Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 475

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 470 ← Archive 473 Archive 474 Archive 475 Archive 476 Archive 477 → Archive 480

new biographical article

I am interested in preparing a biographical article on Bill Baldwin, a prominent radio announcer and later actor, professionally active from the mid-1930s until his death in 1982. He was a correspondent and broadcaster during WWII, and worked with many prominent radio personalities such as Edgar Bergen. He had an extended career in films as well; his best-known appearances were as the ringside color commentator appearing in all five Rocky films.

I would appreciate any advice on how to prepare this bio. I have read the basic material on new articles and the bio template, and am comfortable with them. I have made a number of minor edits over the last few years, so I'm familiar with the mechanics of Wikipedia editing. But I'm sure that there are a lot of areas I need coaching on. I'd appreciate advice on the lesser known aspects of putting together good bio articles. Thanks!DrEvel00 03:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEvel00 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DrEvel00. The best advice that I can give you is that a good quality Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. So, try to find the very best sources discussing this person, and then try to forget what you already know. Read those sources with a fresh mind and summarize, in your own words, what they say, and cite them as references. One complicating factor in this specific case is that "Bill Baldwin" is a pretty common name, so when searching for sources, it will be a challenge to separate the wheat from the chaff. Adding other search terms, like "Rocky" or "radio" or "actor" or "Edgar Bergen", may help to narrow things down. Please read Your first article and Referencing for beginners for lots of useful information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Andres Saavedra

I reviewed User:Martamagriet/sandbox and declined it. I noted that there is already a draft, Draft:Andres Saavedra. However, the existing draft, which is written by a different editor, is very short and has no reliable sources. I also noted that there was a reference to Wikipedia, which is not permitted. User:Martamagriet then replied:

Hi Robert. Thank you for reviewing my article. I have made some of the updates (wikilinks/see also comments), however, I would like to change the article name to Andres Saavedra (producer). I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to do that before I resubmit the article for review. Could you guide me in the right direction? Thank you very much.

This is an interesting complicated situation. First, the sandbox draft and the existing draftspace draft are about the same person, and are by different editors. The sandbox draft is significantly more complete. It is usual to say that a sandbox draft should be moved into draft space before being accepted, but in this case there is no reason for that intermediate step. However, what complicates it is that there is also Andres Saavedra, which is about a different person with the same name. Martamagriet is right that disambiguation is needed. I would propose that Martamagriet resubmit the draft, and that then a reviewer can accept it (since it appears ready for mainspace) by moving it to Andres Saavedra (producer). Then, in the absence of a reason why one of the two people is primary, the gymnast should be renamed to disambiguate him as the gymnast, and a disambiguation page should be developed as primary, with links to both people.

Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me, Robert McClenon and Martamagriet. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I will resubmit the draft with the updates shortly. On another note, this first Wikipedia Community experience has been very enjoyable and am looking forward to contributing with more articles in the near future. User:Martamagriet 12:48, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

This comment is not addressed primarily to User:Martamagriet or to anyone in this thread. Your experience with the Wikipedia community is more likely to be positive if it involves writing about someone else than if it involves writing about yourself (or your company or your band). Unfortunately, by the time editors who came to Wikipedia to promote themselves come here, they have already gotten an unfriendly welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
My thought on the specific issue, Robert McClenon, is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that therefore, if a "draft" in a sandbox is superior to a formal draft by another editor on the same topic, then the sandbox content should be moved to main article space, and the author of the formal draft should be notified that their submission is declined, and they should be invited to improve the brand new article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The sandbox draft has been moved into article space. Disambiguation has been done. what I will do shortly is to notify the author of the other draft that they are welcome to improve the new article. (Their draft, while in draft space and in the AFC queue, is not in a submitted state, so I can't decline it; I can only comment on it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

When is it okay to get rid of a box about discussing a merge with another page?

Hi, I have found a page (Shanghai Railway Station) where there is a box discussing a merge with a totally different page and the last discussion was from 4 years ago. How do I get rid of this so that the confusion stops when readers are reading? Opacitatic (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It was wrong of you to delete the discussion from Talk:Shanghai Railway Station, so I have reverted the deletion. If the talk page were to get unmanageably large it would be reasonable to archive the older discussion topics, but it doesn't need that yet. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Opacitatic. You were right, however, to remove the tag from Shanghai Railway Station. There is no need to continue to encourage participation in a debate which has been inactive for four years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks so much. My edit when I deleted the tag was repealed which I found quite surprising. Opacitatic (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Opacitatic. When you removed the tag you did not leave an edit summary and so the user just saw you removing the tag without any reason. If you had left an edit summary like "remove merge tag - discussion took place four years ago and never reached consensus" (or something much shorter but still indicating a valid reason) it is unlikely you would have been reverted. Many users leave an edit summary for every single edit, even if usually terse. It makes your edits much more transparent. For an edit that removes content or does something inobvious it is a key safeguard. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

useless redirect; finding deletion summary

Another editor told me to look at the deletion summary for a page I was asking about, Template:Reflistp. I asked how to find it, and they told me

The next time you have a question like this, please review the TFD, which was linked prominently in the deletion summary of the page.

I asked where to find the deletion summary. They pointed me to the right location ("When you view Template:Reflistp, you should see the following content just above the edit box:..."), but the question "Where do I find a page's deletion summary?" still needs an answer, because the obvious (if you don't already know) places don't work:

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. You will find that Help: Deletion summary now exists. What do you think of it? WP:Deletion summary and WP:DELSUM now redirect to Help: Deletion summary, which is also linked in a couple of useful places. Thanks for pointing out a hole in our help. DES (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@DESiegel: That's just the ticket! The new Help section and appropriate redirects fill the gap very nicely. Thanks a lot! --Thnidu (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you edit category boxes located on the bottom of a Wikipedia page?

I'm trying to edit a category box as it is out of date but I do not know how to do it. Please help. Opacitatic (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Opacitatic. If a category is inaccurate, then just edit the wikicode and delete it. If you want to add a proper new category, then just add it to the proper section of the wikicode, enclosed in double square brackets. Be accurate, as even the slightest typo will mess things up. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Opacitatic (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Opacitatic. A warm welcome to the Teahouse. What is a Category "Box"? I am curious to know. Are you referring to Categories or to Navboxes? How does a Category become "out of date"? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Here are my guesses, Checkingfax. Categories are displayed at the bottom of articles with a box around them, at least in the skin I use. The most obvious categories in question are "living person" categories in BLPs, which go out of date when the person dies. I am sure that there are others. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Cullen328. Thank you for presenting some options. My hunch was Opacitatic wants to delete redlinks or outdated links in navboxes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Claim of rudeness to beginner

Being a first time editor on Wikipedia, my start was not good. I was immediately tagged for potential vandalism, any comments or recommendations (which included links) where firewalled, and the "Authoritarian" was rude and very intimidating.

This is for a class assignment at ASU... and from what I am hearing, it is a very common behavior of Wikipedia. I would love to have your input and comments. MayberrySetterZ (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wsjacob: I'm sorry you had such an unfortunate encounter as your introduction to Wikipedia. When you created your account, the Wikipedia software created your talk page; go there and read the welcome on it.
I'm not an admin or anything such, and I'm afraid I can't advise you on that issue. But on a couple of other points I can:
  • You didn't indicate what article you were editing. That will make it harder for anyone trying to help you to see just what was happening. Apparently it was English Setter.
  • You seem to have simply scrolled to the bottom of this page and written your question here, without a section header. That meant it got attached to the section that happened to be at the foot of the page at the time, which is titled "copyright ?" and is not at all related. I've inserted a section header, "Rudeness to beginner", but the best way to ask a new question here on the Teahouse page is with the big blue Ask a question button near the top of the page.
I hope this helps. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope to see you around. --Thnidu (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
If you want to add something to any article, you should first find a reliable source for this information. Ideally this should be a scholarly publication or a book written by an acknowledged expert. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, MayberrySetterZ. Your edit was tagged as "possible vandalism" by an automated filter or "bot", not by a human being. The human editor who reverted you explained that references are not usually required in the lead of an article if the material is properly referenced in the body of the article. Their editing was routine and entirely proper. Please read Assume good faith, as that is a fundamental principle of interacting with other editors. The other editor is a real human being with feelings, and accusing them of being "rude and very intimidating" without solid evidence is not a good idea here. Please try to learn the ropes before getting upset. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Signature Customization

I see different people on Wikipedia whose signature is very unique and stylish. I'd like to customize my own Wikipedia signature to make it unique from everyone else's. Can someone show me how to do that please? Thank you.

WIKIswagmaster842 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WIKIswagmaster842 – From the WP:TIPS library, these entries should help explain custom signatures.
How to customize your signature
Custom signatures
Advanced signatures
Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Unable to edit individual sections within an article

Greetings, Teahouse residents. This is not a particularly important question, but it has me confused. Normally, when I look at an article there is an "[edit]" link beside each heading, which allows me to edit just that section of the article. However, that does not work for Izaac Darío Enciso Castillo - the only way to edit it seems to be to edit the whole article. Can anybody suggest why this article does not appear to support editing an individual section? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz, I have removed __NOEDITSECTION__ and other unwanted magic words from the article.[1] The section edit links are back. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, PrimeHunter. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding ref that doesn't fit the templates

I have information to add to the War of the World TV series page. The info is in the form of the official Paramount Television press release mail list. I was on the mail list for the series and have hard copy air schedules and synopsis sheets. But, the citation templates are for stuff that be found in the web, in books and newspapers. Obviously studio physical copy mail lists do not have URLs in which to point to. So, how does one add a reference without a URL?24.196.68.46 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. There is no need to fill out every field in a citation template, though you should fill it out as completely as possible. So, if a source is not available online, simply leave the URL field blank. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
... but bear in mind that if it has not been published it isn't a reliable source. Press releases to a mailing list don't help with verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Yes, I agree that it is hard to verify when the material is only available on paper. That is what happened before the internet arrived. :-) If I scanned the pages and incorporated them into a PDF and placed that PDF on my server and linked that in the reference, would that be considered a reliable reference?24.196.68.46 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, IP user: it's not a matter of whether it's only on paper: it's a matter of whether it has been published. Unpublished sources (whether on paper on in email) are not acceptable as references, because a reader next week or next month or next year has no way even in principle of getting hold of them to check what they say. And uploaded sources, even if it were not a copyright infringement (which it usually would be) are not acceptable, because the reader has no way of telling where they came from, whether they are genuine, or whether they have been altered. Only if you could get the sheets published by a reputable publisher (who would of course also need to sort out the copyright questions) could you cite them. If it hasn't been published, you can't use it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Press releases should be used only in limited circumstances regarding noncontroversial assertions but their use is not forbidden and we even have a citation template for that purpose at Template:Cite press release. A company like Paramount Television will almost always have an archive of past press releases available, and Googling a distinctive sentence from the press release will quite often yield an online copy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
These old schedules, synopsis pages and B&W publicity photos, are not your typical press releases. These are not available on the net. The synopses were complete story lines, not meant for publication. When CBS Studios International (now owner of the Paramount productions) made War of the Worlds available for international syndication, for some reason the synopses were not made available on their password protected website (I had a login for quite a while), unlike the other properties like all of the Star Trek series. But, those are password protected. None of the syndicated press material from ST:TNG, ST:DS9 or War of the Worlds was ever "published.' So, here I sit with WotW official material from Paramount that contains information not in the Wiki, specifically production numbers for all of the shows and the fact that the air dates listed are not really air dates, but "week of" dates. Syndicated stations had no specific air date. Another tidbit, for which I have no proof, is that the Syndicated Star Trek and WotW series were satellite fed to the stations on a Saturday, with a 2nd feed later in the weekend (two days before the official week of air date). I know this because I recorded those feeds. Nice historical info, but without proof, it isn't allowed. I also have the information from MGM regarding the syndicated Twilight Zone 1988-89 season, but again, not published, so not usable. I have a gold mine of legit info that appears not to be legit enough for the Wiki.24.196.68.46 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's the case, and many people have felt a similar frustration. The problem is that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody may edit. Suppose you fill the article full of your straight-from-the-horse's-mouth absolutely straight pukka info. Fine. But then, next month or next year, somebody comes along and changes some of it: maybe they're vandalising; maybe they think you haven't said something very clearly but inadvertently change the meaning when they improve the wording; maybe they clearly remember an episode and are sure you're wrong. For whatever reason, good faith or bad, they change it. What can the reader do? They can take whatever's in the page as gospel, as most of us do much of the time. But if it is important to them that it be right, they can look through the history, and see that an anonymous editor added some information in 2016, with an edit summary saying that the information was supported by some unpublished documents in their possession; and then another editor (perhaps one with an account, so not anonymous) changed it in 2017, perhaps with an edit summary saying "No, that's not what happened". That reader has no way of knowing which version - if either - is correct. Even if you are wholly trustworthy about the documents you have (and I have no reason to suppose your are not) the reader knows absolutely nothing about you, not your name, not what part of the world you are in, and certainly not whether you have access to genuine documents. Do you see the problem?
For more discussion, please see WP:V. --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
So, a gold mine of information gets left on the cutting room floor only because documents that I have, which I can scan, can't be proven to be real, only because Paramount (now CBS Studios) and MGM didn't publish them. That is unfortunate. I totally understand the need for accuracy. Frustrating is a polite way to put it. Sigh. And thanks for the responses.24.196.68.46 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
IP editor, I will make two additional points: First, Wikipedia is not the only place you can publish your content. If you really have a "gold mine" of relevant information, then write an article for a reliable publication that covers TV history. Once published, that article can be used as a Wikipedia reference. Secondly, much of the information you are describing seems to be trivial and not useful for an encyclopedia anyway. Why would an encyclopedia article include speculation about whether an old TV show was sent out on a satellite feed to local stations twice each week? Far better to incorporate information from published reliable sources, which will be much more encyclopedic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
True about the sat feed info, but the info about production numbers is in other wiki entries for tv shows. As for writing an article for publishing, there isn't enough unique info that would catch any editor's eye. It is just perfect info for the wiki. Also, as mentioned, for first-run drama syndicated shows, the "air date" title is not accurate, as the dates are incorrect. These shows used "week of" dates that start on a Monday and go through Sunday. So, I do not know where these dates are coming from. Most stations aired these shows after the local news on a Saturday or Sunday, especially if the station was a network affiliate. For those stations that were independent, it could have been any day in the window. You aren't going to find any publication that lists these shows as "week of." TV Guide, and local papers, if used as a source for any Wiki entries, are going to be for that particular area only. National publications would tell the user to check local listing for date and time. I was just hoping to add/correct info about these shows. They'll just have to stay the way they are.24.196.68.46 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Barnstars

How do I give them to people? *Treker (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, *Treker. Please read Wikipedia:Barnstars, which should answer your question pretty thoroughly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, *Treker. Go to Wikipedia:Barnstars. Select an appropriate barnstar from among the many listed. Copy an item for the "What to type" column. Edit the user talk page for the person you wish to give an award to. Past the item there. Be sure to fill in the 'message' indicating specifically what the award is for. Save your changes. That is all. DES (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Really? It's that easy, I figured it would be much harder or have specific criteria or something. Nice. Thanks a lot.*Treker (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
There are no specific criteria, *Treker, except that you think the person deserves a pat on the back. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
That's cool. Thanks.*Treker (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How important is it to document changes in my sandbox?

I'm working on my first article and make perhaps 5-6 minor changes every day, in addition to adding more citations. I'm probably a month or more away from being ready to submit it. How important is it to write a statement about the changes I make this early in the process? And, how often should I save? Yesterday, I lost several hours of work after I saved and got an error message that my changes hadn't been saved. What can I do to prevent that from happening again? Drvalsummers (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's your sandbox, so it's really not necessary to do much more than write. Don't let other things get in the way of you doing the useful part!
If you have a technical problem ("session expired" after a long delay when editing?) then just re-submitting the same page will fix that one. You can also copy and paste wikitext into any other text editor document (just Notepad is fine) and save it on your own computer, then paste it back again.
I would always save after a long session of editing, either because there's a lot of work to not lose and also in case of technical things popping up (I'm old, I've distrusted computers since floppy discs). It doesn't matter if the task is "finished", just save and carry on. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Andy's advice is particularly topical this week, as there will be two periods during which editing will not be able to take place, see meta:Tech/Server switch 2016. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Andy. When I'm working on an article, I may save as often as once a minute. I don't bother with edit summaries if I'm working in a sandbox, except maybe for a note to myself, as no-one else is ever likely to read them. Maproom (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I am the same as Maproom - I save every few (3-5) mins (whether in my sandbox or mainspace). I don't leave edit summaries in my sandbox, except in one case where I was building a co-operative article and I wanted other editors to know what/why I had done. Happy editting. DrChrissy (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Occasional edit summaries can be useful to remind you where to go back to, especially when starting something you may want to reverse e.g. "save before re-arranging sections" or "save before changing table layout" - but these are for your benefit not a requirement. - Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I replicate published figures for Wikipedia articles?

I plan on contributing to articles on technical topics. Some useful figures are found in academic papers. I know that I wouldn't be allowed to copy and paste the image from the paper, but if I have access to the (publicly available) data, can I replicate the figure in a software package like matplotlib and upload to Wikipedia? For example, could I make my own scatterplot using the same data? What about more complex or "novel" plots? Pawg14 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

adding some new information in Visa requirements for Pakistani citizens

hi, i added some new information of Visa requirements for Pakistani citizens. the information is that " pakistani citizen dont need visa travelling to Indonesia" this is an offical announcment and can be find also on website http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/12/21/govt-include-84-more-countries-free-entry-policy.html.

how can it will be edited back bcoz i add this infpormation but was decline.Feroz.khan 007 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Feroz.khan 007. In my view, none of the information in Visa requirements for Pakistani citizens is appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and the article should be deleted, as should most or all of the corresponding articles for other citizens, under WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. But the consensus from 2010 is against me, so the pages stay. In which case, I think Twofortnights was wrong to revert you. But once they had done so once, the proper response from you was to open a discussion with them on the article's talk page, and try to reach agreement, not just to reapply your change. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Indonesia never applied the visa waiver to Pakistani citizens. The list was never extended to a few countries on that list that were considered a security threat. As you can see here the visa is still required for Pakistani citizens and here you may see the official full list of nationals who do not require a visa for Indonesia and Pakistan is not among them.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hosting a write-a-thon with undergrads

Hello Teahouse denziens,

I am considering having students in my fall course create or contribute to pre-existing pages as part of their work on a course on suffrage. The focus would be both local and national. I am wondering if others have similar assignments in an undergraduate course, and if people would be willing to share tips, tricks, second thoughts, etc. Many thanks, IndyClio (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a frequent activity, and you can get in touch with many who have done it with good results. m:Wiki Education Foundation Jim.henderson (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, IndyClio. A current example that I'm aware of is Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Columbia University/Order and Violence (Spring 2016), which is being run by Chrisblattman. Adam (Wiki Ed) works as the Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities for the Wiki Education Foundation, and might be a good person to contact for advice. See also Wikipedia:Education program. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, IndyClio. I have participated in many edit-a-thons and have been an ambassador to college classes. Here are some tips: Have the students work on their projects in draft space, instead of in main encyclopedia space until the content is well-referenced and well-formatted. Be sure that your students understand that Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic. We do not publish original research, and advocacy is not allowed. Be sure that your students understand the neutral point of view, and let them know that we are very strict about plagiarism and copyright violations. Finally, if they have experiences with other editors that they perceive as negative, ask them to assume good faith and try to learn instead of arguing. These are the areas where students often encounter problems. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Automatically Updated WikiStatistics

When looking at the article for wikispecies, I saw that the information in the history section is manually updated every so often. Isn't there an easier way of doing this with wikimedia offered statistics? Where is there information on how to do this? I saw in the size comparison of wikipedias they use {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en}}. Thanks in advance, Houdinipeter (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to add a new section to a currently existing article rather than writing a new one

I was just denied an edit partly because I failed to put my content into context. The context is provided, I understand, by the sections previous to the one I want to add. How do I do that? Artemio Rivera (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Artemio Rivera. It seems that you may misunderstand purpose of the Articles for creation process, which is for writing and reviewing drafts of entirely new articles on topics that are not yet covered in Wikipedia. As a proposed section of an existing article, Draft:Habeas Corpus in International Extradition does not need to go through the AFC process. You can just add it to the article in question, and discuss with any editors who disagree. We have many articles about both habeus corpus and extradition wordwide. Your content is specific to U.S. law, so perhaps Extradition law in the United States may be the best location for the content you have written. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I have a general question, mainly to the regular editors here. Have we been pushing the idea that new editors should use the Articles for Creation process so hard that new editors think that the Articles for Creation can be used for improvements to existing articles? (Its name is Articles for Creation, but sometimes names can be confusing.) I don't think that we have been over-pushing, because I think that many new editors still create (and lose) new articles in article space, and we seldom see AFC used for additions or improvements to articles, but I am asking the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much difference it makes, but this particular draft started out at User:Artemio Rivera/sandbox, rather than at Draft:Habeas Corpus in International Extradition. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. Many editors, especially new editors, typically begin an article in their sandbox. (Where exactly are they advised to do that? It isn't a problem. I am just asking.) It was then submitted by a reviewer to draft space because reviewers normally move submissions from sandbox or other user space into draft space. However, it does appear that the editor did submit it from the sandbox for AFC review. So I still have the question: Are we pushing the idea of using AFC for new editing too hard in cases where it isn't applicable? My answer is no, but that is only my thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A sandbox is a good place to draft some text to add to an article, so this editor seems to have started out with the right idea, but as you note, it was then submitted for review, which is where the confusion started. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
All experienced editors should keep in mind that the Draft namespace was only created in December, 2013, and before that time, it was routine for articles to be drafted in user sandboxes. Autoconfirmed editors routinely use their sandbox space for drafting new articles, and there is nothing in any policy or guideline that discourages such use of sandbox space. It is perfectly acceptable. AFC and Draft namespace are entirely optional. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. But of course, of those, only Draft space and User space are really spaces. A sandbox is only a page in user space with the name of Sandbox, and possibly with subpages. AFC is not a space but a process for the review of pages in Draft space or in User space. And users have always been able to draft articles in named pages in user space as well as in sandboxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Back in July, 2009, I drafted my first article on my own user talk page. I had no idea that it wasn't "proper" or how to do things better, but that article, Jules Eichorn, is still around. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Those were the days. These days several editors consider they know know best how to organise other people's user space and material in draft space created by others. Hence material is moved backwards and forwards between spaces, sent to AFC, moved from user space to main space and submitted to AFD, etc. Objections are rejected on grounds of WP:OWN. Fortunately, there is beginning to be some pushback, for example Wikipedia talk:User pages. Thincat (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Those were not the good old days, except in some senses, and these are not the bad new days. User:Thincat is correct about a few disruptive editors, and it is the few disruptive editors who have a ownership problem. In particular, moving a page from Draft space to Article space and then nominating it for AFD is, in my opinion, extremely disruptive, and should be pushed back on even harder than it is. There were also arrogant disruptive editors in the past. They are just arrogant and disruptive differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Unless I am misreading the history[2] there is another example below at WP:THQ#Need some help regarding Copy Editting. Thincat (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I was told recently that all brand new user sandbox pages (the one that springs into existence when a new editor clicks on the "sandbox" link at the top of the page for the first time) by default contains a "submit to AFC" link or button. I strongly suspect it's a major cause of the stream of junk submissions that give GFOO its name, and also a big part of the "overselling" of AFC that Robert McClenon is referring to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
If that is true that all new user sandbox pages have a "Submit to AFC" link, which is a question that I have asked before, that does answer my question. What does GFOO stand for? By the way, I do not think that AFC is oversold in general. It is misunderstood, partly because of the magic button, as a way to do other things than one thing. What is GFOO?

Draft:Great Western Mainline Electrification Progress

I reviewed Draft:Great Western Mainline Electrification Progress, and declined it, among other reasons being that it lacked context. At the time, it was only a table without references, and I said that a table without references and without text was not encyclopedic. Its author, User: Chris.Bristol, then expanded it and resubmitted it, and it was reviewed and declined by User:Joseph2302. He pointed out that the subject already exists in Wikipedia, as 21st-century modernisation of the Great Western Main Line.

The author then posted the following to my talk page, and essentially the same to the other reviewer’s page: Relating to "Great Western Main Line Electrification Progress" new page submission. McClenon said (to paraphrase) "expand the page to include an introduction and some references", so I did so. the Joseph2302 said "this should not be a separate page, add it to the main one", which means the introduction and references I have added at the suggestion of the McClenon would be redundant, since the main page already has them. I'm quite confused, and feel like I have wasted my time, so I am becoming reluctant to commit any more effort to this. I can't see how I can take both of your comments into account, so should I just assume that the latest comment is the correct one?

My answer is that both reviewers are correct, and the second review is more complete. The first submission was only a table. As such, it certainly was not appropriate for consideration as a draft article, and AFC is for draft articles. I will concede that I did not search for an existing article on the overall subject. The second review, which is that the submission should be added to the existing article, is correct. Since the article does exist, the table may be appropriate for inclusion as status information for the main article.

I will comment that the current draft article contains a reference to another Wikipedia article (the main Wikipedia article). Many new editors think that Wikipedia is a good reference in Wikipedia, but any other Wikipedia article should be a wikilink or a See Also.

I concede that, on seeing a table by itself, I probably should have looked for an article in which it belongs.

Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Chris.Bristol. To the extent you spent time composing the contextual material at the draft that will not be needed at the existing article, this is one of those unfortunate situations where everyone has acted in good faith, but time was nevertheless wasted. No one is to blame. It might help us to compose some part of the AfC submission process better if you tell us what sparked the idea to use the draft process where there was an existing article. Anyway, drafts to be submitted through the AFC process are for new topics. This does not seem like something that should have a stand-alone article and existing articles are edited and added to directly. Though they sometimes check, AfC reviewers do not automatically look to see that an article might already exists because, after all, that's not what drafts are for and the wizard that guides you through the submission process does ask if an article already exists. But the table is not lost effort. Add it to the existing article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the best way to move paragraphs around while editing in the sandbox?

I'm still tweaking the first article in my sandbox. I want to move one paragraph from one subheading and put it into a second subheading. (And move one paragraph from the second subheading into the first subheading). If copy and paste everything into a Word document before making any changes in the sandbox, I can't later paste into the sandbox. Well, I can but although the citations remain in the reference section, the [page number] of my citations that I originally entered into the sandbox don't appear correctly.

In short, what's the best way to move paragraphs around while editing in the sandbox? Drvalsummers (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Drvalsummers. I just copy the wikicode for the paragraph in question and paste it into the preferred location. I delete it from its original location. I never use an external program but work entirely in wikicode. If you have referenced your paragraph properly, all the references will move to their proper locations automatically. See Referencing for beginners for the details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)|

Are publications from the US CDC always public domain?

At least the first sentence on the Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder article is copied verbatim from this CDC website, "Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are a group of conditions that can occur in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy." Part of me thinks I've heard before that US government publications are in the in the public domain, but does that apply to everything? I can't find anything addressing it on that particular factsheet. PermStrump(talk) 20:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey PermStrump. Although the U.S Government itself states that content on their websites might include copyrighted text that is licensed by the government and thus that to "ensure that you don’t mistakenly use protected intellectual property from one of our websites, check with the agency or program that manages the website", we cannot through copyright paranoia chase down every theoretical possibility and assume material like this is in the public domain (quite unlike the required assumption that text and media whose origin is unknown is non-free copyrighted). However, just because text is in the public domain does not make it at all okay to use without attribution. That is plagiarism. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Permstrump. Anything that is a "work of the US Federal Government" is not subject to copyright. This generally means that the work has been prepared by one or more Government employees, within the scope of their employment. This applies to all branches, departments and agencies of the government. However, if the government hires a contractor to do work that includes preparing documents, those documents may be copyrighted by the contractor and the rights sold to the US Government. Or the documents may be considered "works made for hire" and the rights vested initially in the US Govt. There should be a copyright notice, or at least a "prepared by" notice of some sort naming the contractor if either of these apply. If there is no such notice, i would treat it as PD. DES (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC) {{ping}|Permstrump}} DES (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
And of course Fuhghettaboutit is absolutely correct that attribution, preferably with a proper citation, is required for any quote, PD source or not. That is still true even if a document hundreds of years old is quoted. DES (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Now this is more of a general question, because I didn't like the way it was word and wanted to change that sentence anyway, so I'm definitely going to go ahead and change it regardless. But this questino is for future reference... This is how it was originally cited,
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are a group of conditions that can occur in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy.[1]
I assume that's not sufficient attribution and it would still need to say something like, "According to the CDC, 'Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs) are a group of conditions that can occur in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy,'"[1] even though/if it's in the public domain. Is that right? PermStrump(talk) 21:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Facts about FASDs". April 16, 2015. Retrieved 10 June 2015.
That's one way to do it, another is to simply add "publisher=Centers for Disease Control" to the citation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting article

I want to request wiki to delete this article BasicLinux. How may I? Pranish 07:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranish.rock (talk • contribs)

Hi Pranish.rock
BasicLinux is currently a redirect to Lightweight Linux distribution, although there is some disagreement as to whether it should be a redirect or not, Someone looking for information on BasicLinux is redirected to the parent article, which explains what it is/was in 20 words. What would be the benefit of deleting it? especially as Redirects are cheap?
To answer your specific question - as it has already survived a Proposed deletion or "PROD" (the shortcut way), you would have to make a full proposal for its deletion at articles for deletion, although IMHO it is unlikely to succeed. - Arjayay (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Something Else!

Okay, So I decided I didn't want to make a sandbox episode guide! So how can I create an article by telling all of the information is fictional? Because I decided I want to make a real article(With the information all fictional.)GoldForTheWin0000 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't. Wikipedia is about the real world, it does not accept fictitious articles. If you want to create a fictional episode guide, WIkipedia is not the right place for it. Maybe Facebook? Maproom (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Your enthusiasm is engaging, GoldForTheWin0000, but your grasp of what Wikipedia is, doesn't seem to get any better. You can't. Wikipedia is only (get that, only) interested in things which people who have no connection with them have already published significant material about. If somebody unconnected with you wrote a review of your fictions, and it got published in a major newspaper, then Wikipedia might be interested in an article about your fictions (but would not host them directly). Otherwise they have no place here.
It occurs to me that what you may be looking for is somewhere that you can use a wiki to develop your ideas: in that case, have a look at Wikia: they'll let you create your own private wiki, that you can put anything in that you like. --ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this a suitable topic for Wikipedia?

Good morning,

I'd really appreciate hearing from people regarding an suggested article. I am part of a church in Norwich, England (and therefore obviously have a link to the content), and would like to know whether a short but academically rigorous article on the history and development of the church is appropriate. This has come about because we have had feedback from visitors to the church that when they Google 'Surrey Chapel', they are sent to a Wikipedia article about a church in London. If people are looking to find out about us, we'd like it to be about the correct place!

Surrey Chapel is over 150 years old, with significant historical interest - not just locally, but internationally. Missionaries from the church have key links with people like Watchman Nee and also holocaust survivours; in fact you may have seen a BBC programme recently about Prof Phillippe Sands and his family's connection with Surrey Chapel and holocaust survivors. We can cite references for every major event and quotation, from a range of corroborated sources. We are not looking to write about the church from a personal point of view, but as an interesting historical documentation of the development of Christian practice in Norwich. The content has been researched and written up by a group of people within the church, each with a professional background and qualifications in history.

Is this appropriate for Wikipedia?

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts. SurreyChapelNorwich (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SurreyChapelNorwich. An article on the Chapel would almost certainly be entirely appropriate for Wikipedia; but note that it should be based 100% on published information. Any information which is only available in unpublished sources should not go into the article, no matter how interesting it seems. See Verifiability for why this is crucial. It sounds from your description that this would not be a major problem.
If you are considering writing an article on it, I recommend getting some experience editing elsewhere in Wikipedia first; and reading your first article. It is not clear whether, as a member of the church, you would have a conflict of interest in writing such an article or not; but you should certainly read that link and make sure you comply as necessary.
Please note also that your user name is not acceptable: user names that suggest that they are being used on behalf of an organisation are not permitted. You should either renamed it (see WP:CHU) or abandon it and create a new personal one (you don't have to use your real name, as I do, but all account should be personal to individuals). --ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Fortuna Imperatrix has created an article at Surrey Chapel, Norwich. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that should be Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - Arjayay (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Old article in sandbox

So I wrote an article for creation, and it was refused, (but that's not the point!) and now I am wondering if my sandbox is not available for any new documents? Like, can I write another article for creation in my sandbox and the other article will not interfere with it? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

At present, your sandbox redirects to Draft:Dianne Massey Dunbar. You can just overwrite this redirect to re-use your sandbox, or, if you prefer, you can create a new sandbox and call it User:Elsa Enchanted/sandbox2 or something similar. Wikipedia will say it doesn't exist, but will then allow you to create it (just start typing). Dbfirs 18:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
What Dbfirs didn't explain, Elsa Enchanted, is how to overwrite your sandbox, if that is what you want to do. When you go to it, it will redirect you to that Draft page; but there will be a link at the top saying "Redirected from User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox". If you pick that link, it will take you to the sandbox itself, and then you can simply delete the #REDIRECT code from it, and start again. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I delete the redirect code? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If you edit the article, it will look like #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]. Just highlight and delete that code, Elsa Enchanted. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Great! This helped so much! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

renaming articles

Two existing articles are Instrumental action and Value-rational action--the latter a stub. I have written a replacement covering both topics that I would like to name "Instrumental action and Value-rational action." I would like this title to replace "Instrumental action," and to eliminate the title "Value-rational action."

Are these steps appropriate? How can I do this so that one seeking Value-rational action will be referred to the new article? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Value-rational action is more like a dictionary definition than an article, it says nothing about its subject. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should be disposed of somehow. Replacing it by a redirect to another article seems to me a good solution.
Instrumental action is little better. It isn't an article about instrumental actions (it doesn't really explain what they are – if I go to a shop and buy some onions, is that an instrumental action?). It's an article about the term "instrumental action", and how it has been used by Marxists and others. Nevertheless, if you aim to replace it by your own article, I expect you will meet resistance from those who have contributed to it. I suggest that you first discuss your plans on its talk page. Maproom (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't upload my image that is stored on wikimedia

Hello, I have an image on wikimedia that was given approval by the owner to upload. This occurred february 2016. The owner gave approval through a form of some sort. I am not remembering the process. The image is for the draft titled AEDP. The image is called The phenomenology of the transformational process. I hope i have given you enough information to help me with this.Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Carrieruggieri. You need to refer to it in the article as File:Aedp chart.jpg. You must get it exactly right, as to spacing, case of letters, punctuation etc. I notice that you have there purported to licence it yourself as "the copyright holder of this work": this is different from what you have said above. You should correct the licensing information that you have entered at commons:File:Aedp chart.jpg. I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with how best to do that: if nobody comes along here to advise you, I suggest you ask for help at commons:commons:Help Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged the file's page in commons to point out that the license information is wrong, and explained the background on the file's talk page. Hopefully somebody there will correct it, or tell you what you need to do. --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
DearColin, Thank you for your help. I am copy/pasting the permission form that was sent by the creator of the diagram, d. fosha. In my effort to upload the diagram I went through the menu version of claiming it as my own. I then retracted that realizing that was a copyright violation. I then followed instructions as below:

Diana, please forward this from your email server.

I hereby affirm that I, Diana Fosha, PD the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright ofaedp chart.jpeg I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Sender's name] DIANA FOSHA [Sender's authority COPYRIGHT HOLDER [Date] 2/5/2015 Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Carriereruggieri: I don't think that putting that information here or on the page is the right answer, but I hope that somebody who understands licensing at Commons will be along soon to help you. -- ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The permission must be sent by email to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org --ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear ukexpat, It was sent to that email. i followed the instructions given and used the form given. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Then you will have to be patient. That e-mail queue is heavily backlogged.--ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear ColinFine, where is the proper place to bring this problem? If it is inappropriate here, can it be deleted?Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

inline citations.?

How many inline citations do I need? the page i started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connor_Ingram has a box at the top saying it has multiple issues and lacks inline citations.

CaseyPDRace (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CaseyPDRace. There is no magic number of references needed, because one solid reference is vastly better than several weak references. In this specific case, you need to provide references that show convincingly that Connor Ingram meets our notability guideline for hockey players. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, CaseyPDRace. Many new editors are under the impression that templates such as that box disappear automatically once the concerns expressed in them have been addressed, but in fact they are added and removed manually by editors. If you judge that the issue has been resolved, then you may remove the template. If this is reverted, then you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked and Happy!

Okay, I just got unblocked today and I want to ask 3 questions so I can get advice of not getting blocked again! So first of all, The account that I am using(GoldForTheWin0000) how can I make that my permanent account? I just want to only have one account which means that account so I can stay unblocked. Secondly, Will I do something wrong if I copy articles on my page? And lastly, Can I make fictional episode guides on my sandbox page?GoldForTheWin0000 (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GoldForTheWin0000. I hope it works for you this time. If you want to make that your permanent account, just use it and don't use any others. Simiple.
Everything in Wikipedia (apart from some of the images) are licensed to be reuseable freely for any purpose as long as such use is properly attributed. So copying an Wikipedia article onto your sandbox is OK legally as long as you attribute it, eg by putting in the edit summary when you save it "Copied from" and the page reference. But I have to ask, Why are you doing this? It's an odd thing to do.
As for the last question, the answer is, probably not. A certain latitude is allowed on your user page and subpages (including sandboxes); but everything should be connected with your work in editing Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia. Something you made up will never be appropriate to put in the main part of Wikipedia, so it is hard to see how it could be appropriate for a sandbox. Please review what Wikipedia is not and User pages. --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that you have already created a new fictional article in your sandbox. There's nothing wrong with using your sandbox for practice, but imaginary articles are not a good idea, even with the disclaimer that it is fictional. Perhaps you could find another wiki to create your fantasy articles? An encyclopaedia is for facts. Dbfirs 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
One small proviso to the advice above. If you do copy an articles content to your sandbox or elsewhere, the edit summary providing copyright attribution should link to the source page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution, and any media files, such as images, that are included in the copied content must be checked by you and removed from the transferred content if they are fair use images (as opposed to freely-licensed content such as media from the Wikimedia Commons). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
On which page is the information that you have been unblocked? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Your account was only created yesterday and has never been blocked, GoldForTheWin0000. Could you please clarify what you meant by "I just got unblocked today"? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_475&oldid=1065748486"