Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 280

Archive 275

←

Archive 278

Archive 279

Archive 280

Archive 281

Archive 282

→

Archive 285

Handling the gargantuan amount of stub types

Hello Teahouse! Is there any simpler way to find a good stub type for an article other than manually searching for the most appropriate one in this gigantic list of stub types (and sub-pages)? Does a script for simplifying stub sorting exist? Cheers! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@LowLevel73: I've always found it easiest to look at similarly situated topics both to find the appropriate categories and the correct stub tags, by looking at the categories found. If I know a similarly situated topic I just go there and see what categories it's in, and if I don't, I simply do a Google search. For example, were I writing an article on, say, a British saxophonist, I might Google just that with a limiter: <"british saxophonist" site:en.wikipedia.org> (which returns 77 pages). Then open a few in tabs to see the categories looking for the best narrow fit and look at that category → open a few articles at random in new tabs, and I almost always find the correct stub tag (and if there are no stubs, then → to a few page history, and look at the earliest revisions). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. :) Can you tell me if there is a bot that automatically changes a generic stub template in a more specific stub template, taking in account the categories to which the article has been assigned? ► LowLevel ^(talk) 11:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Dear Teahous team, I am new editor in Wikipedia. I created one biographic page [[1]], but now my page under Endangered, because it is in category: Articles for deletion [[2]].

My greatest desire is that my first article was successful.

Could you please, help me to keep my page. --Lotus Flower in the Modern Art (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lotus Flower in the Modern Art: Hi Lotus Flower in the Modern Art. There is one predominating measure of whether a topic warrants an article: whether or not reliable sources, independent of the topic, exist to evidence notability and to give you and us the ability to write verifiable content. An encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world. Per the articles for deletion discussion, a number of people have stated they have looked for such sources and found none. For that reason, there is nothing whatever you can do to save this article from deletion, unless you can find those reliable sources others have not. Don't let this discourage you. Now you know the single most important metric to gauge before starting another article and, so armed, your next effort should be successful. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Many people ask what they can do so their article is kept. If there are no independent, reliable sources, giving substantial coverage, there is nothing you can do but wait until there are.
It may help you to understand the situation if you read this essay - Arjayay (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I properly request that a page be included in general sanctions?

I recently noticed a couple of (reverted) instances of vandalism on the Brad Wardell page, and I believe this to be connected to Gamergate - in particular, to an incident on Twitter that was recently drawn to my attention. Because of this, I feel that the page should fall under the currently active Gamergate general sanctions (WP:GS/GG).

Can I be bold and just add the 'Gamergate sanctions' template to the talk page myself? Or what exactly is the proper procedure here? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's my understanding per this quote from WP:GS/GG

Pages may be tagged with {{Gamergate sanctions}} which can be used to indicate that articles are within the scope of these sanctions.

That anyone can add the sanctions template to the talk page. However, to avoid future problems I would suggest you post a note at WP:AN saying 'unless there are any objections I'm going to add this template to the XYZ article." Then wait 3-4 days and if there are no objections go ahead. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

odd/even problem in navbox

What am I doing wrong with swapping even/odd for the metal-laces row on Template:Lace_types? Jo Pol (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

HTML is not my forte but for those who are adept at it here is the link to the edit in question [3] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is New pages feed

In leftside bar is only recent changes feed. Four days ago I moved from Russian Wikipedia, there also were Recent changes and New Pages feeds. Is there a script to put New Pages feed link to leftside bar? Ochilov (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ochilov. As far as I know, Special:NewPages is only linked from the legend in your watchlist. I'm not aware of any way to make it appear in the bar. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A way to do this was provided in the thread at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 March 17#How to add a link to my left sidebar. I don't have time to test right now if this will still work. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Fuhghettaboutit Ochilov (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ochilov: I see you added it to your common.js and I'm guessing it's operational based on your response. Glad this worked out and thank you for the message on my talk page!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

how i do find bio of ramkrishna das that i uploaded on 1 dec for editing

how i do find bio of ramkrishna das that i uploaded on 1 dec for I want to edit itNamaz ali (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Namaz ali: Hello Namaz ali. There has never been a page created here at that title, nor at a title I would expect at articles for creation. The account you posted this question under at this Wikipedia has no edits other than the above post, and also no deleted edits nor edits that were blocked by a filter. Can you advise what account you were using when you posted (or attempted to post) this content? If it was this account, then unfortunately your edit was never saved. This sometimes happens without a person realizing it. For example, sometimes the editing session times out and you may get a message when you try to save like "your edit was not able to be saved because of a loss of session data". Other times, especially when your edit includes external links, you may be asked to type in a captcha in order to save. Anyway, no edits by your above account were posted. I also looked in the deletion log back to November 30, for any deleted pages containing the word "krishna" that you might have posted under another account name (or by your IP address), and found only the following — are any of these what you posted?: Vadde bala krishna, User:Krishnakumar02, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sundar Balakrishnan, File:KrishnamRaju-Prabhas.jpg, File:Krishnam Raju Tandra Paparayudu.jpeg, File:KrishnamRaju.jpg, File:Krishnam Raju in his early career.jpeg, File:KrishnamRajuinHisEarlyCareer.jpeg, File:Krishnam Raju BJP.jpeg. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How should I structure an article about someone with a pseudonym?

Hi guys.

I'm writing an article about Ben Trovato, a well-known novelist, columnist and satirist from South Africa. Ben Trovato is his pseudonym, which is well known, however his real name is Mark Verbaan. I am wondering if the notability of the article will depend on it being about Ben Trovato, and mentioning he is actually Mark? Who should the article be titled on?

He is also my father, but because he has written 10 books, and is a regular columnist and writer for satire show ZA News, I feel like I shouldn't be worried about conflict.

Thanks for any advice guys, keen to become more active here!

Verbaan (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Verbaan: Hey Verbaan. Without actually checking, it sounds from your post like your father is likely notable, as we use that word to mean the subject of significant treatment in reliable, independent, secondary sources from which a verifiable article could be written. That fact does not get us past the problems that arise from you having a flagrant conflict of interest in writing the article. Please note that many people have posted articles about themselves or people they are close to and then discovered they have no control and no ability to delete it after others have come along, found a point of view panegyric, and edited the article to include appropriately weighted and sourced criticism. Anyway, the title for the article should be the name that the topic is commonly known by in reliable English language sources (i.e., your father's pseudonym, if it predominates). Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens for further information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Warned about re editing page the was changed back to original 3 times.

Note: this question was added to the bottom of the page. I moved it to the top. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi I edited an article referring to biblical history. The writer was evidently an atheist, which I always find odd as to why the are so interested in dissing the bible. Anyway the artical was one sided and untrue when I did an edit, it was changed back this happened 3 times and I got a warning. Surely only the facts can stated. How do I stand on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtruth14 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Justtruth14, welcome to the teahouse. Just to make sure we are all on the same page I believe you are talking about an edit you tried to make to this article: Historicity_of_the_Bible The beginning of the article says: "Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth and twentieth century have supported few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and refuted many of the others.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]" and you tried to change that to remove "few" and "many"; i.e., to change the meaning of the text so that it didn't state that archeological research supports few of the old testament stories and refutes many. When you disagree on Wikipedia you aren't supposed to just keep making the same change. When two users do this it's what we call wp:edit warring and it's very much frowned upon. If you want to offer evidence to support your claim the place to do it is on the talk page of the article which is here: Talk:Historicity_of_the_Bible However, I notice other people have raised the same issue already. Also, those 7 numbers each represent a reference to back up the information in the text. Seven references is a lot, I've seldom seen a claim have so many. If you want to challenge the claim the place to start is with those seven references. You need to demonstrate that either they don't actually support the text or that they aren't what wikipedia considers good wp:references. Keep in mind that on Wikipedia we always try to wp:assume good faith so we also frown on asserting that people have ulterior motives (e.g., being an atheist) for what they write. Also, btw I know of several very well respected authors (e.g. Bart Ehrman) who are bible scholars and agnostics or atheists. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Justtruth14. The Historicity of the Bible is a topic of entirely legitimate interest to people of many religious beliefs, or none at all. Atheists are just as welcome as believers to edit our articles on Wikipedia. As for "just truth", here on Wikipedia, we summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. Attempting to "correct" an article to reflect one's own abstract notion of the "truth" is not appropriate behavior for a Wikipedia editor. You tried to add the following sentence to the article, "I encourage you to read all of Dr. Wood’s analysis supporting a date of 1400 BC" and others like it. We never write in the first person in an encyclopedia article and never give direct advice to our readers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my problem is that to say 'few' when most of the people's and places spoken of in the bible have been discovered is an outage. I have no problem with people's beliefs as long as unsuspecting readers of their theory's aren't lead to believe it's 100% factual. As in this case it's just a view of a small group. I don't think many people would say that archeologists have only found a few things supporting the bible, that's how archeology began, looking for places in the bible and they found them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtruth14 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Justtruth14, this isn't a forum to debate issues about the content of any article. Those discussions go on on the wp:talk page for those articles. The talk pages are where editors who don't agree debate and reach a consensus before editing. That is the way we avoid edit wars; the idea is when we disagree we talk it out on the talk pages, reach a consensus, and then edit. However, I took a quick look at your talk page and saw you have a comment from Dougweller that says four other editors disagree with you; I think on the same or a related issue so to be honest I think your chances of winning people over on this are small. But there are still lots of ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Some of the best advise I got from an editor when I first started was to not work on articles I cared too much about because it was hard to be objective on such topics and objectivity is one of the five most important aspects of Wikipedia. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been cautioned against edit-warring and have been cautioned to assume good faith by other editors, even they disagree with your religion. You have been advised to discuss article content issues on the article talk page rather than reverting or edit-warring. If the discussion on the talk page is not productive, read the dispute resolution policy for ways to resolve content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rabbi Israel Drazin Dr have asked my help to create an entry for him in Wikipedia.

Rabbi Israel Drazin Dr have asked my help to create an entry for him in Wikipedia. He provided the article describing his life. He is not just a rabbi but author of many books, most of them are highly read about the Jewish religion. He has a great following on his personal website as well. Now, this article he provided and I added to Wikipedia was rejected twice for copyright saying: "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work."

The article does not contain any information that is not written by the Rabbi, so copyright laws were not challenged. I don't understand what I am doing wrong and what I have to do to have this entry on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your help!

kapushiv Kapushiv (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Has the rabbi released the copyright under a Creative Commons license? If not, the use of the material would still violate his copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kapushiv. Wikipedia does not include large blocks of copyrighted text, even in an article about the subject, as our content is freely licensed and that is incompatible with our goals. A few sentences, in quotation marks, and properly cited, may be OK under the principle of fair use. You and the rabbi should read and follow our guideline on conflict of interest. By the way, I have written two biographies of rabbis, Joseph Asher and Lee Bycel, and was very careful to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read any of the material, but in general, even if copyrighted material can be used, it is often not written in a style appropriate for Wikipedia. It would likely violate neutral point of view.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

How do I make it so my title is about the article instead of being User:Ahung315/sandbox? Ahung315 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ahung315. I see you worked out how to move the article; however, you moved it to the Wikipedia: workspace, which is the wrong place for it; and then to the Category: workspace, which was still the wrong place for it. So I have moved it to main (article space), and fixed your sandbox to redirect to where it now is. [I also made a wrong attempt to delete the redirection page which was left hanging, and in the process accidentally nominated the real page for deletion, which put a notice on your talk page. If you saw that notice before I removed it, please ignore it: it was my mistake. I am tidying things up afterwards]. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)