This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 205 | Archive 206 | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 | → | Archive 215 |
Hi! I work with Kranti Kanade and we noticed 'This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2011) & This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (February 2011)' We want to have these removed so as to improve the article's credibility. We seek help to make this article as genuine as possible. 114.143.114.1 ( talk) 08:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I looked at WP:Boldface which says that boldface should only be used for headings and lists. But I'm not sure whether characters in plays comes under this rule. Should characters in plays be written in bold or not. Surely it's best to be consistent in all plays. However I notice that characters in films are rarely written in bold so perhaps that is the way to go. Jodosma ( talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
TPTB ( talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Hello,
I have recently submitted an article and it was rejected because there weren't enough independent sources. I was just wondering what happens if there are no independent sources available.
What happens if i'm trying to write about a product and the only information about that product is located on that product's website?
I hope to hear from you soon. TPTB ( talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Speculative reason or pure reason is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought (sometimes called theoretical reason), as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought. The distinction between the two goes at least as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, who distinguished between theory (theoria, or a wide, bird's eye view of a topic, or clear vision of its structure) and practice (praxis), as well as techne.[1]...Praxis (process), the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised[2]...This article seems to promote ambiguity if not contradiction in its presentation of what speculative reason is, as a subject that can only have circular definitions. It is only practical because it has been written...as for its practice it would be a direction toward oneself like involution; how do I propose a change (in Wiki) to the Speculative reason Main Article Arnlodg ( talk) 23:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Has there, or is there, any thought of adding some system where one can either write down, copy paste, post image etc. from referenced books, articles, etc?
This is years back, but remember I went trough some articles and did reference check on various topics. For example: the book "Accounts of a merchant by John Doe pp. 332-343" could be in references but upon actually retrieving that book and reading the referenced text there was absolutely nothing to support the claims given in the wiki-article. Some times the books or articles referenced was not even touching the subject at hand.
Understand that such a system gives rise to a lot of complex issues, but at the same time such a system would give the possibility of improving the quality. One could of course not demand such sources, but at the same time it would be given higher credibility. The fact that something is written in a book is of course also no quality marker in itself in various situations.
Some sort of collaboration with Google Books, Web Archive and/or other similar services? Warumwarum ( talk) 16:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I have edited the article on Ely Cathedral and in order to do this satisfactorily I found it necessary to insert a new headed paragraph. "Edit" doesn't seem to bring up the table of contents for editing. How does one do this? 86.152.92.160 ( talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article and I have a couple of questions regarding sources and images. First, my article is about a person who is important in the ballet world but all of the facts I've found about her have been from a documentary she was a part of and from forums and fan pages. I think it's a delicate subject, as she has been criticized a lot by ballet enthusiasts and it's known that she isn't in a good place right now, but I don't want to come across as defamatory (I wish her the best in her ballet endeavours). Are those sources good enough? Also, I wanted to add a picture of her but I don't know if any of the pictures available online are permitted. Help?
Thank you!
( Enildapg ( talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
( Enildapg ( talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I recently submitted two articles to wikipedia the third week in April, and have been checking for comments and suggestions or whether the articles are accepted or will be deleted. I understood the status message that there were thousands of articles pending review and the process will most likely take over a month. Is the best practice to just keep checking my pages? Will I receive any sort of email notification if a submission is accepted or deleted?
I am a new contributor, following the footsteps of a friend who moved away, and more experienced with the process. I welcome feedback and embrace this wonderful collaborative platform. Thank you very much for the information! ArtistInWordyThings ( talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the reassurance, StarryGrandma (love your uname!) and I look forward to improving and collaborating as time progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistInWordyThings ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I've been editing for about a month and have learned the most basic ropes. One of the pages I've been working on, Rolfing is a focal point for some very strict editors, some who care about quality sources, neutral tone, etc as is appropriate, and others who seem to be opposed to the topic and perhaps even wish to undermine the constructive progress of this article. My primary focus has been to try to add some higher-quality sources (mostly secondary sources from mainstream publishers) as the page previously had too much reliance on primary sources especially websites. Also I'm attempting to clear up some of the inaccuracies on the page. I'm hoping that you can help me navigate some contested points. I definitely don't want to engage in warring so I need some help in how to handle disagreements wikipedia-style. The most recent example is in the History section: "The method Rolf developed, involving a programme of deep-tissue massages, was originally called Postural Release and later Structural Integration but became known as Rolfing." I removed "involving a programme of deep-tissue massages" which not well-phrased for accuracy and is not needed for the history section as there is a more detailed Theory and Practice section (and I gave this as the reason for the edit). Another editor reverted my deletion with this cryptic comment: (revert POV commentary). Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thank you in advance! Karinpower ( talk) 03:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328, thanks for your input and your willingness to keep an eye on this page! I'm not debating the fringe status and I appreciate the need for clear, strong sources. Following WP:MEDRS, the studies that have been done have been published in journals that are not mainstream enough to be cited in Wikipedia, so the article relies mostly on secondary sources such as books that summarize a number of types of healing approaches. I have located and added several of these in recent weeks. My complaint is not about being strict about sources - it's about reverts that seem to undermine clear improvements to the article. Did you (or anyone else here) have an opinion about the above example that I mentioned? To me this seems like a straight forward edit that helps the paragraph read better. Thanks again!-- Karinpower ( talk) 15:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The massage question is a separate issue, and there are a number of sources on each side of that equation - that will require some in-depth work and I hope to delve into that in the future. For the present, I wish to remove this odd little bit of text because it's not relevant to the History section. The sentence reads well without it, and the question of describing Dr. Rolf's method is currently handled better briefly in the intro and then in more detail in the Theory and Practice section. Let me put it a different way. If the article had the history section without that phrase, and then someone added it, wouldn't that seem extraneous? If someone then reverted the change, wouldn't that make sense? Thanks again for your consideration. -- Karinpower ( talk) 21:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I know there are ways to easily find pages that other users have reported there being problems with, like a page needing grammatical corrections or more citations, but I just can't seem to figure it out. I'm really sorry to bother you, as I recall being told about this before, but I'm a new user, and am a bit lost right now... Thank you so much for your help! Runnerofwinds ( talk) 23:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
A draft I was working on in my sandbox had the template {{DEFAULTSORT:User Marchjuly sandbox "draft title"}} added at the bottom of page before the category tags. Although this draft has been reviewed and moved to the article mainspace, the template is still there. Does it need to be deleted/changed or should it be left as is? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I submitted an article about Carpe Fulgur, a game translation company. The article was rejected, and I understand why. Carpe Fulgur is represented in Wikipedia currently by 7 broken links.
I knew going in that there is a shortage of references for Carpe Fulgur's activities, but I figured having a weak page was better than having seven broken links. I worked hard to create the new page, drawing entirely on information about Carpe Fulgur currently in approved WP pages, and a very small amount of personal knowledge.
There is no more information available about this small but relevant game company. They are doing work worthy of WP reference, but it's really just a couple of hard-working guys without a PR department. I felt readers of their various WP references deserved someone pulling the CF story together and satisfying the links.
Apparently, WP editor disagree. I think you risk losing relevance when you reject good faith attempts to fulfill your broken links.
Jlight88 192.55.55.41 ( talk) 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Luke, you might want to reconsider the broken link issue. Each one discredits Wikipedia.
Both, I see very tired editors with more time to enforce rules than actually investigate relevant work. If you examine each of the broken links, you will find that they are relevant unanswered questions. If you examine the draft, you will find a single detailed media interview. Fortunately for you, the only ones you will become irrelevant to are young game players: not so important to us older folks.
jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 18:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
When friends found I was going on this Quixotic quest, they laughed because of their own interactions with WP. I now will laugh with them instead of defending WP.
Cullen, I might have found a reference from Encyclopedia Britannica similar to your comment "If Wikipedia is becoming "irrelevant", then why does it remain the sixth most popular website in the world".
jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
All, Liz is the only one who has treated me well. Everyone else is willing to answer with no knowledge, trumpeting the rules. You guys need to start treating people better. Don't answer because you think someone needs to have the rules repeated to them. That's like a content-less discussion. All of this goes back to the original topic.
Jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 01:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 05:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Good grief. How does an article that is not yet ready (yes, I checked and added a review comment to that effect) and would be probably deleted on sight because it does not assert nor give evidence of WP:N turn into a discussion about Wikipedia relevance? Wikipedia is relevant precisely because it does not display, except briefly, articles that just don't pass muster. Now a community consensus could overturn this so that anything that was ever written could step into the limelight, but that would, surely, relegate Wikipedia to be an unverified miscellany site.
The organisation exists, Carpe Fulgur, but it has no evident notability. If anyone wants to create that and accept it into main namespace as an article , more power to their elbows. And that is precisely what the effort should be spent on. Pins do not need angels to dance on their heads. Wikipedia needs good articles. Let's create Wikipedia! Fiddle Faddle 08:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia has strict rules, so I want to know the rules for what I can do on my users page. Jakekimtv ( talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
My article Miles-Butler Hughton has been said to be deleate,why? SillyPotatoe ( talk) 17:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I coined a word that rhymes with ORANGE 5 years ago and the Merriam Webster, Oxford routes have not been successful... Do you have any suggestions? 70.44.145.190 ( talk) 17:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I know that I can use the history page to identify contributions by a specific editor, but is there any way to highlight edits by a specific editor while looking at the article? Biolprof ( talk) 21:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
People, Please,
To state that Gen. Forrest was part of "Poorly Co-originated battles", is a mis nomer by all imagination. Tactics at "Brice's Cross roads" are still taught at West Point to this day. To state that "Hunt Morgan", did in more Yankees -26, than all others is again in error. (Had a Great/Great Uncle ride with Morgan -R.S. Clukes Reg.). Forrest shot 31 men and lost 30 horses under him, Said he figured the Yankees owed him a horse.
Please do a little book work work before printing such things. Yes, he had a problem with Braxton Bragg, but who didn't, except Jeff Davis. And after the second raid on Donelson with Gen. S. Lee, He refused to ever serve under him again. Only because it was a waste of men and a useless expedition.
You guys need to check your stuff a little better.
I actually could go down the whole list of his engagements, of which he never lost one until Selma in 1865.
Thank You for your attention to this matter.
Paul - outa Mich. 172.5.214.75 ( talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
A number of articles have a section discussing the usage of that topic in pop culture. So like, let's say it's the article about Leopold and Loeb and you want to include the fact that the movie Annie Hall mentioned Leopold and Loeb. Can you just include the movie as a reference? Or do you have to find an article that says "Annie Hall mentions Leopold and Loeb"? Assuming it's a straight forward mention and not some sort of interpretation of what's going on in the movie. If someone sings a song or reads a poem in a movie, but it's not written up in some secondary source, can I just use the movie as a reference? Bali88 ( talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Many mathematics professors and scholars utilize the definition of a circle as; A POINT REVOLVING AROUND A POINT. This is truth, but it is only half of a duality. I have no reference source as of yet, nevertheless a circle may be equally defined as; THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN 2 POINTS WHEREAS THOSE POINTS REMAIN AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER. In my studies of geometric patterns and such, I know that both definitions need truth. I ask anyone to refute this claim. There are so many Scientist's who dream of being the next icon of the Scientific community that there will be no such person in my mind(too many chiefs and not enough Indians syndrome). I know my edit will not be revised yet. Wikipedia has been here for me on many searches for better understanding and I never want to lose this resource, All I ask is for anyone to challenge these definitions and arrive at your own conclusion, thank-you Fridayjunior ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
How would you add refs to page? Can't seem to do it. FaZeShock ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Below are references for this unpublished page: /info/en/?search=User:Shellambra/sandbox
I'm guessing the Dailynews.com and laweekly.com, which reference Sean Healy (the subject) and one of his events (True Romance Fest) are legitimate sources. What about these others?:
Thanks in advance for your help!
http://www.slashfilm.com/true-romance-festival-taking-place-may-2-3-in-burbank-ca/
http://www.losangeles.com/articles/true-romance-fest-safari-inn-burbank.html
http://uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2014/01/theres-going-true-romance-festival-burbank-year/
http://kearth101.cbslocal.com/2014/05/02/things-to-do-in-los-angeles-this-week-may-2-may-8/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1229573/news
http://retellity.com/Biz/True-Romance-Fest-Burbank-CA
http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/true-romance-fest-is-coming-soon-and-joblocom-will-be-there
http://www.wherevent.com/detail/True-Romance-Fest-True-Romance-Fest
http://baldwinhwqm.soup.io/post/394250864/true-Romance-Festival-Taking-Place-May-2
http://regator.com/p/263084689/theres_going_to_be_a_true_romance_festival/
https://helloreverb.com/share/interest/Sean%20Healy
http://fusicology.com/auto-eNews/currentla.html
http://www.laweekly.com/2014-05-01/filmtv/true-romance-gets-its-own-fan-festival/
Shellambra ( talk) 00:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Yesterday I made some major edits to the 'Destiny (video game)' article. I had to cite the same source twice. How can I avoid that problem and use the same citation for multiple sources? Also, how do I cite YouTube videos and at what point in the video the information comes from? Routgs ( talk) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
<ref>
tag with <ref name="name for reference">
- so, for example, for a publication by James Hawthorne from 1987 you might use <ref name="Hawthorne1978">
. When you want to use the reference again, instead of typing out the whole thing, just type <ref name="Hawthorne1978"/>
(the / is important!) with no closing </ref>
. This will create an additional citation to the same reference.
Yunshui
雲
水 10:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Yunshui's answer was extremely helpful, thank you. For the new edit beta, which has simpler editing features, how can you use the same citation for multiple sources? And also, how can you cite YouTube videos using the editing feature as well as the new edit beta feature?
Thank you in advance.
Routgs ( talk) 11:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for the kind offer of help in having my first article published. This is as far as I've got with it: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Scott_Hallsworth
I've used the Wikipedia entries of contemporaries/friends of Scott to benchmark the piece so trust it's close to being acceptable. Any and all feedback/advice warmly received.
Thank you,
Subclassic ( talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)subclassic Subclassic ( talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just created a book on Charles Lloyd (the jazz saxophonist) here. This is my first book, if someone wants to check it out that would be great.
I'm thinking of adding either "File:Charles Lloyd.jpg" or "File:Charles Lloyd, with Reuben Rogers & Eric Harland, Santa Barbara 9-2006, Image by Scott Williams.JPG" (both on commons-I can't link them, else they'll just show up) as the cover image. They both appear to have the same licensing (that is, you can use it as long as it's attributed) so I was wondering if that would mean they're useable in this context. Thanks! Eman235/ talk 05:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
[[:File:Example.jpg]]
.
Anon126 (
notify me of responses! /
talk /
contribs) 05:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
When creating a video game article, what sort of information is required, and what information could be illegal or against the rules of Wikipedia to put up? Routgs ( talk) 10:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the things at the bottom of an article i.e. sources marked with <ref></ref> can be called many things: References, Notes, Citations etc. Are there some specific guidelines when to use what or is the "naming" decided on a case to case basis? - W.carter ( talk) 11:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I am learning about writing for Wikipedia. I have drafted an article about the Unique Learner Number, but have been consistently unable to ask for Feedback. The service is reported as currently unavailable. Apologies if I have missed it in the guides, (I confess to have serious time constraints on my personal project) but can you suggest where I am going wrong? Crustyoldfool ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
My recent article got deleted. I have resubmitted it. How will I know if it is successfully resubmitted for review? Madhuravp ( talk) 16:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I have created and submitted for review a wiki page of Quaid-E-Azam Divisional Public School and College but each time it is declined due to its notability issue, even after i have added the reference from the website www.qpc.edu.pk Irfansarwar2014 ( talk) 08:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 205 | Archive 206 | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 | → | Archive 215 |
Hi! I work with Kranti Kanade and we noticed 'This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2011) & This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (February 2011)' We want to have these removed so as to improve the article's credibility. We seek help to make this article as genuine as possible. 114.143.114.1 ( talk) 08:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I looked at WP:Boldface which says that boldface should only be used for headings and lists. But I'm not sure whether characters in plays comes under this rule. Should characters in plays be written in bold or not. Surely it's best to be consistent in all plays. However I notice that characters in films are rarely written in bold so perhaps that is the way to go. Jodosma ( talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
TPTB ( talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Hello,
I have recently submitted an article and it was rejected because there weren't enough independent sources. I was just wondering what happens if there are no independent sources available.
What happens if i'm trying to write about a product and the only information about that product is located on that product's website?
I hope to hear from you soon. TPTB ( talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Speculative reason or pure reason is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought (sometimes called theoretical reason), as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought. The distinction between the two goes at least as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, who distinguished between theory (theoria, or a wide, bird's eye view of a topic, or clear vision of its structure) and practice (praxis), as well as techne.[1]...Praxis (process), the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised[2]...This article seems to promote ambiguity if not contradiction in its presentation of what speculative reason is, as a subject that can only have circular definitions. It is only practical because it has been written...as for its practice it would be a direction toward oneself like involution; how do I propose a change (in Wiki) to the Speculative reason Main Article Arnlodg ( talk) 23:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Has there, or is there, any thought of adding some system where one can either write down, copy paste, post image etc. from referenced books, articles, etc?
This is years back, but remember I went trough some articles and did reference check on various topics. For example: the book "Accounts of a merchant by John Doe pp. 332-343" could be in references but upon actually retrieving that book and reading the referenced text there was absolutely nothing to support the claims given in the wiki-article. Some times the books or articles referenced was not even touching the subject at hand.
Understand that such a system gives rise to a lot of complex issues, but at the same time such a system would give the possibility of improving the quality. One could of course not demand such sources, but at the same time it would be given higher credibility. The fact that something is written in a book is of course also no quality marker in itself in various situations.
Some sort of collaboration with Google Books, Web Archive and/or other similar services? Warumwarum ( talk) 16:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I have edited the article on Ely Cathedral and in order to do this satisfactorily I found it necessary to insert a new headed paragraph. "Edit" doesn't seem to bring up the table of contents for editing. How does one do this? 86.152.92.160 ( talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article and I have a couple of questions regarding sources and images. First, my article is about a person who is important in the ballet world but all of the facts I've found about her have been from a documentary she was a part of and from forums and fan pages. I think it's a delicate subject, as she has been criticized a lot by ballet enthusiasts and it's known that she isn't in a good place right now, but I don't want to come across as defamatory (I wish her the best in her ballet endeavours). Are those sources good enough? Also, I wanted to add a picture of her but I don't know if any of the pictures available online are permitted. Help?
Thank you!
( Enildapg ( talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
( Enildapg ( talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I recently submitted two articles to wikipedia the third week in April, and have been checking for comments and suggestions or whether the articles are accepted or will be deleted. I understood the status message that there were thousands of articles pending review and the process will most likely take over a month. Is the best practice to just keep checking my pages? Will I receive any sort of email notification if a submission is accepted or deleted?
I am a new contributor, following the footsteps of a friend who moved away, and more experienced with the process. I welcome feedback and embrace this wonderful collaborative platform. Thank you very much for the information! ArtistInWordyThings ( talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the reassurance, StarryGrandma (love your uname!) and I look forward to improving and collaborating as time progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistInWordyThings ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I've been editing for about a month and have learned the most basic ropes. One of the pages I've been working on, Rolfing is a focal point for some very strict editors, some who care about quality sources, neutral tone, etc as is appropriate, and others who seem to be opposed to the topic and perhaps even wish to undermine the constructive progress of this article. My primary focus has been to try to add some higher-quality sources (mostly secondary sources from mainstream publishers) as the page previously had too much reliance on primary sources especially websites. Also I'm attempting to clear up some of the inaccuracies on the page. I'm hoping that you can help me navigate some contested points. I definitely don't want to engage in warring so I need some help in how to handle disagreements wikipedia-style. The most recent example is in the History section: "The method Rolf developed, involving a programme of deep-tissue massages, was originally called Postural Release and later Structural Integration but became known as Rolfing." I removed "involving a programme of deep-tissue massages" which not well-phrased for accuracy and is not needed for the history section as there is a more detailed Theory and Practice section (and I gave this as the reason for the edit). Another editor reverted my deletion with this cryptic comment: (revert POV commentary). Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thank you in advance! Karinpower ( talk) 03:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328, thanks for your input and your willingness to keep an eye on this page! I'm not debating the fringe status and I appreciate the need for clear, strong sources. Following WP:MEDRS, the studies that have been done have been published in journals that are not mainstream enough to be cited in Wikipedia, so the article relies mostly on secondary sources such as books that summarize a number of types of healing approaches. I have located and added several of these in recent weeks. My complaint is not about being strict about sources - it's about reverts that seem to undermine clear improvements to the article. Did you (or anyone else here) have an opinion about the above example that I mentioned? To me this seems like a straight forward edit that helps the paragraph read better. Thanks again!-- Karinpower ( talk) 15:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The massage question is a separate issue, and there are a number of sources on each side of that equation - that will require some in-depth work and I hope to delve into that in the future. For the present, I wish to remove this odd little bit of text because it's not relevant to the History section. The sentence reads well without it, and the question of describing Dr. Rolf's method is currently handled better briefly in the intro and then in more detail in the Theory and Practice section. Let me put it a different way. If the article had the history section without that phrase, and then someone added it, wouldn't that seem extraneous? If someone then reverted the change, wouldn't that make sense? Thanks again for your consideration. -- Karinpower ( talk) 21:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I know there are ways to easily find pages that other users have reported there being problems with, like a page needing grammatical corrections or more citations, but I just can't seem to figure it out. I'm really sorry to bother you, as I recall being told about this before, but I'm a new user, and am a bit lost right now... Thank you so much for your help! Runnerofwinds ( talk) 23:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
A draft I was working on in my sandbox had the template {{DEFAULTSORT:User Marchjuly sandbox "draft title"}} added at the bottom of page before the category tags. Although this draft has been reviewed and moved to the article mainspace, the template is still there. Does it need to be deleted/changed or should it be left as is? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I submitted an article about Carpe Fulgur, a game translation company. The article was rejected, and I understand why. Carpe Fulgur is represented in Wikipedia currently by 7 broken links.
I knew going in that there is a shortage of references for Carpe Fulgur's activities, but I figured having a weak page was better than having seven broken links. I worked hard to create the new page, drawing entirely on information about Carpe Fulgur currently in approved WP pages, and a very small amount of personal knowledge.
There is no more information available about this small but relevant game company. They are doing work worthy of WP reference, but it's really just a couple of hard-working guys without a PR department. I felt readers of their various WP references deserved someone pulling the CF story together and satisfying the links.
Apparently, WP editor disagree. I think you risk losing relevance when you reject good faith attempts to fulfill your broken links.
Jlight88 192.55.55.41 ( talk) 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Luke, you might want to reconsider the broken link issue. Each one discredits Wikipedia.
Both, I see very tired editors with more time to enforce rules than actually investigate relevant work. If you examine each of the broken links, you will find that they are relevant unanswered questions. If you examine the draft, you will find a single detailed media interview. Fortunately for you, the only ones you will become irrelevant to are young game players: not so important to us older folks.
jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 18:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
When friends found I was going on this Quixotic quest, they laughed because of their own interactions with WP. I now will laugh with them instead of defending WP.
Cullen, I might have found a reference from Encyclopedia Britannica similar to your comment "If Wikipedia is becoming "irrelevant", then why does it remain the sixth most popular website in the world".
jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
All, Liz is the only one who has treated me well. Everyone else is willing to answer with no knowledge, trumpeting the rules. You guys need to start treating people better. Don't answer because you think someone needs to have the rules repeated to them. That's like a content-less discussion. All of this goes back to the original topic.
Jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 01:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
jlight88 Jlight88 ( talk) 05:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Good grief. How does an article that is not yet ready (yes, I checked and added a review comment to that effect) and would be probably deleted on sight because it does not assert nor give evidence of WP:N turn into a discussion about Wikipedia relevance? Wikipedia is relevant precisely because it does not display, except briefly, articles that just don't pass muster. Now a community consensus could overturn this so that anything that was ever written could step into the limelight, but that would, surely, relegate Wikipedia to be an unverified miscellany site.
The organisation exists, Carpe Fulgur, but it has no evident notability. If anyone wants to create that and accept it into main namespace as an article , more power to their elbows. And that is precisely what the effort should be spent on. Pins do not need angels to dance on their heads. Wikipedia needs good articles. Let's create Wikipedia! Fiddle Faddle 08:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia has strict rules, so I want to know the rules for what I can do on my users page. Jakekimtv ( talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
My article Miles-Butler Hughton has been said to be deleate,why? SillyPotatoe ( talk) 17:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I coined a word that rhymes with ORANGE 5 years ago and the Merriam Webster, Oxford routes have not been successful... Do you have any suggestions? 70.44.145.190 ( talk) 17:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I know that I can use the history page to identify contributions by a specific editor, but is there any way to highlight edits by a specific editor while looking at the article? Biolprof ( talk) 21:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
People, Please,
To state that Gen. Forrest was part of "Poorly Co-originated battles", is a mis nomer by all imagination. Tactics at "Brice's Cross roads" are still taught at West Point to this day. To state that "Hunt Morgan", did in more Yankees -26, than all others is again in error. (Had a Great/Great Uncle ride with Morgan -R.S. Clukes Reg.). Forrest shot 31 men and lost 30 horses under him, Said he figured the Yankees owed him a horse.
Please do a little book work work before printing such things. Yes, he had a problem with Braxton Bragg, but who didn't, except Jeff Davis. And after the second raid on Donelson with Gen. S. Lee, He refused to ever serve under him again. Only because it was a waste of men and a useless expedition.
You guys need to check your stuff a little better.
I actually could go down the whole list of his engagements, of which he never lost one until Selma in 1865.
Thank You for your attention to this matter.
Paul - outa Mich. 172.5.214.75 ( talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
A number of articles have a section discussing the usage of that topic in pop culture. So like, let's say it's the article about Leopold and Loeb and you want to include the fact that the movie Annie Hall mentioned Leopold and Loeb. Can you just include the movie as a reference? Or do you have to find an article that says "Annie Hall mentions Leopold and Loeb"? Assuming it's a straight forward mention and not some sort of interpretation of what's going on in the movie. If someone sings a song or reads a poem in a movie, but it's not written up in some secondary source, can I just use the movie as a reference? Bali88 ( talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Many mathematics professors and scholars utilize the definition of a circle as; A POINT REVOLVING AROUND A POINT. This is truth, but it is only half of a duality. I have no reference source as of yet, nevertheless a circle may be equally defined as; THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN 2 POINTS WHEREAS THOSE POINTS REMAIN AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER. In my studies of geometric patterns and such, I know that both definitions need truth. I ask anyone to refute this claim. There are so many Scientist's who dream of being the next icon of the Scientific community that there will be no such person in my mind(too many chiefs and not enough Indians syndrome). I know my edit will not be revised yet. Wikipedia has been here for me on many searches for better understanding and I never want to lose this resource, All I ask is for anyone to challenge these definitions and arrive at your own conclusion, thank-you Fridayjunior ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
How would you add refs to page? Can't seem to do it. FaZeShock ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Below are references for this unpublished page: /info/en/?search=User:Shellambra/sandbox
I'm guessing the Dailynews.com and laweekly.com, which reference Sean Healy (the subject) and one of his events (True Romance Fest) are legitimate sources. What about these others?:
Thanks in advance for your help!
http://www.slashfilm.com/true-romance-festival-taking-place-may-2-3-in-burbank-ca/
http://www.losangeles.com/articles/true-romance-fest-safari-inn-burbank.html
http://uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2014/01/theres-going-true-romance-festival-burbank-year/
http://kearth101.cbslocal.com/2014/05/02/things-to-do-in-los-angeles-this-week-may-2-may-8/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1229573/news
http://retellity.com/Biz/True-Romance-Fest-Burbank-CA
http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/true-romance-fest-is-coming-soon-and-joblocom-will-be-there
http://www.wherevent.com/detail/True-Romance-Fest-True-Romance-Fest
http://baldwinhwqm.soup.io/post/394250864/true-Romance-Festival-Taking-Place-May-2
http://regator.com/p/263084689/theres_going_to_be_a_true_romance_festival/
https://helloreverb.com/share/interest/Sean%20Healy
http://fusicology.com/auto-eNews/currentla.html
http://www.laweekly.com/2014-05-01/filmtv/true-romance-gets-its-own-fan-festival/
Shellambra ( talk) 00:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Yesterday I made some major edits to the 'Destiny (video game)' article. I had to cite the same source twice. How can I avoid that problem and use the same citation for multiple sources? Also, how do I cite YouTube videos and at what point in the video the information comes from? Routgs ( talk) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
<ref>
tag with <ref name="name for reference">
- so, for example, for a publication by James Hawthorne from 1987 you might use <ref name="Hawthorne1978">
. When you want to use the reference again, instead of typing out the whole thing, just type <ref name="Hawthorne1978"/>
(the / is important!) with no closing </ref>
. This will create an additional citation to the same reference.
Yunshui
雲
水 10:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Yunshui's answer was extremely helpful, thank you. For the new edit beta, which has simpler editing features, how can you use the same citation for multiple sources? And also, how can you cite YouTube videos using the editing feature as well as the new edit beta feature?
Thank you in advance.
Routgs ( talk) 11:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for the kind offer of help in having my first article published. This is as far as I've got with it: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Scott_Hallsworth
I've used the Wikipedia entries of contemporaries/friends of Scott to benchmark the piece so trust it's close to being acceptable. Any and all feedback/advice warmly received.
Thank you,
Subclassic ( talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)subclassic Subclassic ( talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just created a book on Charles Lloyd (the jazz saxophonist) here. This is my first book, if someone wants to check it out that would be great.
I'm thinking of adding either "File:Charles Lloyd.jpg" or "File:Charles Lloyd, with Reuben Rogers & Eric Harland, Santa Barbara 9-2006, Image by Scott Williams.JPG" (both on commons-I can't link them, else they'll just show up) as the cover image. They both appear to have the same licensing (that is, you can use it as long as it's attributed) so I was wondering if that would mean they're useable in this context. Thanks! Eman235/ talk 05:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
[[:File:Example.jpg]]
.
Anon126 (
notify me of responses! /
talk /
contribs) 05:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
When creating a video game article, what sort of information is required, and what information could be illegal or against the rules of Wikipedia to put up? Routgs ( talk) 10:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the things at the bottom of an article i.e. sources marked with <ref></ref> can be called many things: References, Notes, Citations etc. Are there some specific guidelines when to use what or is the "naming" decided on a case to case basis? - W.carter ( talk) 11:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I am learning about writing for Wikipedia. I have drafted an article about the Unique Learner Number, but have been consistently unable to ask for Feedback. The service is reported as currently unavailable. Apologies if I have missed it in the guides, (I confess to have serious time constraints on my personal project) but can you suggest where I am going wrong? Crustyoldfool ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
My recent article got deleted. I have resubmitted it. How will I know if it is successfully resubmitted for review? Madhuravp ( talk) 16:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I have created and submitted for review a wiki page of Quaid-E-Azam Divisional Public School and College but each time it is declined due to its notability issue, even after i have added the reference from the website www.qpc.edu.pk Irfansarwar2014 ( talk) 08:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)