Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 700

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 695←Archive 698Archive 699Archive 700Archive 701Archive 702→Archive 705

Archive URL contains only the title of the cited article

I was checking some edits made by the InternetArchiveBot for the Robin Williams article. For one of them, in the Further reading section, Archive.org (WayBackMachine) had captured the correct web page from ABC-Nightline, but for some reason only the title for the article appears on the archived URL page. I am thinking that I should leave it as is, but I wanted to check with the experts to make sure that is the best thing to do. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.
Sometimes the efforts by the Wayback Machine to archive a page are defeated by things the original site does. That looks like it may be the case here. The archive robot saved something, but not being an AI, it was unable to realize that what it saved was not going to be particularly helpful for the future.
So what's the right thing to do here? If it were an actual reference cited in the article, you would leave it, perhaps adding a {{failed verification}} template to warn readers that there's no longer useful content to be found by following the link. The useless cite would remain until someone comes along to rewrite that section using still extant sources. We'd be assuming the original cite did verify the information, but until there's reason to challenge the validity or a corroborating source can be found, the former link is left as a placeholder.
But in this case, the link is just in the Further reading section. As the link is no longer useful, it would be perfectly justifiable to remove it. Nothing in the content of the article depends on it and we are not doing readers any favors by pointing them to documents that either don't exist any longer or have been replaced by something useless.
I did some checking to see if perhaps there was an earlier capture or if there was some link elsewhere to the same content. I don't know if this is actually the same segment, but there's an ABC.go segment which has a video transcript available, even if you're not a subscriber. That transcript might be a useful thing to capture, even if there doesn't seem to be a way to generate a URL to point to it. (Isn't is such a pity that websites are designed for their purposes, not for ours.) — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Under international rights agreements, the original page could only be viewed by people within the United States anyway, so no much use to everyone else. It would be interesting to know if that was the reason why the archived capture only shows the title. CV9933 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! (Yes, I am a return questioner ;o) I removed the link as you (jmcgnh) suggested. There is still a link to another ABC special so I think we're good.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

First question!

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What is 2,952÷36? Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kubuś z Gimnazjum: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask about using Wikipedia, and is not for general questions. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Cześć, @Kubuś z Gimnazjum:. IMHO it's osiemdziesiąt kilka, but this is not a chat room for discussing trivial arithmetics. Please see the note at the top of the page.
It says this is
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.
(emphasis mine). Shall you have any questions regarding Wikipedia editing, rules or policies, you're more than welcome to ask them here. --CiaPan (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
(ec) In addition to what 311dot said, use of a calculator to solve that equation expression would be easier and less time consuming than posting here (or just googling it). If you have any Wikipedia related questions, we would be more than happy to help you with those. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Please note the given expression is not an 'equation', as there is no 'equals sign' in it. Consequently, there is nothing to 'solve' in it, also because as a not-equation it contains no unknown. It's a simple arithmetic expression, which needs just calculation to determine its value. --CiaPan (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@CiaPan: Struck out and corrected. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for approved article creation

Hello, sir. Iam love to created an article and editing article please allow me for creating articles. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphin (Dolphin) (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dolphin (Dolphin), and welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor can create an article; but very new editors cannot do so directly, but have to use the article wizard and create a draft. This is because creating an article that is acceptable is difficult, and it is very unlikely that a new editor will be able to do so at the first attempt. I would actually advise almost any editor to use wizard (or equivalent) and create a draft rather than going straight to creating the article. Dolphin, I suggest you study your first article, and follow the advice there - in particular, about editing existing articles for a while before you try creating a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the warm welcome! willkimon Duet1234 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on email reply from Ambarish Banerjee re Hillier Parker May & Rowden

Dear WP,

I am posting this here on behalf of my friend Harold Couch. He has written in by email to enquire why our article about HPM&R was rejected. Here is the reply received.

Dear Harold Couch,

Your submission is way too too too detailed. I'm stating this with zero exaggeration.

And, that along with the scarce non-trivial mentions in reliable sources looks to have been the main contributing factor behind the decline. WP is an encyclopedia, not a company-booklet that tends to sing unchecked praises and glorify it's past. Thus, each and every contribution/construction and/or project-locations do not deserve to be mentioned.

Also, the People section is too trivial to be encyclopedic.And, the History section looks more-or-less good! So, please drastically cut-out the trivial promotional stuff. Once, you've done so, re-submit and our team will re-review.

Thank you!

Yours sincerely, Ambarish Banerjee

Of course we will be happy with a much shorter version, rather than nothing at all.

But we think what is so wrong with precise information linked to a published source offered in good faith is hard to see.

For example, to my mind the fact that HPM&R was "gave advice to the then Nuclear Electric Plc in the early 1990s to facilitate the change of use of Bankside Power Station to the Tate Modern art gallery" is really quite striking and illustrates how HPM&R has played a part in the building of the United Kingdom as it stands today.

WP's own article about itself contains 368 references and WP has only been around since 2001. The HPM&R article we submitted only 53 references and HPM&R has been around since 1896.

So WP gives itself 21 references about itself per year of operation. At that rate, you might think that HPM&R ought to be entitled to 2142 references in its article.

WP's article about itself includes arcane technical details such as whether it uses MySQL or Lucene for searching. Yet Banerjee implies that the fact that 99 Bishopsgate was managed on behalf of Hammerson is less interesting than that; but if you happened to have been involved somehow with 99 Bishopsgate or Hammerson at the time then it's quite possibly very interesting indeed.

Philjones573 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of anyone who hasn't checked the archives, some previous Teahouse questions and answers about this topic:
Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to accept that not every company gets a page on Wikipedia. It has gone through a deletion process and was voted to be deleted. Comparing it to other articles isn't a way to get your article published. You started another draft which is great, but also as mention before, it doesn't matter how many references they need to be significant coverage (not just mere mentions). So instead of asking here constantly why it isn't getting accepted, focus on improving your draft instead to see if you can overturn the lack of notability. NZFC(talk) 21:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Taking a look at the article it does appear that there is some notable information there, for example
"It was commissioned to value the properties of John Lewis (department store);[12] Brooklands motor track; [13] and London Air Park. [14] It advertised the freehold site of Devonshire House, Picadilly, in 1922 [15]. It auctioned Gamages Department Store of Oxford Street in 1931. [16]" and "The purchase of Burlington Arcade by Prudential Assurance Company in 1954 was negotiated through HPM&R.[18] The Barton Arcade in Manchester was sold by HPM&R in 1957. [19]

"From 1960, HPM&R gave advice to over 100 local authorities and New Town Corporations on development schemes for town centre shopping.  ::"For example, in 1974, HPM&R was appointed planning consultant, project manager and letting agent on behalf of Banbury Borough Council for the Castle Centre in Banbury Town Centre (now named Castle Quay Shopping Centre).[20] [21] Tunbridge Wells Borough Council was advised throughout the development of Royal Victoria Place, opened in 1992. [22][23] HPM&R advised the 1970 development of the town centre for Hartlepool, County Durham"

This makes the company seem pretty notable to me and not a run-of-the-mill estate firm. Working with other notable firms and with over 100 local authorities, seems to be an indicator or notability to me, would any disagree with that?Egaoblai (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
A company might well be worthy of note in the sense you use notable, but if it has not been written about extensively in independent WP:Reliable sources, then it is not notable in the Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia simply looks to see whether a subject has been written about. It doesn't make any judgements about notability in the everyday sense. Dbfirs 08:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Right, but many discussions come down to what is notable, a subject may have lots written about but it might not be notable and vice versa.
The questions in this discussion is "Is this organisation notable? and "What makes an estate company notable" and it appears they might be given their role in working with local authorities on such a large scale. If we accept If this information can be proved by independent written sources then it follows that the topic would be acceptable. Does notability always come from being the subject of an article? I mean to give an absurd example. Let's say there was a organization that had been employed by the royal family of the UK for 400 years and this was verified references, but none of the references were articles that were specifically about the organisation, but mere "passing mentions" or official records, would that organisation fail an AFD? Egaoblai (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Egaoblai: In your fictitious case of a very old organization serving prestigious customers but that has attracted no significant coverage, yes, it would indeed fail an AfD. The trick is that in Wikipedia's meaning of the term, "notable" does not mean peculiar or worthy of interest, but has been the subject of published interest, because while the former is quite subjective and disputable, the latter is not (or much less so). If something has appeared on the front page of the New York Times, the Economist, El Pais and La Repubblica with extensive analysis in the inner pages, it is notable, even if it is a random person going about their average day in an average city. Presumably, if a subject has been deemed worthy of interest by reliable independent sources, some of our readers may deem it worthy of interest as well, but otherwise, it is only speculation. An reverse example is the discussion about whether an independent article about Donald Trump's hair should be kept, where many experienced editors argued to keep the article on the grounds that the guidelines require it, and some other experienced editors argued to delete it with an argument of "screw the guideline in this particular instance, that is stupid and does not belong here" (thus admitting the notability threshold was met). TigraanClick here to contact me 21:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Paid editing" tag on the article's page

Hi,

An article I wrote has recently been accepted to Wikipedia. Today, I have noticed that there is now a rather big banner on top of the article page with a dollar sign and the following text "This article has been edited in return for disclosed payments. View disclosure."

I am a COI editor and I have disclosed this on the draft talk page before the article was written.

My question is, is this banner obligatory or necessary? I couldn't find any information on that, nor do I understand why this tag was added later and not at the time when the article was moved from Articles for creation. I understand that my COI has to be disclosed on the talk page, but I find the banner disruptive and would like to have it removed, if at all possible.

Many thanks for your replies.

NindriIndri (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that Template:Disclosed paid is a new template, less than a week old, and that there is discussion about it at Template talk:Disclosed paid. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll try arguing my case there.

NindriIndri (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

NindriIndri, you are not a COI editor, you are a PAID editor. There's a difference. You are being compensated by the subject of the article to create the article. Don't you understand that the vast majority of articles are NOT created that way? Please explain to us what is disruptive about informing our readers that the article you were paid to write was created by someone for pay? When assessing a source of information, it is vital to know how the information was gathered. For example, would you trust the voracity of a study on the effects of smoking on the human body that was commissioned by a tobacco company? Why should the article you wrote be different? In my eye, by accepting payment from the subject of the article to create it, you have forever called into doubt the content of the article and IMO that tag should remain until neutral editors have rewritten every word that you wrote. The discussion David Biddulph references above is a discussion of the meta issues behind the existence of the tag. It is not the place to discuss the placement of the tag on the particular article you got paid to write. John from Idegon (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
And by the way, if you do decide to contribute to the discussion David mentioned, it's required that you disclose your status as a paid editor there. Also you are required by paid to list on your user page or your user talk page every article you've accepted compensation to write and who paid you. You have not done that. John from Idegon (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Per what David Biddulph said, the template in question is very new. I created it less than a week ago, and in the meantime have been preparing an official proposal at the village pump. I have added the tag to a number of articles to show its veracity, and have removed it if contested by any editor, including those who have edited articles for pay.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

John from IdegonThank you for your comment. I did not know that I had to disclose the information regarding paid articles on my talk page, I thought it should be disclosed on the article's talk page (and no one has brought this up so far). I will do so immediately, I just have to figure out how.

Regarding the topic: to go back to your example, I presume such a tobacco company study or it's results would not have been accepted to Wikipedia. My article has been properly tagged as paid, reviewed and then accepted; thus I believe my article has met WP standards for inclusion: neutral tone, notability, references etc., the same as any other article ever accepted on WP (paid or not) and I don't see a reason why the reader should then be blasted with a huge dollar sign that makes it look like an advertisement and may make them not trust the article (the info is available on the talk page, after all, for those curious about the author or circumstances).

I understand that there may have been many cases of abuse of WP and that long-time editors may see red when they see a paid editor, but I (or the client) had no intentions of bypassing any rules or doing anything prohibited or sketchy. I have tried to the best of my abilities to abide by the WP rules and outside of my connection to the client (painter), I am an art historian and so I know the topic I wrote about and as a scholar, I understand the need for objectivity. Wouldn't it be a huge waste of time to rewrite an article that has already been accepted and meets the standards? Just out of spite or paranoia? Contrary to your opinion, I see nothing wrong with people being paid to write articles for WP (actually, I think it would be nice if everyone was paid), as long as this is disclosed and the information is accurate and reviewed. I'm sure there are hundreds of articles on WP written by paid contributors who chose to hide their connection to the client and I don't think it's particularly helpful to use such a negatively-charged tone when communicating with the few of us that did and treat us like lepers.

Please understand that from the perspective of a new editor, Wikipedia is a huge place and not the easiest to navigate or write an article for, not to mention the numerous rules and opinions of different editors that one meets along the way. This is precisely the reason why I have not contributed more - since I've joined WP, I feel like everyone's "out to get me".

Additionally, as far as I can see, this template has not been generally accepted and I don't know why the article I wrote should be tagged when other articles are not (yet).

I have disclosed my status of paid editor on the template talk page and I do not argue the appropriateness of this template for my article only but in general. I can also remove that if you feel it's out of place. I would like to stress again that I am not trying to obfuscate anything and I don't have any hidden agendas. I just really don't see any need to differentiate in such an obvious manner articles which, in terms of general guidelines, have all been accepted as worthy of inclusion in WP - and I mean all of them, not just in my case.

Kind regards,

NindriIndri (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have re-read the rules for disclosing PAID and as far as I can see, I have obliged:

Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.

NindriIndri (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why would you not disclose it on your user page? What possible reason can there be not to do that, when you are a paid editor? I am trying to understand here. --bonadea contributions talk 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
COIDISCLOSEPAY is clear than it is not required. I would support forcing notices to go both on the userpage and on either each edit summary or the talk page of every PAID-edited article; but that is not the current state of things, so I do not think they need to answer your question by anything else than "because I do not want to". TigraanClick here to contact me 21:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The paid editor is (obviously) under no obligation to disclose on the article page. But it does not mean that such disclosure is prohibited. It was added, some find it useful, some believe it is required by European law, and some think it is unnecessary. A consensus is yet to be formed on this matter. Rentier (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have disclosed it since I have been notified of this recommendation. I have previously not done so because I presumed from the wording that it was necessary to disclose my status on the article talk page and it was optional to add it to my own. I didn't try to hide anything, I just focused on the article and not the unnecessary "bureaucracy". I find the way Wikipedia works (with all the codes and templates etc.) quite overwhelming so I try to fiddle as little as possible with it. The way John from Idegon phrased his reply made it seem like disclosing all articles on the user page is a hard rule I had intentionally disobeyed and was therefore a "bad" paid editor, when in fact it is a recommendation ("advise" is the verb used) and the way I marked the article has not raised any concerns with previous Wiki editors.

Kindly,

NindriIndri (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Announcement: "Save changes" has been renamed "Publish changes"

Image of "Publish changes" button (formerly "Save changes") as seen in Wikipedia's source editor. Name changed 11 December 2017.
Image of "Publish changes" button (formerly "Save changes") as seen in Visual Editor. This button appears at the top right of the editing screen.

A small name change has just been made to the blue "Save changes" button in everyone's editing tool. It is now labelled "Publish changes", but its function has not altered. As before, it simply saves the recent edits that have been typed in, whether they've been made in the main encyclopaedia, in a user page or to a draft article. It does not make any difference to how Draft articles, or content in user sandboxes, are actually published (i.e. made to go live) on Wikipedia proper. See Wikipedia:Your first article

New editors need to be aware that our various help pages, (here, here and here) for example, may remain a little out of date for a while until new graphics and explanatory text are provided. This also affects users learning about editing by taking The Wikipedia Adventure. Hopefully, this won't cause too much confusion.

(I learnt of this scheduled wikipedia-wide change as a result of a post from David Biddulph and others, pointing us to this and this announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation.) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Disney Fox merger

To prepare for the inevitable Disney-Fox deal, should we start putting parentheses for the deal impending, should we put a fate tab abouve the founding tab for the fox properties, should we put a defunct tab? what should we do?Vinnylospo (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vinnylospo. I'm not sure what you're asking in respect of Wikipedia. If the deal has been reported in reliable sources, then information about it may be added to the articles affected. Once a deal has gone through and been reported in reliable sources, then articles about subjects affected by the deal should be updated (whether it's names, logos, ownership etc). In some cases, articles may need to be revised, as some existing information may become historical (which doesn't necessarily mean that it should be removed). Every article needs to be considered individually: if you're interested in helping with that task, that would be useful. I haven't a clue what you mean by "put a fate tab abouve the founding tab for the fox properties, should we put a defunct tab". --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

QARABAĞ FK

Wikipedia fund requests

"How can I address the issue of one who persistently erases appropriate material we have submitted?"

Who reviews submitted drafts?

WikiFauna question

Undoing user warnings

Parenthetical referencing editnotice at Allele age

linguistic technical question

Ref https://en.wikipedia.org/…/King's_College,_Auckland

Recent Edit of My Neighbor Totoro page

How to write an article about a fashion designer?

who is sitaphul?

Where can I find a list of WP Improvement projects (specifcally UI design)

interested

citation that requires registration

Help regarding patrol

Indenting templates on user page

adding an organisation to wiki

Internal link not working!

I want to add a picture

How to delete my account....

How to made "subpages"

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI