Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 665

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 660

←

Archive 663

Archive 664

Archive 665

Archive 666

Archive 667

→

Archive 670

I have tried to cite a source for my article LAYTONGKU but since I have written the short article from first hand experience I haven't any sources that seem to suit Wikipedia principals. My knowledge of Laytongku is first hand since I lived in the village among the Telakan Karen, in one of the villag family's houses for approximatey 3 months learning the Sgaw language that they speak and taking part in their daily life as one of them. I had a difficult time finding any mention of Laytongku on maps, however, I did find one on www.trekthailand.net/places: Umphang Forest Map, Karen Villages, waterfalls, Tak Province and wonder if that is a suitable source to cite. I have done so. also since I post under the user name: PALUKIWA (Pa Luki Wa) the name given me by the telekhone (Telakan) Karen family I lived with I have tried to cite the source with my user name: PALUKIWA a/k/a Tzaims Luksus, FRSA, Alumnus 1961-1991 St. Edmund Hall, Oxford and hope that will be accepted since I have no other source to cite. I chose the user name: Palukiwa since I thought it reasonable for creating the article: LAYTONGKU. If anyone reading this can assist me and suggest another cite that I could use as a source satisfactory for Wikipedia to accept I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Palukiwa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Palukiwa and welcome to the Teahouse.

What you present us with is a puzzle. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia covering a broad range of topics (some might say "all human knowleged") but the standards it has set up for itself necessarily mean that some kinds of information are ineligible for inclusion. Personal testimony cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be the primary source. If you wish to contribute your knowledge of Laytongku to the world, you must find another suitable venue. You could create your own blog page about it, or a Facebook page, and invite other people to contribute their experiences. While these are not currently acceptable as Wikipedia sources, the contacts you make this way might well lead you to additional published sources that could be used as the basis for a WP article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Palukiwa: - sorry for misspelling. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not new to wikipedia — I've been contributing to Wikipedia for more than a decade and have created many articles. Recently I created an article on "Algorithmic Transparency." Rather than just creating it from scratch and popping it on the wiki, as used to be standard practice, I decided to try the new "rules" and submit it as a proposed article.

The article was rejected (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Algorithmic_transparency). I suppose what's quite frustrating is that it was rejected by people saying it was not a commonly used term, when "algorithmic transparency" (quoted) brings up 57,000 google results, and has been the subject of substantial amount of media coverage in recent years.

I've read a lot in the news about how the wikipedia editors crowd has become an increasingly hostile in-club, but this is really the first time that it's impacted me directly. (Well, the second time, the first time it was someone disputing something I put on the Bit Coin article. They were wrong, and the person had a history of reverting lots of edits elsewhere, and appeared to have been reprimanded for it, but it just wasn't worth fighting it out.)

I'm not sure if I should bother proceeding at this point, but I wanted to voice my concern over here, because there's clearly an issue of wikipedia becoming increasingly hostile, and not just to newcomers. Simsong (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Simsong: I've added some sources to the draft that should satisfy the concerns from editors there if you'd like to resubmit. In fact, I would just publish the article at this point. In my opinion, WP:AFC is not what I would recommend for folks to use to get articles started. It's not required, and I think an inconsistent and sometimes too high a standard of notability is used to approve articles that are drafted there. I also find that reviewers there are sometimes less interested in helping potentially appropriate articles get published. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Simsong. I agree with I JethroBT on this matter. If you have ten years of experience and have been successful creating other articles, then there is no need for you to use the Articles for Creation process. AFC is entirely optional and may be useful for new editors but I have never once used it, and I have written about 100 new articles. On the other hand, you should ensure that any new article you write is properly and thoroughly referenced to show notability and allow readers to verify the content. If you write high quality articles, then just move them directly to the encyclopedia, and be prepared to defend them against any critics. Not one of the articles I have written has ever been deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@IJethroBT and @Cullen, thanks to both of you for the encouragement. I agree with you that those policing the AFC process may be holding new articles to a different standard of existing articles. I will move the article out of draft status later today and see what happens. Thanks again.Simsong (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Simsong -- I agree that you got hammered on Algorithmic transparency. Imagine it was 1904. Einstein's article on Relativity would have been rejected as a neologism. Having said that, Algorithmic transparency does not describe what you are getting at. The expansion would be algorithm-like transparency. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about transparency of algorithms. Judges should not send people to jail based on an algorithm no one can explain. No one should be denied credit as a result of a scoring mechanism no one can explain. And no one's article should be rejected becasue the idea is new. Search NPR and WNYC; they did a long segment on nasty algorithms. Rhadow (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• The usual method I use to write an article is gather at least several WP:RSs that are specifically about but independent of and unaffiliated with the topic that I can find, summarize and paraphrase them off site, and only post if I've got four or five solid sources (counting sources that discuss but are not necessarily about the topic as fractional sources) and more than a definition of the topic. I've never gone through the draft process because this approach results in a product that'd be a waste of their time to go through. If you create a short article, try to make it one where every sentence has its own source and that each sentence could become the topic sentence for full-length paragraphs. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble getting this page to stick., any good ideas to help out? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Montana_Montana_Montana Maclafornia925 (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Maclafornia925, and welcome to the Teahouse. The AfC reviewers who have looked over your draft have left you detailed instructions for meeting the Wikipedia requirements WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. If you have a specific question about those instructions, please specify what you don't understand. You're welcome to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

profile edited and updated with corrections., is article ready for submission. Maclafornia925 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to create a profile for this person, do it elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, and we have encyclopedia articles about notable subjects. I see nothing in the draft you've submitted to indicate this person meets any notability criteria, criteria which you have been informed about in previous reviews. You were also requested to make numerous cosmetic changes mainly centered around your misuse of the English language. An encyclopedia is a formal work. Please don't write in text speak. My suggestion is that you hone your writing skills elsewhere and attempt to create an article after you learn how to construct a proper sentence. John from Idegon (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Pls, what else and what next to do as my page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Rock_Kingdom_Church has been move to draft/namespace. Or what is the reason, becus references and other links has been added to the page. Please, tell me what to do so as for the page to be reviewed. Thanks! Visionjohnny (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote has been converted to a draft, now at Draft:Solid Rock Kingdom Church, because it failed to cite any reliable independent published sources, several of which would be needed to establish that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Pls, its almost a week now since i sumitted my page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apostle_John_Okoriko Or Is it deleted or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionjohnny (talk • contribs)

Hi Visionjohnny. You saved the page but you haven't submitted it for review. I have added a box with some help links and a submit button. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

But don't submit it for review in its present form, Visionjohnny: it will certainly fail, and just waste everybody's time. Please underst5and that a Wikipedia article should be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject. Your draft currently has almost not content, and no independent references (the Afrik-news item is based on an interview with Okoriko). Please read your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help in adding a name to the External lInks section at the bottom of the Jefferson Starship page. I didn't get an answer to my question on the article's talk page. There was a response, but not an answer. Thank you!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What you mean is, you did not get an answer that you agree with. You appear to be close to Edit warring with another contributor, and FWIW, although I knew nothing of this dispute until now, and don't propose to involve myself, I find your stance, that "there is no connection between Jefferson Aeroplane and Jefferson Starship because the former broke up in 1972 and the latter was formed in 1974", somewhat bizarre. In any case, the former article suggests that Aeroplane (who toured until September 1972) did not cease all activities until some time after April 1973 (when they released Thirty Seconds Over Winterland) and that no official breakup announcement was ever made, and with Starship rehearsing from January 1974 the hiaitus was at most 7 months, which in rock terms amounts to little more than an extended holiday. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Shahzad_Gul_Aryobee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehman.hazrat (talk • contribs) 06:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rehman.hazrat.

On the good side, you received a very prompt review. So the reviewer's explanation is fairly clear: as a biography, your submission has to have suitable in-line references for it to become an article. Take a look at Referencing for beginners to get an idea of how this is done. Did the reviewer say anything about notability? That's also a hurdle you need to be conscious of. It can't be just your own assertion that the subject is important; you need to have some reliable sources to say that as well. As a national-level office holder, notability should be met, but the references have to establish that. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Article titled Yr Arddu (describing a hill in North Wales, UK) has the following issue: 1. The English version currently points out there is at least one other hill of the same name close by with which this instance should not be confused 2. The Welsh version describes the second location (to see this compare height and map references given) i.e. the one the English version asks not to be confused with

Should this be resolved? If so is the correct course of action to create a second page for the second Yr Arddu?

I would be happy to do this however I am unsure how to name the second entry - how should I name it? How should I move the Welsh text to the new entry (I am not able to speak Welsh)?

Adamlatchem (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So to clarify, both hills have the same name and are in the same place?

if there are no distinguishing features you could try compass naming, ie Yr Arddu (West) and Yr Arddu (East) or north/south if appropriate. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks A Guy into Books - the two peaks are about 10km apart, in terms of distinguishing features one has a lake - would that help? Also they are different heights so maybe I could use that in the title? Otherwise I think using North/South sounds like a great idea for now. Adamlatchem (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes go with the compass north/south titling, i suppose the ambiguity can be cleared up in the lede, mentioning the differences in height and the lake. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

We should also be guided by how the sources distinguish between them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, just got my tenth edit, may I kindly ask what the heck a watchlist (if even important) is?Dylan Smithson (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dylan Smithson: Hello and welcome. Your Watchlist is a list of pages that you are monitoring. This might include pages you create yourself or just pages that you are interested in for whatever reason. For existing pages, (assuming you are using a computer to use Wikipedia) you can add them to your Watchlist by clicking the star located in a tab at the top of the page. This will turn the star blue. To remove it from your Watchlist, you can click it again which will make the star white again. You can also adjust what appears in your Watchlist in your Preferences; click "Preferences" at the top right of the screen and then click the Watchlist tab, which has some options(some of which include automatically adding pages you edit to the Watchlist)

I hope that this helps you; if you have other questions, please reply below. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

For further information, see Help:Watchlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There is another editor which I think produces exceptionally poor quality content. It's not vandalism, and appears generally well-intentioned, but is of exceptionally poor quality. Their edits frequently rewrite content leaving citations intact, misrepresenting their sources. They sometimes insert their own opinion. They remove negative content related to a particular country without explanation, although that is the only clear case of bias I see. Their talk page is littered with warnings, but, as I said, I reckon they are well-intentioned. What can I do? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sondra.kinsey. Only you can decide the right course of action, since this depends on how much you care about these articles, and how confident you are about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You can revert poor quality edits, explaining why in edit summaries. You can offer advice or give warnings on the editor's talk page. You can engage in dispute resolution if that is appropriate. Or, you can move on and do nothing, if you do not care strongly enough. The choice is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sondra. Occasionally editors with good intentions are issued editing restrictions, topic bans, combinations of them, or even blocked in light of Wikipedia:Competence is required. This can be a heavy lift for reasons you are clearly already aware of by the tenor of your post—you're swimming upstream against a host of mores we hold; it's not vandalism and the edits are putatively made in good faith but are nevertheless ultimately disruptive. I recommend reading a few past discussions where this was focused upon at the administrators' incidents noticeboard, found through this search. I haven't looked at the user's edits, talk page or for past discussion of their edits to see if what I would consider tailored notices and warnings were issued, followed by continued edits in the same vein (i.e. ignoring those notices and warnings) to warrant opening up a discussion now, or whether that needs to take place to to meet what I consider a condition precedent to ground initiating such a discussion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeing this:

"This online magazine–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozy_(magazine)

For expanding the OZY article, I've got an idea to add this reference to OZY's "Provocateurs" under its "Structure" section:

Alan Korwin, The Accidental Gun Advocate

as seen in the "See also" section in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Korwin

The idea being to add an example of OZY's "Provocateurs" and cross-referencing it with the pre-existing Alan Korwin article that references the same.

I can add the "Provocateur" tagline in the Alan korwin article if that helps things.

Also wondering if it's alright to add a "Reference" for a "See also," so the item is in both sections.

Please excuse me as I'm relatively new here, the Alan Korwin article being the 1 and only article I've posted so far.

I'd like to try these additions myself.

Please advise.

Thank you.

tqiwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqiwiki (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tqiwiki. Although it's not explicitly covered in the Manual of Style, see also sections normally do not include references. Although our policies on citations for lists does require material to include sources, entries in a see also section are more-or-less assumed to be obviously appropriate most of the time. If they aren't obviously appropriate, then you may need to consider if they should be in the see also section to begin with.

As to specific changes you would like to make to an article, the best guidance is usually to be bold, and make what you feel are obvious improvements. Just understand that not everyone may agree. Even experienced editors who have been around for many years still have changes they make reverted by others. That just means it's time to discuss the changes on the article's talk page and try to reach a consensus. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tqiwiki and Timothyjosephwood: the Alan Korwin article here is a particularly bad example when we're trying to convey what the different sections "See also", "References", and "External links" are for. That article incorrectly uses the "See also" title for something that is really an "External links" section. To learn what these different sections are for, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers.

As for the actual question, what you should probably do is create a section on Provocateurs in the Ozy (magazine) article. In that section, you can list Alan Korwin as one of the Provocateurs and use the link you found on his article as a reference. For how to do this, see Help:Referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Looks like I'm getting ahead of myself this morning. Yes, Tqiwiki, Finnusertop is absolutely correct here. TimothyJosephWood 14:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey i wanna know the prerequisites to create a Wikipedia page with verified links. Where do i start?

Alientolanguage (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A good place to start is by reading Wikipedia:Your first article. ~ GB fan 15:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! This is a great thing, this forum and thanks for inviting me. I, too, am new to Wikipedia and have created our company page (Aderco) on the Englishs-peaking Wikipedia. I created the page and it seems that's been accepted, which is great. I also uploaded our logo (Aderco company logo.png) and a pic of our lab (labcoat with Aderco logo.png) coat onto Commons, which seemed to work. Unfortunately, only the links show (250px) in red on the Aderco page. I checked and checked and still can't find out what the issue is. Hope someone can help.DB1270 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@DB1270: Hello and welcome. I am not familiar with the issue you are asking about, but I noticed you state that you created a page about your company. Please note that this is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, and I urge you to read about it by clicking WP:COI before you edit further. If you are editing as a representative of, or at the direction of, your company, you also must review and comply with the paid editing policy(WP:PAID). That is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are being paid to edit here or doing so as part of your job. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi 331dot. Got it. Thanks for the heads up. Sorted in the meantime.DB1270 (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

As you all know, the wiki markup entity for adding your username and a timestamp to a post you are making on a talk page is four tildes. Clicking the signature icon adds those four tildes immediately preceded by two hyphens. As I just experienced, though, the line may break between those hyphens and your username. I found that this can be avoided by using two non-breaking hyphens instead of two hyphens. So why doesn't clicking on that icon add non-breaking hyphens rather than hyphens? (EDIT: I tried to show the HTML entity for the non-breaking hyphen but neither the nowiki tag nor the code tag worked.) ‑‑Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dyspeptic skeptic and welcome to the Teahouse.

That sounds like a good suggestion to bring up at WP:Village pump (technical). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I figured the matter and this proposed solution must have come up before, and I was hoping someone would point me to the area of Wikipedia where it would have been discussed and voted on. That would be the Village Pump? ‑‑Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this might be a solution in search of a problem. Is a line break after the two hyphens really problematic? I tend to only use double hyphens if my signature follows closely after a link, such that it may be hard to visually distinguish between them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

But my suggestion may be trivially simple, technically, to implement. On the other hand, the process of getting it approved might involve a lot of discussion. ‑‑Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Use pre tags.

‑

‑

A Guy into Books (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that the ampersand has to be written as an HTML entity. Let's see if that works without any tags: ‑ Yup, it works. ‑‑Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

So whats working here is the fact the HTML entity is being broken by having a character of it rendered as HTML. tags are doing nothing. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Two hyphens at the start of a signature is an old practice from Signature block#Signatures in Usenet postings. Usenet was originally only for ASCII characters. If we use Unicode characters then we might as well use an actual en dash. A double hyphen is an ASCII alternative to an en dash. It's controlled by MediaWiki:Sig-text. phab:T164863 is a suggestion to change it to an en dash for all wikis. We could change it locally for the English Wikipedia in MediaWiki:Sig-text but I haven't heard suggestions about non-breaking hyphens before. I don't think it's worth the complication of an uncommon character which uses multiple bytes and may not work everywhere, for example if users copy a discussion to an external text editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Timothyjosephwood I've finally spent time digging out old press reviews etc. and have added those citations to my draft. Can you have a look and tell me what you think? Should I remove the discogs etc. references now? They at least provide details of the 7 albums we've released? Iainmf (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Iainmf. I did a bit of formatting cleanup, and it still needs a concise summary of all the high points in the lead. You can review guidance at MOS:LEAD, but the short and sweet is that in a few sentences a reader should pretty much get a feel for what the subject is and why it is important.

You also may want to review our notability standards for bands if you haven't already, and see if there are maybe more criteria there that the subject might meet, but maybe you haven't added to the article yet.

As to discogs, since it is user generated it is basically completely unreliable, and should not be used as a source for pretty much anything. If an alternative source for the information cannot be found, then it should probably be removed until one can be located. TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a million for that Timothyjosephwood it's very much appreciated. I've added a brief summary now and will try to improve on that over the next day or so. I'll have a look at our notability standards for bands too. Can you advise me how to add photographs to the draft? And if discogs is completely unreliable, is using iTunes as a way of referencing and linking to all the seven albums we've released preferable? Iainmf (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Iainmf, AFAIK iTunes is not user generated, so I think that's fine. Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that. Also, that guidance is at WP:NBAND, just in case you didn't see the piped link. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yea. Photos. Iainmf, you can check out Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial, but the short and sweet of it is that you need a photo that is either free for unrestricted public use, or you need to have a photo that you alone own the copyright to (usually meaning you were the one who took the photo), so that you can upload it and release it under a suitable license. TimothyJosephWood 16:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for information about what sources are acceptable. Note that iTunes is deprecated as a source. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks once again Timothyjosephwood. Actually I've decided not to bother including any iTunes references and I've removed all the discogs ones too. I think I've found some pretty good references now. Thanks for the advise on adding a photo, I actually have one I can use. I'm struggling now to add an infobox on the right of the top of the page, would it be too much asking you to add one for me? :-) Into which I can insert a photo? I guess it should have headings like Origin, Genre, Years active, Labels, Website, Members and below that Past Members. I feel I'm really getting there now, can you have a look at my latest draft and references and let me know what you think? Iainmf (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Iainmf, I've added a blank infobox, and if you click edit you can see all the empty parameters that you can fill in where you have the relevant information. TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothyjosephwood I've done as you suggest, but it's looking a bit untidy. And it wants to say the band was born, not formed? There also doesn't seem to be a space to add a photo in there? Iainmf (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Nor does it seem to want to add our website? Iainmf (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Iainmf: For a group I believe you would normally use | years_active = , rather than birth and death. For the image you would add the file to | image = once uploaded. BTW, you don't have to fill in every single parameter. Ones that are left blank will simply be ignored by the software. TimothyJosephWood 17:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Iainmf: You have to remove the hidden markup. Having <!-- --> makes the software ignore everything in between when rendering the page. TimothyJosephWood 17:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Phew! Timothyjosephwood It's looking good now, thanks to your help. :-) I think I'll take a breather now, I've been digging out all these reviews and editing the page all afternoon. Thanks a million, I'll no doubt be back in touch over the next few days. Iainmf (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've been editing for quite some time, but mostly just on the grammar/punctuation side of things. Formatting is not my strong point.

Today I've run across several instances of someone replacing all the left brackets (<) on a page with "<". This results in... badness (broken refs, messed up punctuation, and sometimes a pretty unreadable page).

I undid these changes just now at Triple bond and Peshawar cricket team. But I just ran into this again at List of diamonds, and I'm starting to wonder what's going on here. (Actually, that page has been fixed as I typed this.)

I assume I'm right to be changing these symbols back to the proper "<", but if not, someone please let me know. I'd love any insight as to why I keep seeing this. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: Thanks for your question Jessica. I'm not entirely sure why these edits are occurring either. They may be automated in some way, but it's not clear. I'd recommend bringing this to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. An edit filter might also be a good way to help prevent these kinds of edits in the future. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that there's a browser extension that automatically replaces < and &, but not >, by html entities, and that some IP editors are using it in good faith. This may be hard to prevent. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm seeing so, so much of this, now that I'm looking for it. Over the past few days, this has accounted for about half my edits. Worth mentioning (maybe): it's almost always <, occasionally &, and once >. Also, very rarely, an edit summary is given, such as recently at Shani Prabhava. That does make it seem like a good-faith edit. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there any bots that recommend articles for inclusion in specific wikiprojects? Or infact any way of doing a search for pages that could be relevant besides using Google advanced search? A Guy into Books (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Aguyintobooks, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes there is. See the search result lists at User:AlexNewArtBot. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is Greenland that’s a part of the North American continent, Iceland, Cyprus (The Turkish Cypriot North & Greek South), Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan & Russia that reaches as far East as China included in "The List Of Mobile Network Operators Of Europe" but not Turkey that is singled out & put next to Uganda in the African category? Instead of next to it’s Black Sea Neighbor Ukraine. For those who don't know, Turkey like Russia is Physically in Europe & completely Politically in the UN, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Council Of Europe, Associate Member of the EEC European Economic Community since 1963, Accessing Member of the EU recognized as European, OECD, the Western Europe Branch of the WEOG Western European & Other Groups, also in the OSCE Organisation for Security & Cooperation In Europe, EU Customs Union, UEFA Union Of European Football Associations, Eurovision Song Contest & European Travel Insurance Listings, even the List Of Grand Masonic Lodges has it's Turkish Lodge listed in the European Category. There is a conspiracy that every time Turkey is added an ignorant & uneducated user & or users remove it's inclusion next to it's Black Sea neighbor Ukraine. > 1. The United Nations Official Website Page Titled "The Economic Commission > For Europe" lists Turkey, Cyprus & Russia in Europe http://www.un.org/Depts > /Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf > 2. The Official Website for NATO states in Article 10 states that > membership is open to any “European State in a position to further the > principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North > Atlantic area” http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm > 3. The Official Website for The Council Of Europe includes Turkey in Europe > http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states > 4. The Official Website for the EU European Union states that Membership > criteria – Who can join? The Treaty on the European Union states that any > European country may apply for membership & Turkey is already in accession > negotiations http://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c0:6282:1900:acec:3390:7f8f:3d8a (talk)

Hi 2a00:23c0:6282:1900:acec:3390:7f8f:3d8a, welcome to the Teahouse. Greenland is geographically in North America but it's an autonomous constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark which is European, so Greenland is counted as European for many human purposes. Most of Russias area is in Asia but most of the population is in Europe. Turkey is in List of mobile network operators of the Middle East and Africa which seems to follow http://www.telecomsnetworks.com/access-for-0/africa-middle-east. The Wikipedia list is alphabetical so Turkey in the Middle East happens to be placed next to Uganda in Africa. Nobody claims Turkey is in Africa but if a World division includes a region called the Middle East then I have never seen Turkey omitted from it. Geographically, only 3% of Turkey west of the Bosphorus is in Europe. Some organizations with Europe in the name include non-European countries. You mention United Nations Economic Commission for Europe but Turkey is in both that and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.[1] NATO doesn't even have Europe in the name and includes North American countries so it clearly isn't limited to Europe just because it says European states can be members. Turkey is not actually in the European Union and they seem unlikely to gain entry for the foreseeable future since the European members think Turkey is too different from them. And none of the examples you mention are World divisions. They are just organizations which include some countries which may or may not be considered European. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If I want to post a draft article done in WORD with references, how do I get this into my Wickipedia Sandbox? If I just copy and paste the references go away.Jhoehn (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jhoehn. You need to study how citations to references are inserted into articles and convert whatever format you are using in the Word document to one that is recognized here. I suggest starting with Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1, and then seeing Wikipedia:Citing sources, for a more involved treatment.

In very basic format, using the most common referencing method, to make a footnoted citation, you add right at the place in the article where the text is located you are verifying with a particular source:

Text text text text text text<ref>transparent details of source that verifies the content.</ref>

You also need to place near the end of the article a references section with markup to make the citations placed in the body display there:

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jhoehn: I haven't tried it but see Wikipedia:Tools#Word. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This may not be the correct place to ask this and I apologize if it is not, but I have my preferences set in the "recent changes" tab to only show possibly problematic edits and it is not doing that, it is showing all edits. Is there an explanation for this? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't get it to work either. On the recent changes page, you can select "Hide probably good edits" in the recent changes options section. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It said "show probably good edits", like it was working, even though it wasn't, and clicking it had no effect. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, A lad insane. If you do not get a good answer here, try Village pump - Technical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll report it there then. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You guys at Wikipedia seem pretty smart, so can you help me with this? I have pretty mild insomnia, but it just bothers me so much! What are the best tips to get me to fall asleep? :D

With love and luck on your Wikipedia adventures, Cayleigh :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8380:5cf2:a0d2:7b10:8baa:65fd (talk • contribs) 06:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Go and see a doctor -Your doctor can give advice or prescribe something. A Guy into Books (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia, Cayleigh, not to ask for general advice. Moreover, Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cayleigh. Unsurprisingly, we recommend warm herbal tea here as part of the general response to all ailments. Our article Insomnia has lots of useful information. We cannot endorse any specific treatments other than tea and kindness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, how do I add a logo to a page?Pphe updates (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pphe updates. Working with images is a little tricky, partly because of restrictions of copyright, and partly because it needs to be done in two stages: uploading the image, and then using it in the article. However, logos are such a common element in articles, that there is a guide to how to work with them: please see WP:LOGO. --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

My article for the poet and translator Jake Levine includes numerous established Korean news outlets and an american one, and the subject's bios from famous, noteworthy presses and magazines. He is a very important figure in contemporary Korean poetry in translation, and one of the news sources says so. If I translate and direct-quote that line, will it help? What else can I do to convince others that he is noteworthy?

Soeunseo (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Soeunseo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability is rarely established by individual claims like this. We usually determine notability by asking: has the subject received significant coverage in reliable sources? Your best bet at demonstrating this is to compile a list of all reliable sources that discuss Levine in significant detail. If the sources you have already listed in the draft at Draft:Jake Levine is all there is, it simply isn't enough. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Finnusertop!

I feel that the sources are already very reliable. Let me elaborate:

<Magazines> Boston Review's reliability is unquestionable, I believe. Along with that, Paragraphiti, Black Ocean, Granta, Guernica, and Asia Literary Review are all named and famous magazines from which I took the author's bio. Superstition Review, along with University of Arizona's department of English, has the reliability of being associated with U of A. Munjang Webzine is the most famous online literary magazine in Korea.

<News> I have interviews of the author from Arirang, Kyunghyang, Big Issue, which are all trustworthy and established news outlets in Korea, and they all introduce Levine as THE Korean poetry translator. Thus, I think that Jake Levine's importance in Korea is established.

Could it be that most of the sources are Korean that the reviewer has a difficulty acknowledging their reliability?

Soeunseo (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Soeunseo: citing an interview with a person does not help to establish notability, as what he says himself cannot be independent. Maproom (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Are the sources specifically about him, or are they about specific works of his? There needs to be at least two sources that are specifically about him. Are those two sources independent of him? As Maproom mentions, interviews are dependent on his responses. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Soeunseo: in theory, Korean-language sources weigh just as much as English-language ones. In practice, what you say is true: the reviewer might not know the language and cannot take them into account properly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In Wikipedia's view, does writing an article about an ancestor constitute a conflict of interest? I have two ancestors that might rate a Wikipedia article. My grandfather was Scottish architect William Fraser (http://dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org/node/783) who designed the National Burns Memorial in Mauchline, Scotland, which was built to mark the centenary of Robert Burns’ death. His brother - my great uncle - was African missionary and author Donald Fraser (http://www.bu.edu/missiology/missionary-biography/e-f/fraser-donald-1870-1933/). Thanks in advance for your advice. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ian.fraser1, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Conflict of interest guideline is one of our most important guidelines, but it gives considerable leeway. Some things, like writing promotional articles for your employer or writing an autobiography in hopes of furthering your own career are things that are obviously out of question. Many other things are more of a grey area. I'd say your conflict of interest with regards to your ancestors is a very mild form of conflict. I don't believe it prevents you from writing about them in a neutral way.

Consider this anecdote: every April Fools' day someone proposes to delete the article on Humans, because all editors have a conflict of interest and no sources are independent of the subject. Obviously, one should use common sense when applying the conflict of interests guideline. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks very much for that guidance, and thanks for sharing the amusing story about Humans. I'll have to watch out for that one! Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi anyone could look at the recent revision history for the "mind map" page and epxlain me why my edits has been removed? I understand the advantage of secondary resources but at the same time why can't I add an innovative primary research published at the highly recognised, reviewed journal (BMJOpen) if this research really brings new information to the field of mind mapping? Thank you for patience in answering this probably basic question. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.109.92 (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Please read No original research which is a core content policy. One relevant sentence is "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." When you call this research "innovative", you are engaging in original analysis of the primary-source material. Another editor has made a good, policy based argument that this research does not belong in the article. The place to discuss that further is Talk:Mind map. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone know what causes User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js to only work for mainspace articles and can perform or suggest a coding fix to make it work in other namespaces? I often wish to use it for drafts in the user or draft namespace, but no link to run it is presented in the interface when editing any page outside the mainspace. The creator has been inactive since 2011. A while back I asked for this fix of the active user whose made various updates there, as seen in its page history, but who never responded. I'll move along to VPT if I get no response here. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not too far from the top you get a line that currently contains:

allSpaces_PR = false;

Just change that "false" to "true". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Do I need to say that the change should be made to your own copy of the file, not to the original one in AndyZ's userspace? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I finally read the instructions on User talk:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js.

They're suggesting that you have called their script from your monobook.js file. Whatever file you are calling from, you would insert, before the call, the line

allSpaces_PR = true;

This will change the behavior of the script to enable it for all namespaces. And will avoid the need to carry around your own copy of the original script. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for looking jmcgnh! I'll try that later today (can't spare but a moment right now, editing from work).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Works perfectly jmcgnh, thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys!

I submitted a page for the second time after doing the changes people suggested a month ago and it has not been reviewed or approved yet :( I would like to see if somebody can check it out and see if I am missing a step or something. Thank you in advance! You guys are always very helpful

Best,

Saravazq (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saravazq. I have moved your draft article to the main space of the encyclopedia, where it is now Ken Light (photographer). Well done. Please keep improving the article and add some categories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello , i am a new editor to Wikipedia. I am editing a page of a living person, artist Susan Collett, that was started by another editor. This page has been flagged with a Conflict of interest " A major contributor to this article appears to have a CLOSE CONNECTION with its subject".

I understand this COI was generated due to the lack of EXTERNAL LINKS in the first published version of this page.

Since that COI , I have added and verified multiple external links for this page.

The COI citation is still active and I would like to ask a Wiki editor to further review and hopefully null this COI.

How does this process of citation removal take place? Am i qualified to remove it, now having added qualified external links?

(There are 2 other citations on this page, however the priority is removal of COI first.)

Many Thanks for assistance and feedbackSensoriam (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sensoriam, and welcome to the Teahouse. The COI flag on an article such as Susan Collett has nothing to do with whether there are external links (and in fact external links are not required on Wikipedia articles; it is citations to independent reliable sources which are required). Rather, it indicates, as it says, that "[a] major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" of the article. Unless it can be proven that no one who has ever edited the article has a conflict of interest with Ms. Collett, that flag will remain.

The orphan flag, however, can easily be removed; simply find articles related to the Susan Collett article, and make appropriate links from those articles to the Collett article, using the format [[Susan Collett]] to create a link pointing to that article. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank You for the detail and reply. I understand the COI issue, but do not know exactly the best protocol for solving this issue. What do you suggest is the process to resolve this COI?

Do I need to contact the original editor/article creator to rectify this with Wiki?

Many thanks sensoriamSensoriam (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Resolve" this COI? Are you the one with the COI? I think the reason for the COI tag is that some of the article reads as unencyclopedic, which tends to happen with COI editing. This article reads quite like a typical COI edited article, in fact. For instance, Wikipedia articles do not typically have lists of "publications featuring ______". That could be quite unwieldy in some cases (ie, Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, Carl Sagan, Carrie Fisher, and Napoleon come to mind) and would honestly be useless to all except the most devoted fans (as in me a few years ago, my first edit was to add an obscure fact about Carl Sagan to his article, I would probably have used that list then, but that's irrelevant). Honorable mentions too are usually not notable of mention, nor is using italics to emphasize puffery. It might be useful to read WP:COI. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that removing a COI tag requires a non-COI editor (or editors) to carefully go through every bit of the article end verify all of the content is faithfully represented from a WP:NPOV based upon the supplied WP:RS. If COI content is found, it must either be removed (if not properly sourced) or balanced with appropriately-weighted alternative views (also sourced from RS). If there is a question about the reviewer being non-COI, they can either recuse themselves or leave a note on the article's talk page documenting they credentials as an unrelated editor (for example stating that they live in another locale, work in an unrelated field, the reason for their interest in the topic, etc.). Once that is done, there should be a consensus discussion on the talk page regarding the tag. If all traces of COI can be verifiably removed, I see no reason why the COI tag can't be removed as well. If it can be reasonably determined that there is no COI present (or corrected if there is), the article shouldn't be tagged anymore. Cthomas3 (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you update the US photo for the places Trump has visited?07:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnylospo (talk • contribs)

Hi Vinnylospo. I can find no photo. List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump has two maps (not photos) which are updated in different ways, and List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump also has a map. What are you referring to and which change do you want to make? Maybe the replies at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 662#Trump trips are still relevant. The part "Please mention specific articles by their exact name" is certainly relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I just used the default red link to create a new page for profile on the leading Polish utilitarian philosopher Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek. Her page heading only shows a capital K when the K, L and R should be capitalised? What can do? Can I change the capitalisation of the page name? Can I delete the page I just created and make new one without messing up future searches for her? Page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katarzyna_de_lazari-radek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngthomas (talk • contribs) 10:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Johngthomas, welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the article to Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek. See Help:How to move a page. There were no wikilinks to the page so I don't know what you mean by "the default red link". I guess it was you who wrote the lowercase title somewhere when creating the page. You can write the correct capitalization from the start another time. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated!

Johngthomas (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm referred here by an administrator Alex Shih to seek your assistance in improving an article I wrote two days ago, Verve International. It had been deleted but restored after incontrovertibly contesting it. It is tagged as having "contain content that is written like an advertisement" which I have been having a difficult time to fish out. I'll appreciate your helping me with it.

Thank you. RovingFingers (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RovingFingers. Examples of content written like an advertisement include "established and promoted", "flagship", "pioneer staff", "solutions" (perhaps the worst buzzword of the 21st century), "bouyed by", and "launched". This is all promotional marketing-speak that does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. Scrub all such verbiage from the article, guided by the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the offending wording and the tag. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to protect a page from edit warring. This is a shout out for someone who is interested neither in politics nor Texas. My talk page would be fine. Rhadow (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Alex Shih^Talk 17:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see an article for Andrew Litten artist 1970. I am a museum worker so need to remain independent so would like to make a request. Can you help? He is widely exhibited and has work in collections globally Anna Jones (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anna Jones. The page you want is at Wikipedia:Requested articles. It would be helpful to list some of those exhibitions and collections, along with any reviews in reliable sources, with your request. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Anna Jones, the Wikipedia:Requested articles rarely if ever results in an effort to create an article. There is a better way to "request" articles. On Wikipedia, red links point to articles that do not yet exist but could be created. I've gone ahead and made all 8 mentions of Andrew Litten on Wikipedia into red links. Now 8 articles (some of which you've edited, it seems) not only mention Litten, but also include a red link that anyone can click to start an article on him, like this: Andrew Litten – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)