others seeing it. Thanks for your information as to how to approach this, though it isn't really appropriate for me to take this up as it wasn't my post, I just want to read it. Janet

Hi Cordless Larry, thanks so much for these suggestions and I will certainly do what you suggested to read the article. Best wishes Janet

Janwww, you shouldn't think that you have no place in the discussion just because you weren't the person who added the information to the article. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, so if you have an opinion about whether the information you describe should be in the article, then you should participate in the discussion on the talk page. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, Sorry I know the San Francisco cable car runs on rails, so it was a bad example but an example of a

traditional mode of transport that I think (most) people like. I think I am partly shocked that someone would want to stop others reading what looks to be a good posting. Best wishes Janet

If you wish to read a previous version of an article, click the History tab, which will provide a list of every version of the article. Click the Date portion of that list and the page as it was at that time will display. You will be able to view and review that version or any other version for as long as you wish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, thanks for adding this Janet Janwww (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist, Sorry I thought I had already replied to you. Thanks for advising me. At least I now know how to view the deleted posting - hopefully the original poster will resolve this but if not I will try so that others can see it too. Best wishes Janet Janwww (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that Janwww has been blocked for sockpuppetry at Trolleybus. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit keeps being removed

I posted this on the talk page of the article, but I'm adding it here too because I hope that it gets solved quicker. I don't know why people keep removing my edit to the page? It's a fact that Scott Wilson was on Face Off as a guest judge and I would like to know why people are removing that information from the page? The filmography section is supposed to be for these kinds of things, so please explain what I'm doing wrong? It would be really helpful if my edit wasn't removed without also telling me why. Thank you to whoever answers this Gamermadness (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gamermadness. Neither of the edits you linked to shows involvement by "Gamermadness". Were you editing logged out? Once you set up an account, you should edit only when logged in. If the facts are as you state (I have no way of knowing), then you should cite a reliable source that says so. It is perfectly acceptable for other editors to remove uncited assertions on sight, even if they are "a fact". We are building an encyclopedia with standards here, which means that every significant assertion should be referenced. This remains true even if many gaming articles are lacking good references. We should be about upgrading the encyclopedia, not adding to its shortcomings. Please read Referencing for beginners for the basics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The first edit linked above reverted (amongst other things) this by Gamermadness and the second one this, so I don't think Gamermadness was editing logged out. I agree, though: citing sources is important here, even if the article as it stands is rather poorly referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamermadness, Cullen328, and Cordless Larry:. the IMDB supports the statement that appeared on the TV show Face off although a better source would be wanted to keep this in the article. However, given Wilson's long career and his many roles, perhaps wew should not try to include every appearance of his in the article? This is something to be discussed on Talk:Scott Wilson (actor), I would think. DES ^(talk) 13:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing tests

Hi, Article is Fernando Clavijo. 9 Edits done by IP address - 24.252.237.223 Since no significant contribution done by the editor, so should edit of the following type be reverted with edit summary as - "test edits"? Thought of discussing. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peppy Paneer. It seems that the IP editor reverted their own additions, so I don't think there's much to do here. If you compare the versions before and after their edits, there is no difference in the content of the article, so there's not really a test to revert. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Peppy Paneer though there's nothing to revert (but a slight change in spacing), since the intermediate edits seemed to be tests, and they were self-reverted, you might place on the IP's talk page {{subst:Uw-selfrevert|Fernando Clavijo}}--~~~~ Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is not any difference in the content of the article. In the history, it just looked like lot of edits. That's why I put it here. Anyways Thank you @Cordless Larry: yes "there's not really a test to revert".

And @Fuhghettaboutit:,yes I was looking for something like this - {{subst:Uw-selfrevert|xyz}} which could be placed on edior's talk page. I come to these cases very often while Recent changes patrolling.

Thank you.

PS - Could a Dummy edit be made in these cases to specify the concern of self reverted test edits, which will show in history of the page ? Just another vague thought :P... Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"In the history, it just looked like lot of edits". Yes, but reverting won't remove them from the edit history - it'll just add another edit to that history. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: haha :) ... very true...I get it. By the way the whole point of mine for Dummy edit was to make it look in the page history that all the below edits were Test Edits. Anyways, enjoy Brownie...Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

What would be a good infobox to add on Ikshvaku dynasty? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Capankajsmilyo / Pankaj Jain. There does not seem to be an infobox designed for fictional dynasties (or even one for non-fictional dynasties). Don't worry about that, though; infoboxes are not required on articles, so it's okay to just not have one. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 13:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Racially-motivated editing?

Hello Teahouse, I just came across several edits by IP user 2001:8003:620F:1B00:5861:E7E5:6517:7A22 who seems to be systematically removing category tags identifying notable African-American people as African-American. (What's the wiki code for linking to an IP user's contributions, btw?) Of course I can revert their edits, and have already begun doing so, but what procedure should I follow to get them stopped from just making more such edits as fast as I can revert the old ones? This is my first time encountering what seems to be a vandal after more than a few minues' amusement. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't looked at all of their edits, but taking this one as an example, the categorisation that the IP was removing was unsourced. Given that WP:CATEGRS states "As to the inclusion of people in an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability related category, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources", it's not necessarily a bad call to remove the categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to its contributions. Maproom (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, the edit you linked to was just changing the phrasing from "Euro-American" to "White American" and not what I'm talking about (or relevant to WP:CATEGRS in the way you brought it up). In fact I didn't revert that edit; I'm double-checking every edit they made in case there's something constructive or at least not problematic. Are you seriously suggesting that it's perfectly okay for someone to go through removing people like Phyllis Wheatley (the first published African-American female poet) or Walter Francis White (former president of the NAACP) from the category that identifies them as African-Americans? These are not obscure people of uncertain ethnicity.

Maproom, thanks; I was looking for how to do it myself, but I think i can work it out from your answer: [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:620F:1B00:5861:E7E5:6517:7A22|IP user contributions]] should yield IP user contributions. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but they also removed some categories, which is what I was referring to rather than the change of wording from "Euro-American" to "White American". Sorry for the confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: You did actually revert it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know about you, but I find an example to follow much more helpful that formally correct instructions. Maproom (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that all of the IP's edits are justifiable, but they are not necessarily vandalism. Consider the case of Walter Francis White. Writing about himself, he said, "I am a Negro. My skin is white, my eyes are blue, my hair is blond. The traits of my race are nowhere visible upon me." Only five of his 32 great-great-great grandparents were of African origin, and the rest were white. So his ancestry was less than 16% African. He self identified as "colored" or "Negro" according to the terminology common during his lifetime. But it is not entirely unreasonable for an editor to question whether he should be categorized as "African American", which is terminology that was uncommon if not unknown during his lifetime. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I agree that, if it had been their only edit, Walter Francis White might be argued as a marginal case (though there's not actually a question as to whether he had any recent African ancestry; he was descended from former slaves). However, the IP user in question deleted such categories from over two dozen biography articles, including Melissa Harris-Perry, Solange and Tina Knowles (Beyoncé's sister and mother), Charles Mingus, and Sandman Sims, all well-known Black celebrities about whose African ancestry there is no serious question. Taken as a whole, I would argue that 2001:8003:620f:1b00:5861:e7e5:6517:7a22's edits did constitute vandalism.

Cordless Larry, you're right that I did wind up reverting that whole edit (and I had mis-remembered it as being only the change from Euro-American to White American). I had gone back and forth about leaving the text change, and thought I had decided to leave it alone. I was several edits along by the time I replied here, but I should have double-checked. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, GrammarFascist. We all make mistakes (see mine above). I can see how these edits might be perceived as problematic, especially when the subjects involved are prominent African-Americans, but I wouldn't assume that the edits are racially motivated without more evidence of that. Ideally, what would happen is the addition of sources so that the inclusion of the articles in those categories is compliant with WP:CATEGRS. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

When literally every single edit the user made was removing categories identifying the subjects of articles as African-American (or inappropriately modifying the text of the relevant category page), Cordless Larry, I can't see how even assuming good faith would allow ignoring the obvious conclusion that there was a racial motivation (note that I didn't say racist) to those edits. Also, at least some of the articles in question did already have sources cited for the subjects being Black and/or of African ancestry. But sure, I'll go back through them and add sourcing as needed for the rest. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 13:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood, GrammarFascist. Confusingly, this edit actually involved the addition of such a category, so I'm struggling to understand the IP's overall motivations. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I think that the common denominator when the categories are removed is that the person is of mixed racial ancestry. Charles Mingus, for example, was of Chinese, African, white and Native American ancestry. Melissa Harris-Perry frequently mentions having a white parent. The Knowles ancestry is mixed. Sam Cooke, on the other hand, was Black. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, for historical reasons nearly all African-Americans are of mixed ancestry to some degree. Having other ancestry as well doesn't erase their African ancestry. If what the IP user wanted to do was indicate that the people whose articles they edited were of mixed ancestry, they went about it the wrong way. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the mixed ancestry of most African Americans. I am in complete agreement that the IP went about it the wrong way, but I do not agree that it rises to the level of vandalism, which is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." This is different. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My first article

I have created my first page as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._CN_Ramchand

It is showing some bare url and orphan errors. However i have cited all the necessary references according to my understanding. Can anyone please guide me towards making it error free..thanksAniruddha0505 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bare URL" means that the references consist entirely of, for example, www.ramchand.com/about — on Wikipedia it is preferred that references include an author name if possible, title, date if given, publisher, and access date if there is a URL given. So for our hypothetical example the reference might look like <ref>Ramchand, B. “Biography of C.N. Ramchand”. ''Ramchand.com''. Retrieved 22 September 2015</ref>. (Note that around Ramchand.com are actually two single quotation marks ', not one double quotation mark ”; this will yield italics, like so: Ramchand.com.)

"Orphan" means that no other articles link to the orphan article. It's a common issue with newly-created articles, but easily fixed if the subject is notable.

It looks, however, as though the article you created had additional, more serious problems: an overly promotional tone, and copyright violation — text from other sources copied directly but not put into quotation marks. On Wikipedia, it's important to rephrase what your sources say in your own words. Because of these two issues, the article was deleted. Please also be aware that Wikipedia policy requires people close to the subject of an article to declare their conflict of interest. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

[image The Blue Marble.jpg removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorWhoLover11 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DoctorWhoLover11, please do not edit other users' comments either here at the Teahouse, or on Talk pages. If you want to add a comment, do it in your own separate section. I have reverted the edits you made to Aniruddha0505's question.

Please also do not add images to discussions at the Teahouse. If an image is relevant to a discussion here, just link to it. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Official?

How do you become an Official Teahouse Host? Thanks! DoctorWhoLover11 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DoctorWhoLover11, once you feel you have enough experience and knowledge of the Wikipedia ways you volunteer. The 'qualifications' are just to be experienced editor, who is helpful to new people and is familiar with the Teahouse project. So as you only have been editing one day and have 51 edits I would not rush into it, and you don't have to be a listed host to help by answering questions. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep that in mind! --DoctorWhoLover11 (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't vandalise and get blocked would also be a reasonable requirement! KylieTastic (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia mentions in the news

I believe I once saw an article of times when WP has been mentioned in news articles, but can't find it. Can someone point me to it? Thanks! --BrianCUA (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Briancua: Welcome! Interesting question. Perhaps somewhere like Academic studies about Wikipedia would be a good launching point for your research? --Jayron 32 18:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@BrianCUA and Jayron32: see Category:Wikipedia in the media, Category:Wikipedia In the news articles, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media. DES ^(talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, guys! --BrianCUA (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Briancua, another way to keep up with news coverage of Wikipedia is to subscribe to The Signpost, Wikipedia's weekly newsletter. It has a section called "News and notes" discussing such things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My signature

Can you pls tell me why is my signature displayed like this Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspect you haven't ticked the box in the signature section at Special:Preferences which says, "Treat the above as wiki-markup". Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks {yo| Yunshui}} - Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Guess it's not that - but I've just notices that you're using the HTML codes for your punctuation signs - replace them with the actual keyboard characters in the wiki-code and you should find it works: i.e. type

<span style="font-size:1.0em; font-family:Cyrillic,serif;"><font colour = silver > Aryan </font> hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan</span>

. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the main problem. The rest of the code depends on what you are trying to do. I cannot guess it but assuming you don't want to write two variations of the username, here is maybe a start:

[[User:Aryan hindustan|<span style="font-size:1.0em; font-family:Cyrillic,serif;"><span style="color:silver;">Aryan</span> from Hindustan</span>]] ([[User talk:Aryan hindustan|talk]])

. It produces: Aryan from Hindustan (talk). Silver on white background will be hard to read for many users. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Yunshui: , how my new signature is -- Aryan from Hindustan (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'll need to change it, then - at that size it's disallowed under the signature guidelines. Needs to be smaller, please. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please put it back down to normal size, like this User:Aryan from Hindustan. I know the desire to have a unique sig; I spent several hours playing around with mine to change my talk link, and intend to change the color someday, but at that size it's disruptive. For me viewing on a mobile device, it takes up nearly half the page. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

UfD

How to nominate userboxes in breach of policy for deletion? Many thanks! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Fortuna It might depend. I can envision certain egregious types that could be subject to speedy deletion, but that would be the exception to the rule that that they are nominated through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. However, you might discuss is first with the user before nominating. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

They are templates so WP:TFD.--ukexpat (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both. Discussion already attempted and refused, so no problems with that. Q- how do you know what the UB is called or where it is? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The matter that non-intuitively they're taken to MfD rather than TfD is I believe an outgrowth of the 2006ish massive "userbox controversy". If you want to read stale but (imo) fascinating Wikipedia history, you might take a look. I remember there were multiple desysoppings, users left permanently in protest; many metaphorical trees were killed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit where can I see that? Thanks for help. Your u/name from Simple Minds? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It was sprawling. See User:R. fiend/The userbox controversy, Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Userbox debates and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived. This is sort of related and part of the tail end of it. My name is after the incredibly versatile common Italian ethnic (Brooklyn-based mostly AFAIK) expression (some people, having only learned it and other everyday area expressions ["not for nuthin' but"] by watching mobster films/The Sopranos, etc.), do not realize it was used in them because of common usage; it remains in common use here in Brooklyn).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My article was rejected despite the reviewer's comment that it "seems" notable(?)

My Draft:Chet Bowers article was rejected by a reviewer who left a comment saying it "actually seems notable" but then said I need better sources. Yet, my sources included a Best selling author and physicist, educators and researchers within the genre--all third party resources as required by Wikipedia. The reviewer specifically mentioned that I should include sources from news media, but a lack of mainstream media attention should not be the sole criteria in deciding notability, should it?C S Chaffee (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

For my tuppeny worth, C S Chaffee - the references are good, but it is not clear to me that the article is based on them. It reads to me more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article. Take the first section after the lead: this starts and ends with sourced appreciations of Bowers, which is fine, though disproporitionate; but the meat of the paragraph is unsourced. That is what needs to be cited to an independent published source, and if it cannot be, then it should not be in the article.

And similarly throughout: you have consistently quoted and cited evaluations of Bowers, which do indeed belong in the article, though not at nearly so great length as you have them. But what should be the core of the article is his ideas, and preferably something about his life as well, and that is all, or mostly unsourced.

I also wonder if the literature is as uniformly approving as it appears, or whether there is also criticism of him which ought also to appear in an encyclopaedic article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:ColinFine, thank you for your response. So what you seem to be suggesting is that no unsourced text that describes or defines the subject should be included in an article. Which seems however to be almost universally ignored throughout Wikipedia. I have no problem with that if that is indeed the operating rule. I can simply list a number of references that comment on the subject of the article. But that doesn't solve the issue of a random reviewer deciding that they don't view my resources as worthy unless I include a news media account.C S Chaffee (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, C S Chaffee. Let's take a look at the citations currently in the draft. Three of the ten are to works by Bowers, the subject. Perfectly appropriate, but these do not help establish notability. A couple seem to be from works by activists with point-s-of-view likely to be strongly favorable to Bowers. Again, perfectly appropriate to include, but it makes it harder to judge what weight their discussion of him should have. None of the sources are online, which of course they don't need to be. But it does make it a bit harder to see how extensive the discussion of Bowers is. A good press or media source could help review various points of view on Bowers and his work, and make it easier to put him in context, and to moire clearly establish his notability. Such a source is not required, but it would surely be helpful.

By the way, a couple of minor points of formatting. Please list ISBNs with just "ISBN" not "ISBN-10" or "ISBN-13". This will activate an automatic link to our Book Sources page where the reader can search for copies in libraries and online book sources. Please put book titles in italics. Please give book titles in full, not cut off with an ellipsis. Please put article titles in "quotes". Thank you. I hope this response is of some value. DES ^(talk) 18:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DES, for your attention and certainly your time looking over my Draft article. I will gladly make the changes you suggest regarding the ISBN, etc. However, I am still somewhat discouraged by the subjective nature of the various comments I am getting regarding sources and text. I know that this is to be expected within any human venture, no matter how well meaning, but nothing you mentioned seems to warrant a rejection of the article. Even the original reviewer that rejected it commented that the subject "seemed" notable, then went on to take issue with references and sources that others, like yourself, qualify as acceptable, fine, or appropriate. I will add more references and try to make the text more objective, then resubmit, but nothing I have heard so far keeps me from feeling like I am chasing a carrot that someone else has tied to the end of a stick.C S Chaffee (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a second half of that sentence that you keep quoting: "but it still needs better sources such as news and magazine sources (third-party sources in general)".

You can consider it your job to provide those " news and magazine sources (third-party sources in general)" which will replace the "seems" impression with rock solid evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's my job to provide news and magazine sources? That was the point of my original question. The sources I provided have been described as fine, adequate, or appropriate by others. Your response to my asking for help on my user Talk page was inappropriate and unhelpful-- suggesting my Draft was a pile of garbage--just as your comment here has been. There is nothing that I have encountered in Wikipedia tutorials or guidelines that suggest that news and magazine sources must be included in order to establish notability.C S Chaffee (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The test is that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Notability doesn't require news or magazine sources, though they are certainly forms of independent coverage. Other third-party sources would be acceptable though, including books, scholarly journal articles, etc. Judging by DES's review of your sources, the main issue here is independence from the subject rather than the format of the sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

C S Chaffee, since you are the one proposing the draft for inclusion it is your responsibility (with as much help as you can find) to provide sufficient sources to clearly establish notability. I said above that various sources were "appropriate" and I stand by that. What i didn't say was that the overall collection of sources was sufficient to establish notability. As per WP:BURDEN the editor adding or proposing to add content is always responsible for providing any needed sources, although others may and generally do help with this. It is true that "notability" as Wikipedia uses the term is a soemwhat subjective concept. It can't really help but be so. The general notability guideline says in part: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Just homw much coverage is needed to be "significant" and how much is "more than a trivial mention" in any one source are judgement calls. So is the question of what constitutes a "reliable source". There is no practical way to spell these out by rigid, objective criteria.

You also need to be aware of the history of the draft namespace and the Articles for Creation process. At one point all articles were created directly in the main article space. This led to many possibly valid topics being deleted quickly, before their creators could finish providing proper writing and sources. It also led to articles which had been given "time to mature" remaining in an improperly unfinished sate for long periods, even for years. To help deal with these issues, AfC was created, to allow new users a place to start articles without fear of routine quick deletion where they could keep improving articles until they were sufficiently developed and supported by sources to be moved to the main article space (mainspace). Later the Draft space was created and is now used for all new AfC drafts. Because of this history, AfC reviewers are supposed to be a bit overstrict. That is, an article which might or might not be deleted at a deletion discussion had it been created directly in mainspace should not be passed, only a draft which is pretty much certain not to be so deleted should be approved. The idea is to minimize the change of an article being approved by an AfC reviewer one day, and nominated for deletion and deleted on the next, which frustrates all involved. In this particular case I'm not sure if I would have made the same decision as the reviewer, but it is surely easier to search for and add some news sources -- in this case I would be astonished if they were not available -- than to argue whether they are strictly required. They would surely help the article, required or not. DES ^(talk) 18:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

C S Chaffee, I made some edits to add additional sources to the draft. If you carry out the suggestions above, in addition to these, it might eb ready to go. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Codes

Do codes work on wikipedia? Just asking

(￣ε￣) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassbuster111 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bassbuster111. Can you please explain what you are referring to by "codes"? There are many different types of things on Wikipedia and off that that word could refer to. By the way, on discussion pages like this one (but never in articles) please sign your posts—just as you'll see me doing through a signature at the end of this post to you. This is done automatically by the software when you place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post and then save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

By codes, Im referring to codes such as "Error:No page id specified on YouTube",Codes that include { or [ on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassbuster111 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, does this help? I'm still not quite sure what you're asking, Bassbuster111. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, Bassbuster111: I'm afraid I'm still quite unsure what you're asking Bassbuster. I don't understand the connection you're drawing between codes that might be used on a site like YouTube and those on Wikipedia. We have wiki markup that is used in the editing interface to do a host of different things, and brackets and curly braces are common "codes" of that language. There's also a whole behind the scenes community of programmers who create various features in various computer programming languages like JavaScript, PHP, Lua ands Python, and MySQL for the database I think. (I am talking way over my head of course. I am the merest dabbler at best.) I believe YouTube is written in Python and bots here are programmed in it AFAIK. So since according to a search I just tried, python does use curly braces ("to define a dictionary"), to that extent, maybe they both use the same "codes". Other than that thinnest of connections I'm lost.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia page history

My final question is when was wrestling commentator Michael Cole's Wikipedia page created and secondly was Michael Cole's Wikipedia page actually created on that date or are there past revision pages that are not shown to the casual Wikipedia user?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Truckmanbeginner. You seem to be asking the same questions, about revision deletion and the article history of Michael Cole, as Freshmangrandcaravan/Freshmantruck. I refer you to the answers previously given, and suggest that you stick to using one Wikipedia user account. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that but can you please repost everything you just said about the Michael Cole question underneath my new question and the only reason why i wanted to ask this question again is because i wanted to see if i made any edits on the previous Michael Cole question or has it been the same ever since?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Just click the link I provided, and you'll see the original discussion. You didn't make any comments subsequent to your original question. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Should have saved as template

Hi there,

this should be a fairly easy one for any experienced editor.

I just made my first substantive contribution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–16_Rugby_Pro_D2_season however I should have saved it as a template rather than as a regular page (I think). So I guess that this entry needs deleting and re-saving? How would I go about that?

Thanks in advance. Caveywavey46 (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Caveywavey46. If you take a look at WP:G7, you'll see that one of the possible criteria for speedy deletion is "Author requests deletion". So, in this case, just add the template {{Db-author}} to the article and it will be deleted. Don't forget to make a copy of the content first though! You could start the template before requesting deletion of the article, in fact. When starting the template, do so at Template:2015–16 Rugby Pro D2 season or similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Caveywavey46. For future reference, in a situation like this all you needed to do was move the page to the new title in the template namespace. This is especially important if there are other contributors to the page, as moving preserves the page's edit history and is required for copyright attribution. Here it was basically no copyright harm no foul because you were the sole contributor to the prior page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. That was the obvious solution, and the one that I first thought of, but for some reason (early morning brain failure), something told me that it wasn't possible to move something from article to template space. Apologies. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: No need! A good faith post attempting to help. We all collaborate and can't each know it all. Unfortunately the technology is lacking to let me share the amazing coffee (not tea) that is brewing while I write this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Group HugCaveywavey46 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you're done a good job with the template, Caveywavey46. Tables aren't easy, so well done getting to grips with one. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I was a web developer back when that was the coolest thing in the world to be. To be honest I just hacked it all out of another table so it could be full of cruft.Caveywavey46 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability

i was told by kylietastic that for my sorority to have an article on wikipedia, we have to have had some sort of publicity or mention in some sort of media to be reputable. we have been around for 18 years in the san francisco bay area and are located at three state run universities in the California State system. we aren't short term and we won't disappear tomorrow, so how else will i show our notability?? Naiele3 (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what KylieTastic ~~(I'm not sure who that is, as there is no user named kylietastic registered on Wikipedia)~~ (edit: found them, the capitalization threw me off) told you is correct. It does not matter to Wikipedia how long your sorority has been around, or how many colleges it's at, unless people unconnected with your sorority (like a newspaper) have published information about the sorority. That's just the way things work here.

If you haven't already, you might want to read Wikipedia's notability policy and how Wikipedia defines a reliable source. You should also be aware that people directly connected with an organization are discouraged from writing or editing the Wikipedia article about that organization (our conflict of interest policy). Instead of working on the article yourselves, you or other members of your sorority could request the article be created, and/or ask for specific additions or corrections to the article on its talk page once an article exists.

Don't despair! Your sorority may well meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. College newspapers typically cover sorority activities, and mainstream newspapers may cover charity events sororities and fraternities engage in. Have a look; who knows what you'll find? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 03:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello @Naiele3:, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The concept of "notability" causes a lot of confusion; you are not alone. Basically, it is the term used within Wikipedia to describe whether a given topic is sufficiently notable, or "worthy of notice", to warrant having its own article. Granted your sorority has been around for some time - but has it had enough impact on the wider community to generate coverage in the media (or books written about it, or other reliable, independent sources)? It is not a matter of what the organization says about itself; it is a matter of what other people say about it. To clarify the concept, I recommend reading the "General notability guideline" carefully a couple of times.

However, even if the sorority does not satisfy the criteria for its own article, it might still be a section within the universities' articles. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete a "template"

Hy, Dear Wikipedians,

How can I delete a baseless or contentless template. Plz tell me the way to delete a template. Ilyaskhorasani (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--

I haven't dealt with template deletion myself, but per the discussion further down the page, you should find the answer at Templates for deletion. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 05:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I would like Wikipedia to show us how to correctly add references as I see many incorrect ones from people who are not aware of what is required or how to do it.Ieagroup (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ieagroup, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a useful guide to referencing at Help:Referencing for beginners. Does that help? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is the "us" you are referring to? John from Idegon (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

how do i make a window

if i want to make a wikipedia page how can i make it Samisepic (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Samisepic, and welcome to the Teahouse. As it happens, there is a guide to writing your first article at Wikipedia:Your first article. If you read that, you'll also see a link to the Wikipedia:Article wizard, which you might find helpful if you want to go ahead and create an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Auto confirmation

How long does it take to get the auto-confirmed status in wikipedia 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neharungta012 (talk • contribs)

WP:AUTOCONFIRMED: four days, ten edits. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank You so muchNeharungta012 (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

First article on wikipedia

What is the first article on wikipedia? P.S This has to be THE first article on wikipedia. LPSglitterangelz (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LPSglitterangelz. The records of activity in the very early hours of Wikipedia, when it was still an entirely experimental project with a handful of participants, are sketchy. So the answer to your question is not 100% certain. However, Wikipedia began on January 15, 2001. The oldest known "article", as documented by its edit history, (which was more like what we now call a disambiguation page), goes back to January 16, 2001. That article is UuU. Sorry it isn't more interesting. For more information, see History of Wikipedia. For details regarding that first known edit, see Wikipedia:UuU. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We have evidence that United States and Wikipedia were created even earlier, but the edit histories of those early hours cannot be recovered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

multi drug resistance tuberculosis

RESEARCH WORK GOING ON MDR Tb PRINCYRANJEET 14:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRINCYRANJEET (talk • contribs)

Hello, PRINCYRANJEET. I'm afraid I can't work out what you are asking. If you are suggesting an improvement to a Wikipedia article, please post a suggestion for what should be changed (with citation to a reliable published source) to the article's Talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit suggests that PRINCYRANJEET is looking for research on multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis. I would suggest reading the article on multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and then following up some of the sources there, and perhaps asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Khushbu Thakkar

hi,

I have created a page named Khushbu Thakkar. She is well known tv actress in indian television industry. For your reference i have added some links of her details and official twitter account. Additionaly you will also be able to find lot of news articles of her on google.

Request you to kindly approve the page.

Thanks

SuryaDhakray (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, Sdhakray, not in its present form. Every single piece of information in an article should be individually cited to a published reliable source, and nearly all of it cited to sources unconnected with the subject. You need to find published reliable sources which contain substantial material about her (and the onus is on you to find these, if you wish to have your article accepted), and cite them in the article. Anything which is not cited to a published reliable source may be removed by anybody. Please look at your first article and referencing for beginners for more guidance. --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SuryaDhakray , and welcome to the Teahouse. As ColinFine explained, it is important to cite a reliable source for every fact in a Wikipedia article. This is especially important when the article is about a person who is still alive.

To give you a head start, I have found two sources that confirm some of the facts in the Khushbu Thakkar article, and added them to the article as inline citations. Wikipedia has a feature that makes adding the information about a reference to the article quite easy; to use it, look in the blue bar at the top of the edit window while editing an article, click where it says "Cite" on the right, and then, when the second blue bar appears, click the "Templates" drop-down on the left. Most sources you will find online should be filled in using the "Cite web" template. Just fill in the form, and Wikipedia software does the rest. For finding sources, try Googling Ms. Thakkar's name with the fact you're trying to find a source for — for example, I searched for '"Khushbu Thakkar" journalist' and '"Khushbu Thakkar" "Ishq Ka Rang Safed"' to find the sources I added. Note that when there are multiple facts in a single source, you can just use a short version of the reference like I did with <ref name=chakkar1/> after you have filled in a reference's information once. Also note that references in another language (like Hindi) are allowed, though it's preferred that a translation be provided using the "quote" parameter of the citation template. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess that this thread probably refers to Draft:Khushbu Thakkar, rather than to the existing article Khushbu Thakkar which is a redirect? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, David Biddulph; thanks for the correction. Draft:Khushbu Thakkar is the page under discussion. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

New Template

Please help me improve Template:Royal Jains -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Capankajsmilyo. In what way would you like help with this? I guess what I'm really getting at with that question is that everyone has their own interests and when we produce some enriched content because of them, we can usually expect others to help on some relatively surface level – and would welcome but can't expect others to take up the heavy lifting or deep inquiry without guidance from the interested person. If someone asks: "can you copyedit my article?" or "what's wrong with my draft?" or "there's an error, what do I need to do to fix it?" or any other specific request, we have guidance for a defined form of assistance needed. Not all of this applies here, but it's much more difficult when a request is very broad, or does not guide us in what help is needed (and it's not obvious), or is so open-ended that it appears the person is asking for the work to be done from the start or to take a deep delve into a very specific topic area that people on average are not likely to be familiar with.

Here, you're asking for improvement of what appears to be a completed template without any obvious problems, such that we would know what you might seek by asking for blanket "improvement". Because it is in that state, when I look at your question and then the template situated as it is, I can only assume you are looking for someone to take that deep delve into this topic—to familiarize themselves with the subject matter of Jain royalty enough to assess what belongs and what doesn't. I can't see any other way to take action here. It's possible someone would do that, and it's also possible someone who is already an authority on this subject matter could see your request here and know just what to do, but I don't think it is very likely. So just asking for improvement leaves me at least a bit at a loss as to how to help. I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that that is the reason your request has been sitting here un-responded to for many hours.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)