Wikipedia:Teahouse/sandbox

Sdkb, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

       Ask a question

       Question forum
       Meet your hosts
       Articles to improve
       
         Become a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

     * To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
     * About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246

adding secondary sources

Hi. In exploring the requirements for notable persons, namely Draft:Randolph Charles Kent, and the nature of secondary sources, would referencing a book review such as the following be considered validating, or too "passing"

Sir David Nabarro KCMG CBE suggests of Dr. Kent's most recent publication that 'Dr. Randolph C. Kent’s Humanitarian Futures: Challenges and Opportunities masterfully blends deep intellectual rigour with practical insights, drawing on his unparalleled experience to illuminate future humanitarian crises and challenge current conventions and paradigms. In our world of perpetual crises, this is a vital, visionary work for leaders, policymakers and practitioners alike.'

https://www.routledge.com/Humanitarian-Futures-Challenges-and-Opportunities/Kent/p/book/9781032747996

Thanks for your thoughts. Nik9t (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in reading through the comments in the above query on Usage of an academics CV from User:2211nasa, I would have surmised that a reference such as "Dr Randolph Kent is a Senior Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute..." on the RUSI site https://www.rusi.org/people/kent

would be a qualifying description (though rejected.) It does seems a subtle matter to be able to qualify someone as notable, no matter how influential they may have been (even ranking within such an institution as the UN, etc.) Nik9t (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would consider the first reference passing, as it is not the main focus of the article itself. I would double check WP:AUTHOR when considering references. Don't give up! Sophisticatedevening (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrappable table header

I'm trying to put a collapsible and sortable table ("Deaths in Hackleburg, Alabama") in the "Formation and track through Hackleburg" section on 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado, but I can't figure out how to make the background of the header caption non-transparent. Any help? :) E_F⁵ 19:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EF5. Why do you want it non-transparent? I just see a white page background like normal text on a page but maybe it overlaps something for you. If so, what is your skin and browser, and do you use dark mode? You would have to set a background color for the text to avoid transparency but we don't do that without good reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the table caption background being transparent (white on white) makes the table much less easier to find within the rows of regular text and is overall unappealing. I’m using light mode. Basically, the caption should be the same color as the column-header backgrounds. E_F⁵ 20:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:NOHIDE, article content should not be default-hidden, with the sole exception of parts of tables/lists if the content is not integral to the overall table/list. ("Article content", as distinct from things like navigational aids for ex. navboxes.) And table labels (rhymes all the time) should have scope tags to ID them for accessibility to things like screen reader software.

Also, I think it's best to leave the default site color scheme absent a compelling reason to deviate, again for maximizing accessibility (consider visually impaired people) as well as workability with night mode: see Help:Tables § Color in tables and here. For when it's really desirable, you use inline CSS. Demonstrating, with aid of Mediawiki's syntax highlighting:

Wikitext source

{| {{Table|sort|show|class=floatright}}
|+ style="background-color: grey; color: pink;" | Awesomeness{{br}}Levels
|-
! scope="col" | Stuff
! scope="col" | Awesomeness{{br}}Rating
|-
| [[HTML5]]
| {{cell color|46|0|100|align=center|bold=y}}
|-
| [[CSS3]]
| {{cell color|67|0|100|align=center|bold=y}}
|-
| [[Kitty cat]]s
| {{cell color|84|0|100|align=center|bold=y}}
|}

Awesomeness
Levels
Stuff	Awesomeness Rating
HTML5	46
CSS3	67
Kitty cats	84

Also showing some of the handy-dandy table templates like {{table}} and {{cell color}}. Hope that helps, if you have more questions ask away. --Slowking Man (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Table captions are displayed outside the table and almost never set a background color. The table at 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado#Formation and track through Hackleburg is collapsed by default with only the caption visible. I guess this is why you want the caption to stand out with a background color. The collapsed table is against MOS:DONTHIDE but many articles ignore that guideline. I'm not sure what to recommend for the caption when the guideline is broken. If a collapsed table has no caption then the header row is displayed with its existing background and the issue is avoided, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables recommends to have a caption. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think I’ll just IAR there as if they weren’t collapsed, there would be literally no room for any other media, which is something the reader wouldn’t want. I don’t think the tornado fatality lists with this format have ever been made before, so I’m treading in uncharted waters. I think it looks good right now, but I’ll mess around with it more tomorrow. :) E_F⁵ 22:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I move a page to its redirect?

Hi, I'm trying to revert an undiscussed move of a page, but I can't do this as the old page name already exists as a redirect page. What should I do in this situation? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want WP:RM. Thataway, third door on your left.

--Slowking Man (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: Which page? Please always be specific in questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Romanisael_(Swedish_and_Norwegian_Romani)&action=history this one.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: You can revert the most recent move by moving over a redirect with no page history except a redirect to the current title. But there are other recent moves. Which title do you want to restore? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was the original title before the moves: Norwegian and Swedish Travellers. But I've put it on the move requests per what Slowking Man suggested...Boynamedsue (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should you fix grammar in talk page posts by other people?

Wikipedia editors are always encouraged to fix grammatical errors that may be present in articles. After all, the point of editing Wikipedia is to make it better. However, does this also apply to talk pages as well? As in, if you see a grammatical error in something that someone has said in a talk page post, can you fix it? For example, if you see a missing comma, is it a good idea to add one in? Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, @Anonymous Libertarian. No, it doesn't apply to talk pages, and in most cases, you should not edit another person's comment. You can learn more about talk page guidelines and exceptions at WP:TPO. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information!

I probably should have read the Wikipedia guidelines about talk pages first before posting here, but it is what it is. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New bio page for a scientist

Hi Everyone, I am trying to add a new bio page about a current scientist that is doing exciting work (Professor Greg Neely, University of Sydney), but it has been knocked back by editors. Their feedback was that it "didn't show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I'm a little surprised about this, since his work has been published in prestigious scientific journals and is regularly featured in reputable international media outlets (eg. BBC, CNN, The Guardian, etc). Does anyone have any advice/suggestions on what can be done to improve the draft and satisfy the editors? I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks. Turps222 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Turps222, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't have bio pages about people; instead we have encyclopedia articles about people who are already well known. You have written a page emphasizing wonderfulness and need to see if it can be converted into a neutral article. The notability requirements for articles about professors and researchers are given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Neely only needs to meet one of the requirements, and the type of sourcing is discussed there. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]