Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 324

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse | Questions
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 08:10, 31 March 2015 (Archiving 16 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 320←Archive 322Archive 323Archive 324Archive 325Archive 326→Archive 330

Article page count for specified category using "magic words".

Hello from Malaysia : ) I'm trying to find some statistics on article page counts of specified categories related to my country. There use to be a tool on Wikimedia Labs but it is no longer running. Googling leads me here but I am really lost. have no idea how and where to key in these 'magic words'

Help:Category#Displaying category trees and page counts

Is there an expert who can help?

Many thanks. DC

MYMMMC (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't claim to be an expert, but from the help page which you linked you can count the pages in Category:WikiProject Malaysia articles by using {{PAGESINCATEGORY:WikiProject Malaysia articles}}, which renders as 29,137. At the time of writing, that is 8838, which is the 8835 pages + 3 sub-categories listed at Category:WikiProject Malaysia articles . --David Biddulph (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the reply sir! That giant sum is what I am looking for.

But I'm still somewhat lost. Where did you key in {{PAGESINCATEGORY:WikiProject Malaysia articles}} ? In the search box? The edit page? a special page?

I'm interested in finding a fast way to total up article counts in major categories of articles related to malaysia (e.g. number of Malaysian sports, culture, politics, etc.) I will also do so in other major languages relevant to my country (malay and chinese). Do you know if this method works for other languages?

Say right now, if I wish to add up articles in 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_Malaysia'

what would be the step by step procedure? Sorry for the trouble.

Thanks so much again. MYMMMC (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You would be looking for Category:Buildings and structures in Malaysia which counts inaccurately 12. Ohh ok I see the issue here. Unlike what Meta:Help:Category#Count claims, it doesn't count articles in subcats. Hmm, I'd have to research when this changed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Help:Category#Displaying category trees and page counts, as linked by the OP, makes it clear: "Each subcategory counts as one page; pages in subcategories are not counted." --David Biddulph (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: Soooo Meta:Help:Category#Count is ridiculously wrong... I'll head over and fix it now then. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear all,

I've found this tool and it does what I am looking for :D

After keying in a category, it shows on the top left corner of the result section the number of pages within a specified category. Changing the depth results in more and more subcategories and more pages.

Thanks again for your help. MYMMMC (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates

How can one find a catalog of all templates? DawnDusk (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. All templates are listed here; I think there are about half a million of them. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding on, I believe Wikipedia:Template messages is the most comprehensive (and organized) directory. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace lists messages you may leave on editor talk pages (warnings, notices, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoa... Half a million... Thanks. DawnDusk (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There is also a category system starting at Category:Wikipedia templates, but many templates have not been placed in a category. If you look for similar templates to a given templates then you can see whether it has a template category at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

World Wide What?

I have noticed that infoboxes of many websites don't show www. in URL. And many browsers also lighten it (for example www. in www.wikipedia.org will be a bit dull). So should the https://www. be given importance and added there?
(note: that is actually not a link)
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, aGastya. I don't see anything in the Manual of Style about this. Many websites are set up so that the www. is optional anyway (in the sense that the URL with www. and that without it go to the same place) and in those cases I don't think it matters which you use. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
but@ColinFine; should not we use how actually it is supposed to be?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If you can tell what it is supposed to be, aGastya, by all means use it. I don't know how you are going to tell that. (If you mean that URL's are "supposed" to have the www. on the front, that is emphatically not the case. The parts of a URL before the domain name can be anything the domain owner chooses). --ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully someone knows a more concrete answer, but I'm inclined to believe excluding the "www" is the norm, unless necessary. Template:Infobox company, for example, specifies that "www" should not be included. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
okay: i felt that the http://www. stuff is also important but if it is specified not to use; i won't!
thank you both!
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As web browsers have gotten "smarter" over the years, the importance of the "http://www" stuff has declined. I wrote columns in industry trade publications back in the 1990s emphasizing the importance of accuracy in typing in web addresses correctly. Those days are over. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
For most websites the www is optional, but on Wikipedia the http:// (or other protocol) is needed. For example without the protocol Wikipedia does not recognize wikipedia.org as a link. —teb728 t c 08:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Websites in infoboxes are often given with {{URL}} where http:// is optional. The template will automatically add it but not display it whether it was given or not. {{url|http://en.wikipedia.org}} produces en.wikipedia.org. {{url|en.wikipedia.org}} produces en.wikipedia.org. My own rule of thumb about www: If the website includes www when displaying the website address inside pages then I include it. But if it makes the url line-wrap in the infobox for me then I may omit it. I ignore whether non-www is a redirect to www. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary fill-ins

What happened to the function whereby when you added an WP:Edit summary, the software automatically gave you suggestions on what to use based upon previous Edit summaries that you made in the past? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile is that different to the autofill feature that the browser has, because i get those suggestions as long as I haven't cleared autofill. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Used to be: I would start typing in the Edit summary and then the software would present me with a list of summaries that I made in the past beginning with the same word or letters. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You may have cleared that saved data from your browser.Flat Out let's discuss it 07:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are remembered by your browser and not by Wikipedia. If they are cleared from your browser or you use another computer or browser then you don't get them. They work for me in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Either your browsers autofill data has been cleaned (possibly by a "cleaner" program like CCleaner or a function of an Antivirus program) or it is because you are editing a section which starts with differnet letters and often don't auto fill unless its generic like /* History */ I'm sure your autofull will start to return as you use it like normal. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 12:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

When I Edit Any Cricketer Or Celebrity Page's Reference Links Or External Link It Reverts By robot?all thought i put only major links..example i have submitted official esp profile link of cricketer. i have submitted official ICC profile link of cricketer. i have submitted official PCB profile link of cricketer. So why They Revert By Boot ? John maxel (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse! That really is annoying isnt it... Looking at the edit you made, it seems you were doing the right thing except for twitter links. While these links may be considered helpful, if you read WP:EL you can see about what shouldn't be added. If you exclude the twitter link it shouldnt revert you anymore. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 12:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling my work with incorrect info!

Hello! I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Recently, I made a few, very well cited contributions to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown_Funk. My contributions dealt with the "Horn Section Debate" in the "Credits and Personnel" section. However, someone keeps trolling the page and inputting information regarding the horn section that is neither cited nor true. It currently reads:

It should read:

I will change it again now. This is the third time I'm having to make these changes. Is there any way to stop these edits from being made?

Thank you for your help, Wikipedia Community!

Kmg318 Kmg318 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, do not change it again or engage in an edit war. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page, and follow the guidance at WP:DR to resolve this. RudolfRed (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kmg318. I agree with RudolfRed and suggest you try and discuss this at Talk:Uptown Funk to get feed back for other editors working on the page. Even if we know something to be 100% true, we still need to show that it can be verified through reliable sources. You wrote in "Reinstating previous edits that were overwritten. My information is correct and cited." in this edit sum which is fine if that's what the sources say. Perhaps clarifying this on the article's talk page will help reduce the chance that the information is removed by another editor in the future. Just a suggestion.
Some other comments and advice. Referring to other editors as trolls simply because they have reverted your edits might be viewed as not "assuming good faith". Wikipedia has policies against making personal attacks and such comments might be interpreted as such. The best thing to do in such cases is often to try to find out why your edit was reverted through talk page discussion and stick to commenting on content and not on other editors. Lots of misunderstanding are cleared up through talk page discussions. Also, I've noticed that your marking almost all of your edits as "minor" when the fact is that they are really not. I suggest you take a look at "WP:MINOR#Minor edit", particularly WP:ME#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit. Knowingly and continuously marking edits as "minor" when they are not might be seen as disruptive by some and something not really conducive to collaborative editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly -- Thank you so much for the advice and guidance! I am reading these articles now. Really, really appreciated! Kmg318 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

hello <redacted> I Can Editing Wiki Article And Sorry I'm Editing Your Article.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by FERNANDO HAZARD (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, FERNANDO HAZARD. I'm not sure what you are asking (or why you are telling us personal facts here). I see you have been editing Persipura Jayapura. It seems a reasonable enough article, except that there is still a lot of information which is not referenced; and the references that are there would be more useful if they contained the "website" parameter, so that you could readily see what publication they came from. (This is important for distinguishing which references are reliable, and also which are independent). As a general rule, every single piece of data in an article should be individually referenced to a reliable source, and in most cases to an independent reliable source (see WP:NAMEDREF for how to use the same source more than once). --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In this article, Longxi Township, Wenchuan County, I added the [[]] around a wikilink but they are visible on the article, whereas the other wikilinks are not. Rubbish computer (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer:, fixed it. I think it was to do with the way the text was formatted. There were a number of line breaks in the text (as if it had been cut and pasted from another document) and these meant the wiki markup wasn't recognising the brackets as being paired. Remove the line breaks and the problem goes away. Nthep (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing Display/Title name

Hello! Is there any way to change the display/title name of a wiki page? There's currently a page dedicated to Edie Bornstein, however, that is her maiden name and I would like to update it to her married name, Edie Rodriguez. Any insight on how I could do this would be super helpful. Thank you!

Melissaspark 205.179.19.174 (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The mechanics of doing it are set out at Wikipedia:Moving a page. However, only registered, autoconfirmed users (users with more than ten edits and whose accounts are more than four days [actual days; 96 hours]) can move a page. A request can be made by anyone at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but please be aware that Wikipedia article are usually titled by the common name of the subject as set forth in a preponderance of reliable sources, which may not be the official or legal name of a subject. For a person, see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Multiple and changed surnames – patronymics and matronymics. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

About Wikiprojects

How to join various wikiprojects? and why there is need to join any wikiproject when you can edit nearly every article without being part of any wikiproject? What extra benefits an user or editor gets when he/she joins any Wikiproject? Please answer all questions. Thank You. --Human3015 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Human3015, welcome to the Teahouse. To sign up for a WikiProject, just go to a projects main page and follow the links to the members page and add your name to the list. There are not necessarily any "benefits", signing up for a Wikiproject is pretty much just declaring that you edit that subject. For example, I am a member of this Wikiproject and I edit lots of pages related to that. Wikiprojects have a talk page where you can discuss anything related to it with other members of that Wikiproject. Finally, the main page of Wikiprojects often have tasks and other things like that you can participate in. You can also put a cool little userbox on your user page :P. DangerousJXD (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @DangerousJXD: , hope you will help me further in future on different issues. Wikipedia is certainly more addictive than Facebook. :P --Human3015 00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl LIII

I want to know when will the Super Bowl LIII Article will be starting Because I Looked at the Dallas Morning News Website that They Will announce finalists for both Super Bowl LIII and Super Bowl LIV I Hope They Super Bowl LIII Article page will hopefully start in May and then the Super Bowl LIV Page will start later let me know when OK. Big Towel (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Towel, the articles will probably be created when there is enough information to start with and the whole thing isn't just speculation about where and when. You'll just have to keep your eyes open for the articles. Nthep (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Big Towel, according to Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson, in a live performance at DAR Constitution Hall last month, there will not be a Super Bowl LIII. Specifically, "there won't be a Super Bowl L. Can you imagine the marketers?". at that point, they'll go to Super Bowl 50. RobSVA (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well they haven't been talking About Super bowl LIII Because of the Adrian Peterson Case. To Cause this problem. There should be some finalists in may. Big plate (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why Can't I Create New Future Sports Articles

Mrx Said if I was disruptive I Would be banned from editing But I Am Leaving On Sunday Night Big plate (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Big plate. As a general rule, Wikipedia is very conservative about articles about future events. It would be foolish to create an article about the 2028 U.S. presidential election, or the 2032 Notre Dame football season, since nothing of value can be said about such future events. On the other hand, we can have a useful article about the 2016 presidential election since reliable sources already discuss it in great detail, and even the next Super Bowl in 2016 since the date and venue are set, though no one has any good idea at this time which teams will play. So, it is the extent of coverage in reliable sources that determines whether we should have an article. We require very solid, very significant coverage to create an article about a future event. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

World Wide Why?

Why is this confusing?
I am asking this question aGain as the last time: discussion had no good solution as the opinions of host were slightly different. And David got annoyed by my edits!
So now please just answer in yes or no: are the following correct for URL template
1 https://www.domain.com
2 https://domain.com
3 www.domain.com
4 domaim.com
thank you in advance
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As was said in the answers you received previously, it isn't a simple yes or no for all cases. Your question last time round didn't specifically refer to the url template; some of the answers referred to using the template, and some referred to links provided without using the url template, as in your examples above.
Some of the previous discussion was whether the "www" is necessary, and the answer is that it usually isn't necessary. Advice at {{Infobox company}} is "Do not include the leading www. unless the URL will not resolve without it." At the time of writing one example of a url that doesn't work without the "www" is horr.co.uk (which currently gives a 500 server error), whereas www.horr.co.uk does work. This server error may be corrected soon, of course, as it has been pointed out to the organization concerned. The example of a change to which I objected was when you changed twitter.com to www.twitter.com; in this case if you follow the link including the "www" it gets you to somewhere that displays (in the address line of my browser at least) as https://twitter.com without the "www", so it was a pointless edit (and against the advice in the previous answers) to add "www" to the link.
The presence or absence of the "www" is different from the presence or absence of the "https://". When used without the url template the absence of the "https://" stops the string being treated as a url link, as you can see in the examples in your question.
One further point is that [//twitter.com] works (//twitter.com) without the https: . In this case the connection will work with the currently used protocol, whether that be http or https.
I hope that things are now clearer for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay: now that is clear!


aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Question for the Teahouse hosts

Hi Teahouse hosts,

  • When I co-managed the Signpost, one of my last projects was to run a survey of Signpost editors. We discovered that most of our editors are long-term Wikipedians. I think it would help new contributors to see the wider world of Wikipedia if they subscribe to the Signpost. Is this something you can encourage as a group, and how else do you think new users can be made aware of the larger world of Wikipedia?
  • I would like to let you know that I am staring work on two videos that may be helpful to new editors. The first video will be a short introduction to VisualEditor. The second will be a 30 to 60 minute video that is aimed at students in the Wikipedia Education Program but may also be of interest to new users who have decided for themselves that they want a relatively thorough introduction to how Wikipedia works. If you have suggestions for content you can post them on my talk page.

Thank you,

--Pine✉ 03:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pine. I subscribe to the Signpost (Wikipedia's general newsletter), read every issue, and encourage every committed editor to do so. But the Teahouse isn't set up for advocacy or promotion of any kind. Our sole mission (as I see it) is to welcome new or inexperienced editors, and to answer their good faith questions about editing. Nothing more, nothing less. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

the knowledge graph

can an experienced Wikipedia user like an administrator or high ranked user be able to contribute any information to the knowledge graph or does anyone thats registered or not have any capability to do so or is it just the people that work for google that does most of the work and contributions to the knowledge graph?Studentcollege (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Studentcollege: That's basically what Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 322#knowledge graph was about. Google's Knowledge Graphs are made by Google's software. Their employees code the software but I guess they don't manually create or make changes to individual Knowledge Graphs. That would probably require too much paid manpower and go against their core idea of presenting search results. We have no inside knowledge or control over what they do. A Knowledge Graph often but not always contains an excerpt from the lead of a Wikipedia article. If the quoted part of the article is edited then Google may update their Knowledge Graph at a later time, but edits should not be made to try to affect Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say but can the administrator or a high ranked Wikipedia user notify google to make a knowledge graph about a famous person that a registered user has created or will google let the Wikipedia user know that it will take some time for the knowledge graph to be completed?Studentcollege (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Human Wikipedians have no communication with human Google employees about such matters, Studentcollege. It is handled entirely by Google's software bots crawling the web, and rating Wikipedia highly as a source. Our licensing allows them to freely repackage our content as they see fit, as long as they credit us. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
what does googles software bots mean?Studentcollege (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Studentcollege: See Googlebot and Web crawler. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have two more questions in regards to the knowledge graph what does the feedback link at the bottom of the knowledge graph mean and if a knowledge graph has a lot of credentials does that mean that particular famous person is very well known?Studentcollege (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Studentcollege: Click the feedback link to see what it does. You don't have to ask about everything. We have no inside knowledge of how Google processes the feedback. I'm not sure what you mean by credentials but I don't know whether there is any correlation between the fame of a person and the number of fields in their Knowledge Graph. It's presumably made by software and not people so the time to add many fields is not an issue. I guess it's just a question of which information Google can gather automatically in a way their software trusts enough to put in a field. If a person is very famous then there will usually be more websites writing about them and maybe a better chance that Google can gather what they want. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
when i said credentials i was talking about that famous persons type of work and what other types of work that particular person is well known for.Studentcollege (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Studentcollege: It has been pointed out to you previously that your tedious questions having little to nothing to do with editing Wikipedia were approaching the point of being disruptive. Well, with this last obsession over Google, something that has NO relationship with editing Wikipedia whatsoever, you have passed the tipping point and are now being disruptive. I'll make a deal with you: Go make an edit and make your next question about the edit you made. Anything less than that and I am afraid I will be forced to approach an administrator and request you be blocked for lack of competence and disruption. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter when i mentioned the word credentials on my previous post I was referring to that famous persons type of work and what other types of occupations that particular person is well known for.Studentcollege (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The request has been made politely over and over, Studentcollege, and you have not complied. Your repetitive questions are disruptive. Stop now, or experienced editors will have to request a block on your account. STOP! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen I sincerely apologize and I will NEVER ask repetitive questions about the same topic ever again. I also have received all the answers that i have been looking for and for all your kind responses I'am extremely happy and grateful for it.Studentcollege (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bullying by another editor? Subjective?

Hello, I have been stalked and bullied by a member Epeefleche ever since I ADDED (note: not deleted, but ADDED) twice as much content to a page that he had contributed to. Much of the links to topics are to other Wikipedia pages; not so much a sources, but as links to show a cohesive story. An example is that from the main page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians_of_Ethiopia I added a number of external sources, but also linked to Wikipedia pages, such as this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_of_Axum since it has to do with Mussolini stealing said Obelisk, and then the Italian Government sending it back/repatriating it. I used the picture from that page, as well as some text and linked to it. But before I could even grab an external link (even though I really shouldn't have to...since it's all there on the Wikipedia page) the user Epeefleche undid all my work (hours worth) and gave me a "warning" on my talk page that I could be banned from editing if I did not "cite my sources". How is this possible? Nothing I am putting up is my own opnion, conjecture or speculation...it's fact and just happens to be captured on other Wikipedia pages that I can link to for support/to tell a cohesive story. What can I do to sto this? Who can I get involved to mediate? thanks so much TrinacrialucenteTrinacrialucente (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Trinacrialucente. Please take a deep breath, sit down, and have a relaxing cup of tea before making further accusations that an experienced editor like Epeefleche is "stalking" and "bullying" you. The first thing that you must realize is that one Wikipedia article is never a reliable source for a statement in another Wikipedia article. Never, ever ever. That's because Wikipedia can be freely edited by anyone, and though our accuracy in general is high, any given article at any time may contain false information or vandalism, either obvious or subtle. A well-written Wikipedia article contains references to actual reliable sources. If you actually read such sources, and if they support the content you want to add to the other article, feel free to cite them. But please never cite Wikipedia itself. And please do not accuse editors who enforce well-established policies of stalking and bullying. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly do both as I have been doing (linking to the Wikipedia page AND using the sources therein). but rather than undoing my work before I have a chance to hit submit, instead of simply writing [citation needed] would that not be a better way to handle this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Every editor (including you and Epeefleche) has the right to revert if they sincerely believe that another editor's additions are problematic. My personal policy is to reference any substantive addition I make to, at least, the URL of a reliable source, and then transform it into a complete reference within a few minutes. Accordingly, I find that a very small percentage of my edits are reverted, saving me much heartburn. The primary burden for proper referencing is on you, whenever you add content. Those are the facts of life here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Another fact of life here on Wikipedia is that personal attacks like this one are totally unacceptable. We have a policy of No personal attacks. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_324&oldid=654304159"