Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 811

Archive 805

←

Archive 809

Archive 810

Archive 811

Archive 812

Archive 813

→

Archive 815

Contested deletion

Hey guys! Was just wondering if anyone could please help me with these two articles Kota Banks and Kinder (band). A friend and I are trying to list more artists on Wikipedia for Australian musicians who we think are quite known in the country. We are only new to Wikipedia. Both of these articles have been nominated for deletion and I would love peoples help in adding to the articles to help improve them, suggesting improvements I should make or helping on the discussion page. Other articles we have made have been approved with similar to the same information, so just a little bit confused. Thank you so much. (Jonnycraig888 (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

Hello Jonnycraig888 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please see WP:CANVASSING. You are not allowed to do that here at the Teahouse.

Borderline notability articles sometimes are accepted and sometimes challenged. You only find out for sure by doing the AfD discussion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

jmcgnh Canvassing is attempting to sway the outcome of a discussion or !vote inappropriately. Asking for help improving an article is perfectly acceptable and frequently happens here at the Teahouse. Rojomoke (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Had it not been posted under a section title "Contested deletion" I would not have suspected it was canvassing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Guys! Thanks for the help. I'm just trying to ask for help and wanted to learn how to improve. Not trying to sway the outcome:) ( Jonnycraig888 (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC) )

Can we create the deleted article again?

Hello,

I was wondering if we can recreate the article which was deleted long back.Some user has created it and due to inefficient source, it was deleted .https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Abhilash_kumar . I have checked the log and remark that only administrators can create it. Kindly advise if it can be created again by normal user like me or need admin only. May I request any of the administrator to help recreating it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkits23 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

It can only be created by administrators. You can draft it first then wait for any administrator's approval. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks for quick reply. so after drafting ,how can i approach administrators? or by normal process i should send for review ? Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkits23 (talk • contribs)

You may create it in your own sandbox. You can ask any users in this list. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Kkits23 I would also note that accounts cannot be shared- who is "we"? Please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Ah I missed that. Thanks for the note. Btw I templated them about the signing post thing. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A necessary request

I would like to edit a article which is in dire need of some changes, but it is Semi-protected and even though I am a member I cant edit. What can I do to solve this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnumb22 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Magnumb22. Your account will be granted autoconfirmed status after four days and 10 edits. You will then be able to edit semi-protected pages. Alternatively, you can request that an edit be made by another user who is already autoconfirmed, by starting a new section on the article's talk page and including {{request edit}} along with your comment. That will add your comment to a queue of requested edits to be answered by experienced volunteers. GMG^talk 15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Kent School

This page was just moved from Kent School to Kent School, USA so that Kent School could be made into a DAB. The other Kent School that was just added is a stub article that is a defunct school, and IMHO should have been added as a hat to the original Kent School article, or even merged with Windsor School, Germany as the new article does not even seem notable as a standalone article. Is it possible to get some help to move the Kent School, USA back to Kent School? This is a long established article in Wikipedia. Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: GMG^talk 15:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Kent School, Hostert, is just a stub doesn't make it non-notable; that's how articles start. It's certainly notable enough to warrant a full article, especially when you look at the history of the place, its alumni, etc, the architecture, as well as it's coverage in the press, National Archives and online - it's way more notable that many schools on Wikipedia. If Kent School, USA (I wanted to move it to Kent School, Connecticut, but that's already a redirect), were moved back to "Kent School", that would suggest it's the primary topic and IMHO that's pretty hard to justify. Nor does its longevity on Wikipedia make it 'more primary' than newer articles. Bermicourt (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please move Kent School, Connecticut back to Kent School until a discussion can be complete. That's the appropriate way to handle this situation. There are other ways to add a new article without changing the name of a well established one. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I should add, I'm not questioning the notability of Kent School, Connecticut. I'm just arguing that normal Wiki policy is to disambiguate articles with the same basic name unless it can be demonstrated that one is clearly the primary topic. Both of these schools are notable in their own right and well attested in the sources. However, neither can claim to be the primary topic in the English-speaking world. Only the Etons, Harrows, Yales and Harvards get the level of notability that justifies primacy. The length of time an article has been on Wikipedia is not relevant, nor is its maturity. Kent School, Hostert, will be expanded into a full article given time. Meanwhile, totally agree they can both have hatnotes as well as being disambiguated. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Mixing short footnote references with full footnote references

I hope there is a short answer to this question. Is suitable to mix "short footnotes" (ones using the sfnp-like templates with a separate list of sources) and "full footnotes"? I thought these were two different styles until I encountered an example in Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods#Rendering for footnote full references that uses short footnote linked to a full footnote. I have encountered many articles/pages that use both short footnotes (with a separate list of references) and full footnotes. User-duck (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Article Additions

If anyone is looking for music articles to improve/tidy up, here are 2 stubs that need work:) https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Joy_(Australian_musician) https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Robinson_(singer) (Jonnycraig888 (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

As Nana222222 created both of those stubs today, how about you leave a message at N's Talk, suggesting the work needed. Also, Nana222222 appears to be prolific in creating stub or short articles of questionable notability: Joy (Australian musician), Robinson (singer), Young Franco, Dylan Joel, Carmouflage Rose, Kinder (band), Party In The Paddock and Confidence Man (band) all within the past week. David notMD (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

How does clean start work?

I'm not sure the Teahouse is the best place for a question of this nature, but asking here certainly seems less heavy-duty than opening a request for clarification from the arbitration committee. I was looking at one of their remedies in passing because someone linked it in an unrelated discussion, and I noticed they used specific language to restrict the sanctioned user to one account. I've also happened to follow some of the debate about eligibility for and ramifications of a clean start, and I can't help wondering if Arbcom's language here specifically rules out a clean start. What do you all think? Airbornemihir (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Users who are under sanctions from ArbCom are required to notify ArbCom in case they make a clean start. In this way, for a user under sanctions, ArbCom can enforce a one account restriction by blocking that clear start account once they are notified, as an enforcement of their decision. If the user fails to notify ArbCom of their restrictions or sanctions, then the alternate account is an illegitimate sock, and not a clean start. GMG^talk 20:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I think you're right, the clean start page does mention this. You put it as "[if] the user fails to notify ArbCom [...]" but in this case I think ArbCom has unconditionally ruled out any clean start for them. (I should note I don't have an animus against the sanctioned user - I've never come across them AFAICT. I'm just curious about policies.) Airbornemihir (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well Airbornemihir, in the sense that such sanctions need to be publicly logged, and sanctions apply to the person, and not to the account, yes, they have ruled out a clean start, at least temporarily. The user can always appeal the sanction, and once lifted, then have a clean start. If the user were to ever apply for advanced permissions, they would still be expected to disclose the previous account, and if they failed to, it would likely call into question the community consensus, given that the community was not fully informed per policy. GMG^talk 21:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Question Regarding Verifibality

Hello

My name is Slainthayer and I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I just want you guys to check PERMATApintar National Gifted Center and see if the contents in the article is verifiable. I have a dispute with Bahasa Melayu (User:Yosri) supervisor regarding the issue of non-verifiability. I have cited numerous sources stating that it exist and notable but he didn't believe me and want me to go a step too far until asking me to contant the government for the school code which is not publically available just to comply with Wikipedia verifiability policy.

FYI: PERMATApintar is under its own sector in the School Division of Malaysian Education Ministry. It is also an institute of National University of Malaysia.

Is it verifiable? Any comments to improve or fix this dispute is highly appreciated.

Thank you. Slainthayer (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Slainthayer: I'm not sure what you mean by "verifiable". Two problems with the article are that most of the references are to non-independent sources; and that most of the sources that are independent don't mention "PERMATApintar". Maproom (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa deleted content that was under copyright, but I see no evidence that User:Yosri has ever edited the article or commented at article talk. And I see from your User page that you are a student at the school, which may interfere with your ability to edit an article with a neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This page is not the right place to come with a content dispute, Slainthayer. If you cannot resolve a dispute on the article's talk page, dispute resolution will tell you the next steps to take. --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing articles

What are the steps to begin working reviewing articles? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lu Brito (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Lu Brito Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing you are asking how you can get started reviewing articles since you haven't created any articles yet. A lot goes into article review, first of all a user has to be gain some experience. You have to have had a WP account for at least 90, which you've achieved, and have at least 500 uncontested edits. At this writing, you have 13 live edits, 60% of which are on your user pages and 15% have been at the Teahouse. After you've gained some experience, then you can apply for new page reviewer rights which you can read about here: here.

Incidentally, what was the reason you added the code <includeonly> on your talk page? I left you a welcome template and it didn't show up, I had to use "edit page" and post the template above your code. That makes it very difficult for WP users to communicate with you. It might be more helpful if you removed it.

When posting on talk pages and at the Teahouse, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. I signed your post for you. Coryphantha Talk 02:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Coryphantha Hello! Hello world! Thanks for the answers! I'm sure I have so much to learn. And yes, I was asking how you can I get started reviewing articles since I haven't created any articles yet. Thanks for your answer, I'm a Science Computer student and I did need this information for my thesis' research :) (I'm trying to understand how Wikipedia works)Lu Brito (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

International copyright tags

Hello, how do you add international copyright tags to images on Wikipedia articles? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Skyes(BYU) the short answer is, you don't. The long answer is that images under copyright may only be used in terms of the non-free content rules. In such a case the copyright information will be found on the File:Image name page. No such information is ever mentioned in the article where the image is used. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Help for editing.

I have made an article about Georgi Dimitrov (composer), and apparently, I manage to compile some sources and put it here. Unfortunately, the grammar are very bad. Can someone help me fix the grammar? I combine all of the sources to get the result. If the fixing is done, I am able to put the citations. Thanks.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Jeromi Mikhael! I gave you some grammar help-if you ever need more help with grammar, check out the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language MadameButterflyKnife talk 23:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My draft keeps reverting

I edit my draft as per feedback, save it and resubmit it. Next time I check it, it shows the previous version and the date it was last declined. Even hitting edit again only brings up the previous version and all my changes have been deleted. This has happened twice now. It's like Wikipedia is stuck there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobietta (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tobietta. It looks like your changes were reverted by Sphilbrick, because the content was copied and pasted from elsewhere online, which constitutes a copyright violation, a serious issue and prohibited on Wikipedia as it may have major legal implications. All content that you submit to Wikipedia must be of your own original creation with very few exceptions, such as short attributed quotes, and content that is in the public domain, usually because it is from very old publication.

Additionally, your draft is highly unlikely to be accepted if it does not include coverage in published sources that are independent of the subject. Official websites may be used to source fairly uncontroversial facts, but it does not contribute to demonstrating that the subject meets our standards for notability, which is what ultimately determines whether a subject qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 14:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The text is my own and I've referenced the sources but not copied and pasted. I think the issue is because the page was originally "RAVENOL" but it was changed to "Ravenol" at the request of one of the moderators. I had to get a Wikipedia person to help me, and since then I've had continued problems. And now it flags up as identical to the RAVENOL page - because it's the same article with a sentence case title. There's no mention about Sphilbrick's changes or I would have contacted them. What can I do please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobietta (talk • contribs) 14:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well Tobietta, one way or the other, passages such as this one definitely appear verbatim on the company's website and social media. The way forward is to find independent published sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability and summarize those sources in your own words. It looks like the issue with the title was fixed a couple weeks ago, but without coverage in these types of independent published sources, the draft is not likely to be accepted.

Besides that, content closely following the format of the company's website should often be removed anyway, even if it is not a copy/paste copyright violation, because official content from an official website is likely to be promotional in nature, and to therefore not comply with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. GMG^talk 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If you click on the link (the link attached to the word "reverted") you'll come to this edit:

Sphilbrick edit.

@Tobietta: You'll see that I added an edit summary explaining why the material was reverted, as well as identifying the source of the material that appears to match the material you are adding.

If you go to the history of the draft:

History

You will see all of the recent edits including each of my reversions and including an explanation in the edit summary. Each entry also contains a link to my talk page so that you can discuss it with me.

I'm happy to discuss this further here or on my talk page.

Can we start by having you explain why the text which you say you wrote is identical to the text at this site? If you happen to write the text for the company it is virtually certain that you did so under contract which gave them the copyright but let's start by a discussion of how these two sets of text match.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Sphilbrick, the last comments I could see on the page were from AmericanAir88. Thanks for showing me the history, it makes much more sense now. I'll edit the article again. I only wanted to add something as it mentions Ravenol on the Force India page, but seeing as they're going bust maybe there's no point...

@Tobietta: Please review WP:PAID and WP:COI per the message I left on your talk page. I believe this policy and guideline applies to you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Who is copying who???

I am working on bringing Luna moth to GA status. Midway through my work I ran a copyright violation program just to check if material originally in the article had been copied or lightly paraphrased. Came up negative. I have almost tripled length of article. Ran the copyright vio again, and now 64.5% likely there is a violation! What I discovered is that a website http://animalia-life.club/other/luna-moth-scientific-illustration.html copied my Description section near-verbatim. It does identify the source as "Wiki info" which links to the Wikipedia article. Is this a common occurrence? David notMD (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep. There were even a series of books sold that did nothing but reprint Wikipedia articles. According to our license, anyone is free to reuse or remix content as long as they reasonably attribute it, which this website seems to do okay by linking back to the article. Not the ideal form of attribution, but enough to probably satisfy the license. Although their disclaimer on their home page is shady, since people are in fact free to reuse anything from their website that's taken from Wikipedia.

It may seem nefarious, but from our end, it's a feature and not a bug. Consider that in an world without Wikipedia, people like this might be spreading outright wrong information taken from sources that don't actually care at all about accuracy and neutrality. In this way, having such an expansive source for free knowledge percolates into lots of other areas, and increases the overall quality of the information available to the public. That's why sites like YouTube are starting to copy our content in order to balance the spread of unreliable information on science and conspiracy theories. GMG^talk 10:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a talkpage template for these situations, something like "This bit is not a copyvio on our end". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Backwards copy could be used for such clarifications on the article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Using the quote= parameter in citations

I'd like to use the citation quote= parameter to include a quoted sentence or two from the journal studies I am citing. But I will often be citing the same study in multiple different instances in the same Wikipedia article, but each time with a different quote.

This is achievable, but it produces a unique citation on every instance, and the problem is that in the refs section of the Wikipedia article, you will then get the study listed multiple times, but with a different quote each time. So that can make the refs section bloated and confusing.

So my question is: is there a way to use the quote= parameter that provides a different quote each time I cite the same study, but without the study being listed multiple times in the refs section? Or is that not possible?

Here is an example of the citation quote= parameter being used on same study, but with different a quote on each citation):

First citation, including a quote from the study:

Second citation to the same study, but with a different quote:

(The reason I would like to include quotes from the study is that when you look at any good Wiki article, statements are made, and then a citation(s) is supplied next to each statement which (hopefully) supports the statement. But if the reader wants to check that the cited study does indeed back up the statement made in the article, that can be a little tedious, because the reader has to scan the whole study (which can be many pages) for the relevant bit which supports the statement. But if you provide a single sentence quote from the study, the reader can then use that to find the right section in the study.)

Thanks very much for any help with this. 91.125.89.101 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Hey anon. One option is to use the citation as normal, but include the quote in an extended footnote using Template:Efn. For example:

Here is the first sentence.<ref name="one">Reference 1</ref> Here is the second sentence.<ref name="one/>{{efn|According to Reference 1, "quote quote quote quote quote."<ref name="one/>}}
===Notes===
{{notelist}}
===References===
{{reflist}}


Which gives you this:

Here is the first sentence. Here is the second sentence.

Notes

References

References

Hope that helps. GMG^talk 15:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, GMG, that is an interesting option you suggested. 91.125.89.101 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I often experience this issue you described, as well, especially since I use the |quote= parameter often. Please keep in mind that such quotes are not necessary; their function is to provide some context and clarify what exactly is being referenced, which readers can then verify by checking the link. Since such quotes can in principle be much easier to fabricate, a much more important element of a citation is a URL to the source and, if applicable, an archived copy using |archive-url= and |archive-date=. With biomedical sources like the one above, though, archival is usually not a good option, so quotes are better than nothing.

With that said, I generally omit quotes in citations when the quoted text becomes far too long. However, if the quoted text is still short, such as if I am citing the source twice and only quoting two short sentences, both can be added in the order they appear in the original text by joining them with an ellipsis. For example: "This is the first quote for the first citation. [...] This is the second quote." This can continue for three or four or however many quotes, but excessively long quotes may be removed. When the choice is between either omitting the quote or duplicating the citation, it is preferable to omit the quote. As explained above, though, templates like {{efn}} can be used to retain the quote without duplicating the citation.

Other than using {{efn}}s like described above (a method I also endorse), there are some other alternative methods, such as using the |quote= parameter in {{rp}}; however, they tend to have accessibility concerns. Fortunately, discussions have recently occurred about potentially solving this problem. Unfortunately, similar discussions have occurred in the past without any extension of MediaWiki to show for it. We'll see if this intractable problem is fixed soon. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Flaky watchlist operation

Sometimes after I get notified of an edit to a page on my watchlist and I visit the page, I don’t receive subsequent notifications even though the page remains on my watchlist. What might cause that? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr, and welcome to the Teahouse! By default, Wikipedia's notifications system only gives you an alert in eight specific situations. You'll always be notified when someone edits your talk page, but you're getting the notification because talk page messages are one of the eight situations, not because your talk page is in your watchlist.

You'll also get notifications when someone mentions you in a discussion (like I'm doing now), regardless of whether the edited page is on your watchlist. You can configure these notifications in your preferences.

Right now, the only way to check for changes to other pages in your watchlist is to do it manually. Please consider filing a feature request if you'd like the ability to get notifications from these other pages. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!​ — Newslinger talk 15:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Newslinger is referring to a notification feature at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. I guess Humanengr is not talking about that but has enabled "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal. Maybe you were not logged in when you visited the page. You didn't give an example but maybe subsequent edits were marked as minor edits and you have not enabled "Email me also for minor edits of pages and files". Maybe a notification mail did not arrive or was placed in a spam folder where you didn't see it. Per Help:Email notification#Watched pages, when a mail has been sent, no more mails are sent until you visit the page while logged in. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thx for following up. I had checked the "email me" and not the "minor pages" checkboxes. What's puzzling is that I regularly carefully check my spam folder; and I was/am almost always logged in. The only other thing I've observed is that there will be from a few to a dozen or more real (non-minor) edits over a period of days/weeks that I don't get notified of and then I'll get notification of the next one. One page where this has happened is Cogito, ergo sum. Is there a log where users can see which notifications have been sent to them? Humanengr (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I remove 'This article contains content that is written like an advertisement' once I have addressed the issue

Editing my company entry for the first time and had the content flagged as being written like an advertisement. Read the guidance and made the necessary changes. Now I would like to remove the template flagging the issue, but am not clear on what code to delete?

Hello Nick Oldridge, and welcome to the Teahouse. The code is {{advert|date=August 2018}}. However, per WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT, you should not remove it. Try to start a discussion on the talkpage, perhaps pinging the editors who added the tag. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Change the language of a draft

Hello everyone, I have made a draft for an new page of an artist, Jowee Omicil. My article is in french but in the english version. How can i change the default language to english in french ? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saipdigital (talk • contribs) 13:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Saipdigital. You can't really "switch" the default language. The way the software works, each of the language versions of Wikipedia are stand-alone copies, that are only linked together using another third Wikimedia project called Wikidata. In order to transfer your draft to the French language project, you will need to go to https://fr.wikipedia.org and recreate it there. GMG^talk 13:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add though, that there is a proper process for moving pages across wikis detailed at m:Help:Transwiki. It's unnecessary here since you're the only editor adding content to the draft, so you don't need to worry about copyright/attribution.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saipdigital: You will also need to add citations to reliable sources to verify what you have written. Biographies of living persons require at least one reference to a reliable source before they will be accepted. Please note that while English-language sources are preferred on English Wikipedia, non-English sources are also acceptable if they meet the definition of reliable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Mass spelling changes

How does one go about asking for someone with the proper authority to do a mass spelling change? "lieutenat" 15 hits, all in text.2605:E000:9149:A600:6891:3BC3:1FEC:41B4 (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello 2605:E000:9149:A600:6891:3BC3:1FEC:41B4 and welcome to the Teahouse.

This seems like the sort of thing you could ask at WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. People with AWB should be able to take care of it in short order. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what jmcgnh stated above, you are free to correct typos yourself if you want (as it appears you have), especially if there are only a small number of instances. After all, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia (almost) anyone can edit. The Help:Searching page may be instructive for how to find these errors with the search box, particularly § Parameters and especially insource:. There is also an initiative, called the Typo Team, whose focus is to address all typos and whose moss project tracks and documents typos (among other issues). Thanks for your contributions! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Article creation on "Perry Schmidt-Leukel"

I have created an article on Perry Schmidt-Leukel who is an internationally renowned scholar of religious stdies and theology. His reputation can be seen from the fact that he was invited for the Gifford Lecture in 2015 which is one of the highest distinction in the field (see Wikipedia on Gifford Lectures). I have complied with all the demands for further editing by the various reviewers and the article is still rejected - this time with the statement that it would be merely a CV which is obviously wrong. So what can I do? By the way, an entry on "Perry Schmidt-leukel" exists on the German Wikipedia for many years.

Thomas Schmitz— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Schmitz 2 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:Perry Schmidt-Leukel. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thomas Schmitz 2. It looks like you asking about Draft:Perry Schmidt-Leukel (for future reference, it's helpful to provide a link when your discussing a specific page). Different language Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines; so, just because an article about Schmidt-Leukel has existed on German Wikipedia for years, that doesn't mean there should be an article on English Wikipedia about him. For what its worth, English Wikpedia's policies and guidelines tend to be a little more stringent than some other Wikipedias and the standards here tend to be generally higher, so some of the things considered OK on German Wikipedia might not be OK on English Wikipedia.

A quick glance at the draft does give me the impression that it's a bit CV-ish due to the long list of publications; it's also not clear from the sources you cite as to whether this person satisfies WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The formating is also a bit messy and there's some WP:PUFFERY, which might be making it difficult for AfC reviewers to properly assess the draft. Try taking a look at WP:YFA and MOS:LAYOUT as well as seriously consider removing any extraneous content so as to make the claim for Wikipedia notability a little clearer. Many editors mistakenly assume that adding more content and more citations automatically increases the chances of their draft being approved, but sometimes it's actually better to focus on the core content which best establishes Wikipedia notability and can best be supported by citations to reliable sources. You might also want to take a look at WP:TRANSLATE and WP:NONENG to figure what if any of the content and sources in the German Wikiepdia article can be used in English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at the draft, Thomas Schmitz 2, I am concerned that it might contain original research (i.e. content not supported by sources). For example, it states "In this he is inspired by Wilfred Cantwell Smith's concept of a 'World Theology'", but the source cited for that is Cantwell Smith himself. Such a claim would require a third-party source that establishes that Cantwell Smith's work inspired Schmidt-Leukel. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit to improve the formatting. It still looks more like a CV than an encyclopedia article – you could improve that by greatly shortening his lists of publications, and adding some neutral material about him, not just what he believes and how people have praised him. Maproom (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

How do you add a new picture onto an article? Thanks. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Like how do you add a new picture into an article from scratch? Anyone?Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cyclone of Foxes. The first step is to determine whether the picture you want to use is allowed on Wikipedia, which usually means whether the picture is licensed for free public use. It would probably be helpful if you indicated what type of image you were interested in using and where. GMG^talk 17:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The picture shows 4 tropical cyclones simaultaneously in the Pacific on August 7 using satellite imagery from NASA in the 2018 Pacific hurricane season article.Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC) FYI, the systems are Hector, Kristy, John, and Ileana from left to rightCyclone of Foxes (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh my bad Cyclone of Foxes. This is related to the thread above from yesterday. I see you are probably referring to this image. Well there are a couple of ways you can go about it. See below for the wiki markup and the result it gives you in the article.

Right aligned, default size
[[File:Four Tropical Cyclones in the Pacific on August 7.jpg|thumb|Caption goes here describing the picture]] Caption goes here describing the picture

Right aligned, larger size
[[File:Four Tropical Cyclones in the Pacific on August 7.jpg|thumb|upright=2.0|Caption goes here describing the picture]] Caption goes here describing the picture

Centered, very large
[[File:Four Tropical Cyclones in the Pacific on August 7.jpg|thumb|500px|center|Caption goes here describing the picture]] Caption goes here describing the picture

Hope this answers your question alright. GMG^talk 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreaciate it!Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating a Brand Logo

Hi, the logo for the Options Clearing Corporation is outdated. I work for the OCC and would like to update the page with the current logo. How do I do that?

@Astarace: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you do that, you will need to formally declare your employment with OCC per our policies. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for more information, including how to do so. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Or since this is just a logo change and this is meant to be a friendly place for newbies. Astarace I uploaded the new logo for you. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Biased and Unbalanced content - UDC

I'm experiencing what is clear bias on a page I am trying to edit, even thought I have been following the rules on proper sourcing. How do I address this and submit a complaint?historicaljohnny (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey historicaljohnny. The correct course of action is to continue discussing the issues on the article talk page, and if that fails to reach a resolution, you should follow the steps in the dispute resolution process, including potentially opening a request for comment to seek input from additional uninvolved editors. However, it should probably be noted that if you continue to employ a generally combative, rather than a collaborative approach, you are unlikely to reach a satisfactory outcome. Accusing others of bias is unlikely to change anyone's mind. Producing high-quality sources that support the changes you would like made on the article however may. GMG^talk 14:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

GreensMeansGo, I appreciate the quick response. That is just it however, as we have attempted to provide high-quality secondary sourcing/ primary sourcing. We have followed their explicit instructions to present our editorial input, in the proper way and format, yet they continue to dance around and contradict their own instructions for one sole purpose: they don't agree with our unbiased attempt to correct some very derogatory commentary about the UDC and rather old and one-sided sources. Believe me, I don't throw around the word "bias" unless I see clear evidence of it. This is absolute bias not only what their version of truth is, but their rapid willingness to silence a dissenting viewpoint. I will try yet again, and let you know how it goes. Thank you.historicaljohnny (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well historicaljohnny, using an organizations own homepage is not exactly what we mean when we talk about high quality sources. The hierarchy of sources oversimplified kindof goes: scholarly meta-analyses/textbooks -> scholarly publications -> books by reputable publishers authors -> news -> popular publications (magazines) -> generic websites and press releases. We also would (or should) generally never take the self description of a person or group as uncritical fact. Obviously anyone has an incentive to present themselves in the best light possible, which is why we prefer independent published sources. We would certainly never use language like "patriotic" in Wikipedia's voice, because...well...mostly because its an essentially meaningless descriptor. No person or group would probably ever describe themselves as un-patriotic...even anarchist groups that openly advocate the overthrow of the government.

So again, what you need are independent published sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. If all you have to argue with is the official website, you're probably not going to get very far. GMG^talk 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not focused on the term "patrotic" as I don't disagree its not pertinent, but I disagree its meaningless. In the context we used "patriotic" in the sentence, it was describing verbatim the UDC's stated objectives. The point is to describe the UDC's objectives, that was the simple aim here. Therefore, we did that in two ways - 1) via a legit secondary news source (Newsweek) I suppose Newsweek is a reputable secondary source and 2) a primary source, the UDC website, as you point out. So what am I doing wrong? All I'm trying to do is describe the other point of view on the subject matter, nothing more nothing less. I'm compiling some alternative secondary sources and will provide them when I get back to you. Thank you for engaging me, as the point here is to get this done fairly and correctly.historicaljohnny (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that when someone uses a word like patriotic to describe something, it means little more than "I like that". That's why the list of "patriotic things" includes kneeling at football games, walking out of games where people kneel, worshiping God, not believing in God, supporting the president, not supporting the president, buying Jeeps, protecting the environment...literally anything you can think of to search for, there's somebody out there who likes it and thinks it patriotic. That's why Wikipedia tends to avoid this kind of colorful, value laden, but ultimately meaningless language: it says more about the writer than it does about the subject, and in this case, the writer is the group itself, so of course they feel fairly positively about themselves.

I know I'm just picking on this one example at the moment, but I'm trying to illustrate in-depth at least one reason why other editors may have viewed some of the additions as having apparent non-neutral language. GMG^talk 15:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

historicaljohnny: You keep using "we." Wikipedia User names are supposed to represent individuals, not in any way groups. Please clarify. David notMD (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I took that to refer to the multiple new users who have been trying to make edits to the article of late, David notMD, rather than as an implication of shared account use. It seems likely that there is some co-ordination going on between members or supporters of the organisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

And for those as mystified as I was, UDC = United Daughters of the Confederacy. There is ongoing 'hot' debate there and at various Users' Talk pages, so in my own opinion, not worth Teahouse time. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm baffled. This is one of the stated objectives of the UDC that: "it's a patriotic organization". That is subjective. That is not me interjecting "color" or my "values". And again, I can't emphasize enough, by your own example, that "there's somebody out there who likes it"... well there's always someone out there who "dislikes it". Which is my point. David noMD To clarify at your request, I don't represent a group. The UDC doesn't endorse me and I am no not apart of them (besides, they only take females). These are my contibutions and my sourcing. They are freely available in the public domain. I was invited here to share my question in this teahouse, which I believe has still not been answered. I will take the discussion elsewhere.historicaljohnny (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding pictures

I have a question. I like to edit pages related to meteorology and I've noticed that the picture for Hector of 2018 hasn't been updated for 12 hours despite serious changes in its intensity and overall appearance. I'd like to know how to add a picture from NASA which isn't copyrighted, but I don't know how? Can anyone help? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cyclone of Foxes. You can upload the image to Commons using the Upload Wizard. When you are asked about the permissions, select "This file is not my own work", provide the source for the image, and under "Another reason not mentioned above" (almost at the bottom of the list) enter {{NASA}}. GMG^talk 21:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cyclone of Foxes. In addition to what GreenMeansGo posted above, I'm also going to suggest that you be a little WP:CAUTIOUS with respect to this and start a discussion about it on the article's talk page. While it might seem to important to you to update an image which hasn't been updated in 12 hours, the older image might still have some encyclopedic relevance and therefore might not need to be replaced. Wikipedia is really like a newsr website which needs to be updated with the latest take on things every few hours or so. Content is not necessarily removed just because it's a bit dated. There might be a good way to incorporate both images of Hector in the article in such a way that is better than simply replacing one image with another. Please look at the notice at the top of Hurricane Hector (2018). The purpose of the article is to provide encyclopedic coverage of the hurricane and reflect content in reliable sources; it's not really to provide people with up-to-the-moment information about the storm as is develops. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I mean, in the 2018 Pacific hurricane season article there can only be one picture in the section that covers the storm. The old picture showed Hector at it's initial peak intensity of 130mph, I was wanted to add the picture of it's new peak intensity of 155mph. I think it is best to have the picture be the storm at or near peak intensity. The old picture wouldn't count either as it showed Hector 72 hours before peak intensity. Near peak intensity is usually 6-12 hours before/ after peak intensity. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cyclone of Foxes: You can be WP:BOLD or you can be WP:CAUTIOUS; the choice is yours. Adding/Removing pictures to/from articles, however, can sometimes be contentious; so, if you're bold, make sure to clearly explain why you're changing the image in your edit sum, and possibly following that up with a post on the article talk page. If someone reverts back to the other image, follow WP:DR and discuss things on the article talk page; don't just automatically assume that the image you want to use is the one which should be used because you want to use it. Instead, use the article talk page to see if there exists a WP:CONSENSUS to change the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Revision as of Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

How to search for when a particular change was made?

What tools/methods are suggested for most quickly determining when a specific phrase was added/deleted from an article? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There's something called Wikipedia:WikiBlame that I've never used, but it might be what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thx — that looks like it does the job, Humanengr (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Like Gråbergs Gråa Sång noted (and suggested before my edit published!), WikiBlame is the tool for that. A similar "blame" tool used to have been hosted at the Toolforge by WMCS, but has since been removed. (Hopefully, it returns.) At each history page, WikiBlame is actually linked with the article field predefined at the "External tools" section, right below the revision search box and above the legend specifying what each symbol and abbreviation means. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thx! Somehow I never noticed that. I wonder if a contributing factor is the length of the 'Revision history statistics' and 'Revision history search' labels. 'Revision history' is redundant with the page title and therefore unnecessary — they should just be 'Statistics' and 'Search'. I imagine many overlook those links. Publication guidelines always argue against unnecessary text/graphics. Might warrant a change. Humanengr (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. It may also be the placement of the links and location of the "External tools" section. I have no particular comment on that, nor am I sure where to go with that matter, but the Village pump may be a good place to start if you want to discuss it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thx, will do. Also, I see now WikiBlame is not working properly for searching for "removal of text". (It seems to start backwards from March 2016 instead of the current date.) Others have noted problems with this, but Flominator hasn't responded. Is there another tool? Humanengr (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no. The old Toolforge one used to have been located here, as stated at Wikipedia:WikiBlame § External links (permanent link), and a (non-functional) copy of how it looked in February 2017 can be found here. If I recall correctly (and that is definitely not a guarantee), that alternative tool had replaced the link on the history page, too, until it was removed due to some problems with it effectively finding revisions. I have experienced some issues with WikiBlame myself, including timeouts and 503 errors, and continue to find it disappointing that the tool is not hosted on an HTTPS page; however, it seems to be the best available at this time and generally works as an effective revision blamer.

Given these circumstances, the best suggestions I can provide would be to ask about when and whether a revival of the Toolforge blame tool will occur, to hope that someone else develops a different tool (if you are skilled at programming, maybe you can be our savior?), or directly talk with those who developed these tools. Sorry about that. Perhaps someone else can provide better help. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

thx — My bad on that last ‘problem’ — turns out it’s just the way the binary search works. </confirm brain turned back on> Humanengr (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Humanengr! Yes, WikiBlame is a very precise tool and misconfiguring the search, or even being off by a single character, can yield results you aren't looking for (if you get any at all!). If you need any further help, you know where to go. Thanks for your contributions! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)