Wikipedia:Teahouse

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome 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.

Help Wikipedia

How to make side bar/stats bar on a footballers page

I am generally interested in editing sportspeoples' pages, and therefore need to b able to add the stat bar on the right hand side. How do i do this? thanks!! Sththeychehe (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sththeychehe: You’re probably looking for something from Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Sportsperson. A good way to go about it is to look at the source (by clicking edit) of similar people’s articles (maybe a teammate or rival), see which infobox template is being used there, and copy and modify that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Best practice for named attributions?

In some articles, especially in “Reception” sections and the like, there are lists of opinions and quotations attributed to names that appear nowhere else in the article: John Smith liked [subject], but said it lacked panache. Jimothy Jones was less favorable, comparing it to "a dry desert in high humitity". This seems to me to lack any contextual information, leaving the reader to wonder, Who are these people and why should I care?.

What is considered best practice for one-time-use names of critics or experts? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. It would be helpful if you had given a specific (not hypothetical) example or two, but lacking those, I will make some general comments: The person quoted should, ideally, be a notable individual with demonstrated expertise regarding the topic being discussed. In other words, a professor holding a named chair at Harvard, whose entire career has been built around critical analysis of Author A is a vastly better source for critical commentary about Author A than a blogger without credentials who is obsessed with Author A. There is a wide continuum between these extremes, and it is consensus among editors interested in Author A that determines what should be included and what should be excluded. This is what we call "editorial judgment", who is an attribute that all active editors should cultivate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

possible name change for a plant article

I think a plant genus name may have been changed, and the change not propagated to all affected species. The genus is Camissonia, the species is tanacetifolia (hope I have these spelled right!), but when I follow the link from genus to species, it comes up as Taraxia tanacetifolia. Probably an easy change, but I'm [newbie]^squared! Geodejerry (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Geodejerry:  Taxonomy can be confusing. Some articles have a taxonomy section to help clarify changes over time, synonyms, etc. Many biology articles, however, are either stubs or start articles in need of expansion and clarification. In the case of Taraxia tanacetifolia, Camissonia tanacetifolia is listed in the infobox (sidebar on the right) under 'Synonyms', and genus Taraxia is a 'red link' meaning there is no corresponding article (but there should be). Also note that the link: Camissonia tanacetifolia is a redirect to Taraxia tanacetifolia.

Logically, therefore, I believe that Taraxia should redirect to Camissonia. Further research should be done since this is beyond merely an editing decision. Normally, the article's talk page is the proper place to bring this subject up, but there is zero activity on that page since its creation 5 years ago. The talk page does have a link to the corresponding 'WikiProject' page (WikiProject Plants) where an editor familiar with such matters is more likely to respond.

I hope this has been more helpful than confounding. Presumably, a proper Teahouse host will provide a better reply (below).

--Eric, aka:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A073:98E5:BA6B:E905 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I was working on Whooping Crane Conservation Assocation in my sandbox and RHaworth deleted it. How do I get it back so that I can edit it?

I was working on a page called "Whooping Crane Conservation Association" in my sandbox and RHaworth deleted it. How do I get it back so that I can edit it? CWS2 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:RHaworth Rojomoke (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You can ask request an undelete. WP:REFUND Blackmane (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with inappropriate user name, (well-done) COI editing without disclosure?

I could use advice from a more experienced editor.

I came across a BLP article today which I feel presents two concerns, and I'm not sure how to deal with them as the editor who made some recent concerning edits does not have a user page.

Here are the concerns:

1) The editor's name is almost identical to a foundation which the BLP's subject established and which is described in the article. That's a no-no, correct?

2) Because of the similarity between user name and article subject, I assume there is COI editing going on. I have no problem with the tone of the article--I feel it presents facts in an encyclopedic way; I just have a concern with the apparent absence of a disclosure.

If an experienced editor could provide guidance on how to proceed, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kekki1978. I don't understand your point about them not having a user page. All editors have user talk pages, which is where you can leave messages for them. If no messages have been posted for them yet, then you can start the page. It is probably worth posting about the case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard though. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Style

Does Wikipedia have a style guide or manual of style?

Thanking you in advance for your assistance Sefruss (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Try WP:Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Statute of Limitation for Notability?

Hello, I'm working on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_district a daily deals site which, at its peak, would have handily met the criteria for notability. That peak was in 2012 and there is a dearth of significant coverage since then. My questions is: How far removed from its period of notability can a subject be, particularly if it subsequently tapered to little/nothing? Thanks in advance.

BologniousMonk (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is real simple, Notability is not temporary. This means that once a subject is notable it is always notable. It doesn't make a difference if the significant coverage was in the 1930s or today, if the coverage is there in any time period it is always notable. -- GB fan 18:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi BologniousMonk, the answer is quite simple - Never. Notability is not temporary is one of the basic principles underlying the Notability policy. We have articles about subjects whose "peak of notability" was thousands of years ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick response. Since the entry had already been flagged as possibly not notable enough, I wasn't sure how much effort I should expend on a company advocating for its notability when, because of its age, there is a finite number of substantive resources for it. I'll follow the "if once, always" path more courageously now. Thanks a lot.

BologniousMonk (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As extreme examples of Notability is not temporary, I will point to Roman Empire, which hasn't existed for fifteen centuries, and Dinosaurs, which (unless one uses a cladistic argument), haven't existed for 650,000 centuries. Each of them was of very great importance in an earlier period of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And more to the point, each of them has been written about extensively. ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, although people still write about both the Roman Empire and dinosaurs, whereas I doubt many are writing about Plum District - but as previously noted, it doesn't matter how old the coverage is, it still counts towards establishing notability. We do have guidelines such as WP:SINGLEEVENT, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Best ways to prevent "Tobacco references in music" from being deleted?

I am trying to do several things at once, and I need some guidance as to where I should focus my energy. For instance, I am trying to: 1) Improve the formatting and overall look of the article while still adding to the site, 2) seek support from professionals in the field of tobacco influences on teens -- or anybody for that matter -- to help save the article, 3) add high level journal references -- for which there are probably hundreds in this field if not thousands -- to show legitimacy and to show that portions of the lists in this article are constantly being used by researchers and are in dire need of uniformity and accumulation into one place (with free access by everybody without threats of funding taking the site down -- as happens often with encyclopedic sites like scenesmoking.org, which is having major problems and has been moved to https://tutd.ucsf.edu/), and 4) extend the deletion deadline date (how do I do this?) to have more time to allow for these improvements (the article will be deleted by July 14).

As for the editing...

1) How do I do a universal edit that finds the name of every person in the article with a Wikipedia page and automatically links that person to the page?

2) How do I put a bulleted alphabetical list of names into four or five columns on a page?

3) How do I make all the tables in the article the same width so that the overall page has a more uniform look?

Thanks for any help. H. Nicole Young (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As to the question of where you should focus your energy, making the article look nice is at the very bottom. At the very top is finding reliable sources that discuss tobacco in music. As far as extending the deletion deadline, if there is consensus after being listed 7 days, it will be deleted. You can ask for the article to be moved to your userspace or the draft space, this usually allows you more time to work on it to get it up to standards. Neither of these places is a place for it to last forever though. -- GB fan 18:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, H. Nicole Young, when you're clearly working hard and passionate about what you are doing; but you seem to be trying to use Wikipedia for something it is not suited to. Several of the things that you say above ring warnings for me: while Wikipedia welcomes experts to contribute to articles, "professionals in the field of tobacco influences on teens" have no more clout in a deletion discussion than anybody else - and in fact, they are likely to be less persuasive there than people who understand the principles and policies of Wikipedia. (I don't know if it is you that has anonymously inserted five paragraphs of argument at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tobacco_references_in_music, but much of them is not to the point: see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) And while Wikipedia welcomes work on making articles consistent and clear, it would be worrying if the information in an article were "constantly being used by researchers": because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, nobody should rely on the data in an article for important work, but should just use Wikipedia articles to get overviews of a subject and to locate reliable sources. When an article references an online source, the editor inserting the reference (or anybody else) is encouraged to locate and add an archive of the URL as well, in case it goes away in the way you say (see LINKROT).

I doubt very much whether there is a way to do the "universal edit" you are talking about, since it would require access to the Wikipedia database from within your editing. It is possible that AWB can do some of it: I've not used that tool, so I don't know. You can get multi-column sections using the template {{col-begin}} and its relatives. And you should not attempt to control the width of tables because readers use different browsers on different devices with different screen widths, and if you constrain the display algorithm unnecessarily, this is might make the appearance much worse on some devices. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I did not intend to submit anything anonymously on the other page as I was logged on when I made the edits and assumed it automatically said who I was (I just learned here earlier to use the quadruple tilda). I invited Dr. Jo Cranwell, a professional researcher in the area of tobacco references in music from Great Britain, to add to the article since she seemed (from her research in the area cited in the article) to have a database of tobacco references in music videos that may or may not contain references that are not listed here and that are not available in her article (it seems researchers in this field do not publish the lists of tobacco references in media they use for their research for reasons I am not clear about -- my Ph.D. is in chemistry, not social sciences). If she does not add important missing tobacco references to this article (maybe because this article will be deleted by the time she can get a graduate student to do it for her? lol) and if she does not otherwise make the her data available to me maybe by e-mail, I will eventually, over the years if I find time, come across most of those references she used (it's not like they are going away -- they are a permanent fixture in our society influencing millions of teens to pick up cigarettes and start smoking at a time in their lives when they are most susceptible to a tobacco addiction) and I will eventually add them to my personal encyclopedia of tobacco references in music publicly available at http://tobaccosongs.wordpress.com. That I am not able to move this encyclopedia to Wikipedia so that anybody can add to it and edit it without the whole thing being on me tells me there is something wrong with the Wikipedia screening process for this particular article because I am quite sure this article is exactly what makes Wikipedia (and YouTube, imho) the two big game changers of the 21st century. I will try between now and July 14 to figure out exactly why somebody who wants to come to Wikipedia to look up the List of capitals in the United States, to look up Janis Joplin's sexual orientation on the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and look up which Beyonce music videos contain tobacco references on the List of tobacco references in music will only be able to get information on the first two subjects and not the latter subject. I do not see what the difference is in these three subject areas and these three articles that is causing the tobacco article to be deleted. If anybody can pinpoint exactly what that difference is, that would be very helpful. H. Nicole Young (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Arab Motor Cars.

Regarding the article on Arab Motor Cars somebody has quoted one car as having been supercharged. I am attempting to compile a history of these cars having owned one of the low chassis cars a few years ago. Would it be possible to ask whoever put that particular assertion up to contact me please?81.155.251.187 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I see that you edited Arab (automobile) to put your question in the article: I have removed it, as questions like that do not belong in a Wikipedia article: the talk page Talk:Arab (automobile) is the place for them.

In answer to your question: looking at the article's history, I find that that was inserted by Malcolma. He seems to be still active, and as I have just pinged him, he should see this question, and may be able to respond. (Replying here, or on the article's talk page, is the only way anybody is going to contact you).

More generally, since you know something about Arab Motors, do you have any reliable published sources about them? At present the article is completely unsourced, which I'm afraid makes it almost worthless (and it would probably not be accepted if somebody created it today), because a reader has no way of verifying any of the information in it (as you have just demonstrated yourself!) If you have any published sources, they could improve the article immeasurably. --ColinFine (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The information came from an article in the March 1984 issue of "The Automobile" magazine written by the owner of one of the cars A B (Brian) Demaus. He gives some information on the car beiung raced on Soiuthport beach. I hjave taken the oortunity to add references to the article.Malcolma (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

the article about me titled 'Robert Tavernor' has just been deleted - I believe this was in error.

MrLinkinPark333 left me a message only 12 hours ago to say that this article was the subject of a speedy deletion, in relation to G11. However, when I looked at the history of edits for the article it was incomplete. I did not originate the article full references and links, and made some factual corrections - which were then approved by Wikipedia. I'd be grateful if you would review the decision to delete, initially by checking the full history of the article starting with Dr Hart. Thanks. 81.135.165.147 (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that you are User:Robert Tavernor, but have forgotten to log in. The page that was deleted was User:Robert Tavernor/Robert Tavernor, but we have a long-standing article at Robert Tavernor. Are these about the same Robert Tavernor? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. The article Robert Tavernor has not been deleted. What was deleted was a user subpage titled User:Robert Tavernor/Robert Tavernor. If you are the Wikipedia user Robert Tavernor it would be better if you logged in before asking questions. If you are the subject of an article you ought to read about autobiography and conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, can I ask in what sense were your edits "approved by Wikipedia"? That's not a process that I recognise. We do have a system of drafts, which are subject to review by experienced editors, but that applies to new articles rather than edits to existing articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, he's talking about approval via WP:AFC. I'm assuming Absvh and Robert Tavernor are the same user, as the latter seems to pick up on the draft when the former retires—for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia jargon, it seems reasonable enough to describe the sequence of posts on User talk:Absvh as the draft initially being blackballed, but then later being approved. ‑ Iridescent 07:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. That article is Robert Tavernor, though, not the user subpage User:Robert Tavernor/Robert Tavernor. I wonder if our guest is just confused about which page has been deleted? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Robert Tavernor/Robert Tavernor was created 4 Jan 2012 by User:Robert Tavernor; the next day on 5 Jan an exact duplicate was cut-and-paste created by User:Absvh. This appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding by someone operating two accounts and losing track of which account has done what—technically the creation of Robert Tavernor violates Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but since I'm sure the two accounts are the same person any copyright violation is only in the most technical sense. ‑ Iridescent 08:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Iridescent. Not being an administrator, I couldn't see when the deleted user subpage was created. We do seem to have a conflict of interest issue here, with the article being significantly promotional. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit suggests that User:Absvh was Vaughan Hart, rather than Robert Tavernor. David Biddulph (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies to all - my confusion - I didn't realise there was a Robert Tavernor/Robert Tavernor article. Siince I was on the site I have just edited my Robert Tavernor article to remove 'publicity' style comments and to correct some facts/tenses - which I hope is acceptable. But for clarification User:Absvh is Vaughan Hart and not me - Hart wrote the article originally and I've simply been trying to keep it in shape since then. I hope that's OK. Again, apologies for the confusion caused. Robert Tavernor (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to remove some of the promotional language from the article, Robert Tavernor. Can I suggest that you disclose your conflict of interest at Talk:Robert Tavernor, following the instructions at WP:DISCLOSE, and that if you want to make further edits to the article, you request them there too, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple COI request, rather than editing the article directly? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We need help saving our page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Benzodiazepine_Awareness_Day is our page and it's at risk for deletion.

We are a grassroots movement seeking to raise awareness about benzodiazepine dependence and are founded in honor of Dr. Heather Ashton (a world renowned expert on benzodiazepines and their withdrawal syndrome). We have linked to both pages.

We have a few news articles we have been mentioned in that we cited - but no more than few for now (which are listed), as our inaugural awareness day isn't until tomorrow (7/11). We expect to have many more as time passes.

Any help would be so much appreciated. Thank you! 68.13.205.21 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Referring to a page as "our page" is not accurate and will not help you avoid having it deleted. Organizations do not have "their pages". Wikipedia has articles about many topics, including organizations that are notable. Wikipedia is not the means for raising awareness of a problem, but for summarizing information that has already been provided by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to request that a draft be deleted

I'm trying to create a wikipedia page on John Basedow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chrissymackmack/sandbox). After making the page and submitting it for review on July 2, it was denied because it matched another submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Basedow). Even if this person made the article first, mine is clearly more comprehensive. I decided to edit mine more to make it less similar to the other one. After submitting it today, it was denied again, but the reviewer, Robert McClenon, included the message, "There is, and was a week ago, an existing draft. They appear to be almost the same; the draft in draft space may have been prepared by the current submitter prior to registration. Please either edit the existing draft in draft space or request its deletion so that this copy can be moved to draft space. If you want help in requesting deletion of the existing version in draft space, please ask for help at the Teahouse or elsewhere." So I would like to request that the other draft be deleted. My version looks much more professional and includes more information and direct sources. The last time that draft edited was June 24 so even if their page was approved instead of mine there is no guarantee that they would edit it to be up to date regarding any new John Basedow information.

Chrissymackmack (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

As per your request, I have requested speedy deletion as non-controversial maintenance to make way for the move. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

However, the Articles for Creation process is slightly backlogged, and you may still have to wait for review of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

renew old "talk" threads

How alert authors of old talk threads that one wishes to pick it up?TBR-qed (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you're asking how to alert an editor to look at a certain talk thread, there are several ways to do that. One of the slightly less common ways is to use either the {{ping}} template (which generates "@USERNAME" wherever it's used, and is best used at the beginning of a post) or the {{user}} template (which generates "USERNAME" wherever it's used, and is best used in a sentence). In both cases, "USERNAME" would be replaced with whoever you're notifying, and both templates would automatically notify the user that someone mentioned them in a talk post. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: I forgot to mention: in order for those templates to work, you need to sign your signature to the post by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Difference between wikiprojects and portals?

I like the idea of "landing pages" for different topics.

What is the difference and preference for portals as opposed to wiki projects?

Example: What should differ between between Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics and Portal:Politics? Situphobos (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Situphobos, welcome to the Teahouse. WikiProjects are for editors to discuss editing. WikiProjetcs are linked in talk pages with WikiProject banners like {{WikiProject Politics}}, but not in articles. Portals are mainly for readers and can be linked in articles with {{Portal}} in see also sections. There may or may not be a WikiProject and a portal for the same subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. So, essentially, WikiProjects are for editors and contributors whereas portals are for readers? Situphobos (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good, short summary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and it could be even shorter since all contributors are called editors. You have edited so you are also an editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ready Views Software Labs Pvt. Ltd.

The concept of ReadyViews to get summarised reviews from leading online stores is unique to help all Indian online buyers, then why it was not accepted ? 45.121.15.77 (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. The article ReadyViews was deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Please read Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

i want to create my company profile in Wikipedia, pls help me.

Nadeemmusafar (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nadeemmusafar. Wikipedia does not contain "company profiles" and instead, you should go to another website like LinkedIn if that is your goal. Instead, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which contains neutrally written articles about the small percentage of businesses which are truly notable. Companies do not control Wikipedia articles about them, and their employees and press agents are actively discouraged from editing articles about their employers. We have an optional Articles for creation process that can be used by editors, who like you, have a conflict of interest. If you want to proceed, please read and study Your first article, and complete the mandatory Paid editing disclosure, identifying your employer. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing automatically-added categories to transcluded pages

Hello. Just to note, I have previously asked this question at WP:HD, but without an exactly helpful reply or referral to someplace on Wikipedia that could help. I am querying whether or not it would or could be possible to customarily remove categories that have been automatically added to an article transcluding the {{SLBY}} template. For some backstory, I have recently created a userpage within my own userspace and I am currently struggling to manually delete these categories that have been implemented by default. Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 21:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered asking this question at Template talk:SLBY? Surely the editors who watch that template can give you an answer. Perhaps rewording the question is in order. I understand 'customarily' to have a meaning akin to 'usually'. It is the usual or common practice for that template to add those categories so if I understand your question, you want to change that so that the template does not add categories.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Yes, that is correct.--Neve–selbert 21:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it is incumbent upon you to persuade the editors at {{SLBY}} that the categorization scheme is incorrect and needs revision. Present your case at the template's talk page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed now done so Trappist the monk. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 22:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding True meaning of Notability

Dear Team,

Need help to understand true meaning of notability again. W.r.t my article Draft:Purplehed_Records, results of my 3rd submission quotes a new issue in my article that "This record label is not notable at all. It has only released 2 singles to date, and these singles have not received any awards" by Tseung Kwan O. Well according to my understanding and learning I was referring to this rule and thats why I choose this topic, but now after few months on my 3rd AFC review I got informed that it is not notable at all and I feel like I wasted lot of time on non notable subject . I request someone to kindly help me understand why my subject is not notable even when its clearly meeting first point. Criteria for musicians and ensembles "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" While after I fixed issues given by second reviewer he assured that he sees no reason not to resubmit without expressing any concern about notability. Refer this conversation Feedback from Reviewer who declined during my 2nd submission

I am currently working on few more subjects who haven't got any award but are subject of multiple independent reliable sources. And I am really confused due to multiple different issue each time that what exactly is notability :(. I request someone to kindly guide me. Thanks and Regards Catrat999 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catrat999. All the sources in your draft seem to be primarily about a music video instead of about Purplehed Records as a topic. The company itself is mentioned only in passing in those sources, and we need significant coverage of the company as a notable business entity in order to have an article about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Catrat999, actually the previous reviewer Primefac has already stated that the submission fails WP:TOOSOON. So even with a surfeit of references, the subject of the submission still lacks notability in general. Regards, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 19:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan O I have fixed issues raised by Primefac and after discussing with him only I have resubmitted it, According to him subject is notable but its too soon because during my 2nd submission reliable resources were less , Have a look on his comment "One song/video does not a notable record company make. It's possible it's TOOSOON, but if not a few more reliable sources that talk about Purplehed in a context other than Burn Like the Sun would be beneficial. " you can refer that version in history to understand that issue which is solved now. He never mentioned me that an Indie record label will be notable only if it gets awards neither any such rule on wiki guidelines. Refer our conversation here - Feedback from Reviewer who declined during my 2nd submission. However your comment is "This record label is not notable at all. It has only released 2 singles to date, and these singles have not received any awards." Kindly guide me with so many reliable references what is notable here if not record label, then Song, Music Video, Artist ?

@Cullen328 : There are many links where subject has significant coverage of the company :) I request you to kindly research on my article thoroughly before concluding anything. Subject is mentioned in websites like India.com alexa rank 70 in india and 798 in world. , The Hindu Global Alexa rank - 840 and 72 Rank in India , YourStory global rank-3,183 -Rank in India = 198 and many other reputed newspapers , magazines and prints  :) However if you still think after full research that my subject is not notable at all then my real question is what is actually notable here ? Music Video? , Song ? , Artist ? or accordingly the company under whose umbrella everything is done! And if you still conclude that there none of them is notable inspite of several independent reliable references then I find wikipedia AFC submission very inconsistent, because all this time could have been saved right in 1st submission :) Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Catrat999, you seem to misunderstand what "significant coverage" means. When Wikipedia editors use that term, we mean the type of in-depth, detailed coverage that discusses the topic in a way that allows editors to summarize the information into a useful encyclopedia article. When you use the word "mentioned", that reminds me of a phrase often used by Wikipedia editors, namely "passing mention". This sort of thing often occurs as "music single A was released by record label B". Such "mentions" include no information about the company's annual revenues, organizational structure, history, awards, hit records, gold records, platinum records, reputation, senior management, list of notable acts, headquarters city, musical genres and on and on and on. We need significant coverage to establish notability, not passing mentions. I do not see that evidence of notability in your draft. I see a small time operation with, at best, one slightly viral video. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

catrat999, I've got an additional piece of advice for you. Do check out WP:MUSIC before deciding on whether the subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion here on WP (it also answers your question on why it's better for Purplehed Records to win or be nominated for an award). If you've included a lot of references in the article, but it still fails WP:MUSIC, someone will definitely prod it. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 11:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan O , I think you totally missed my message and specially this line in first paragraph Criteria for musicians and ensembles "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" While after I fixed issues given by second reviewer he assured that he sees no reason not to resubmit without expressing any concern about notability. Its the same page after reading which I started my article and I have read 100s of others guidelines too. It clearly says subject should meet atleast one of the following. Hope you understand that I am coming from an educated background where atleast I have the capability of reading some worthy material, its only thought process of different reviewers that confuses however thank you for giving additional piece of advice which clearly shows how much attention you have given for replying my thread :)

@Cullen328 That Logic make sense to me what you explained as you mentioned creators names is just a passing mention so its not notable, so at this stage label is not notable (Y). However content that creator has created is covered by many reliable sources . Is there any importance or weightage for those references at all ? Is there anything I can contribute for wikipedia here ? Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a tip, Catrat999: if you forget to sign your posts, then editors you have pinged won't receive notifications, even if you subsequently add a signature, as you did here. Your signature and the ping need to be added in the same edit. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

catrat999, thank you for your reply. Although you have added a surfeit of references in your article, none of them are actually about Purplehed Records per se, so in fact it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources, and your submission still fails WP:MUSIC. Like what Cullen328 has said (I'm pinging Cullen328 so that he can participate in this discussion), significant coverage means that a source doesn't simply identify a new song/single released by a band, it means that other pieces of information about the band should be included as well. Furthermore, you still have not addressed the problem of WP:TOOSOON in the article. For a band that has only released two singles (that have not received widespread coverage), it's simply too soon for an article to be made on the topic. I hope this answers your questions on why your submission was declined. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 23:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tseung Kwan O : Thank you for further clarification :) Now your clarification make sense to me however I am still not convinced with your comment on decline "This record label is not notable at all. It has only released 2 singles to date, and these singles have not received any awards." That is very inconsistent w.r t wiki guidelines . WP:TOOSOON and your comment are way complimenting each other and misguiding for new users. Anyways thank you for finding time to review my draft. Cheers :) @Cullen328 : Thank you again, as you mentioned references talks less about label which I agree. But references also not just simply identify a new song/single released by a band they talk much more about founders and other piece of information which none of you are acknowledging . You still didn't answer me that is there any thing here that I can contribute. So I will consider your answers as None . Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Catrat999. If your only goal here is to promote Purplehed Records, then I urge you to reconsider. We have five million articles, and a million or more are in immediate need of improvement. Perhaps you have interest in or knowledge of many of those topics. Please consider improving the encyclopedia, and working on a wide variety of articles will give you a better sense of perspective about what we expect of new articles here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328 My goal here is to contribute knowledge with correct process. To contribute information for all those subjects whom I am aware off, which are creating a better world especially arts and entrepreneurship and also which are definitely not famous but worthy of an article as per the wiki guidelines, I am aware of all the data and millions of articles which you are talking about and have done some work on that thread too. Unfortunately Purplehed Record is my first article here and suffering the most. But I do understand why you all seniors are usually judgmental for new users and always think that its promotional activity :) Its not your fault thats how this system is. For your information which I am sure your are already aware of there are millions of articles worse than Purplehed Records without Notability made without even AFC submission, Which is offcourse not my point to justify anything here as you will reply that its debatable topic and that other stuff exist . Lolz. Many Wikipedia seniors just reply mechanically like some machine is replying to some question or system has generated automatic reply. Fortunately Very few exceptions have taught me sincerely to further improve with out suspecting and being racist , and I am glad You are one of them who improved me :) take care and best regards Catrat999 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Catrat999, while I can appreciate why you would like the reviewers to make an exception for your draft, the strict rules that are applied exist for a reason: they are intended to ensure that, when a draft article is moved to mainspace, it is not subject to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Catrat999. Experienced editors work hard 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to either improve or delete poor quality articles. I have devoted much of my extra time for seven years to that grand project. We do not want problematic or borderline articles added to that list. We want new articles about topics which are clearly notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

editing Chenming Hu

I wanted to bring the following two references which I recently came across, which may be deemed as independent accounts of his contributions:

1. http://ethw.org/Chenming_Hu 2. http://www.asianscientist.com/2016/01/topnews/hu-cheming-national-medal-tech-innovation/

Is there some way these references can be included on the wikipedia page and also integrated into the text in his biography. Would the inclusion of these references be helpful in resolving the issues listed on his wikipedia page.

Adityamedury (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adityamedury. The first source is a user edited Wiki, and is therefore not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, the second source looks very reliable to me, and in my opinion, would be an excellent source for improving Chenming Hu. Please read Referencing for beginners to learn how to format the reference properly, and incorporate it into the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have a conflict of interest regarding Chenming Hu, then please declare it, Adityamedury. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The 2nd source does look good. It may suffer a bit from lack of independence. It's source is this which appears to be a press release from an organization Chenming Hu is associated with. That press release refers to this White House press release which might be a better source to cite. However current source for the medal seems fine as is. Gab4gab (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Romanizing as an alternative to Unicode and Anglicizing

Pardon me for taking the scenic route. It is necessary. Thanks.

The scenic route …

By around 1500 English moved away from a phonetical writing system to dictionary based writing system. The European printing type did not have þ, ð and æ. The commoner's language did not have a power base to preserve its writing system. The English were so desperate that they either joined Crusading ships as a path to heaven or pilgrim ships hoping for the Promised Land. The Language was furthest in their minds. A similar thing is happening to a billion plus people in South Asia. The vast majority is not middle-class but poor-class. They have too many other things to worry about than the language. Unicode solution was one that came out of ignorance of the Indic writing systems. The powerless cannot use it and so moved to Anglicizing. More than 130 languages world over have completely moved to use Latin-derived English alphabet or have an alternative in it. There must be a reason for it. English, and if you can use a modified QWERTY keyboard, Latin-1 is the most computer friendly character set. Try the following HTML page (uses Latin-1): <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="si-Latn"> <head> <title>Demo</title> <meta charset="utf-8"> <style> @font-face{font-family:aruna; src:url(http://smartfonts.net/woff/aruna.woff) format("woff");} </style> </head> <body style="font-family:aruna"> oba mee kiyavana síhala kramaya ígriisi haa samaanava parigaNakayee lehesiyen paavicci kaLa hæka. iita avazya vannee ígriisi muðraa puvaruvata iþaa aasanna, niruþsaahayen igenagaþa hæki muðraa puvaruvak haa næNakuru font ekak ya. næNakuru kiyannee, tayip karana vita yaabaða akuru mona mona hædavalata venas venavaaða kiyaa ðænumak gæb kaLa, ee hæra an aþin saamaanya vuu font ekakatayi. </body> </html> If you can read Old English, then read the body text. Apply the Dutch style vowels and treat the acute accent to apply 'ng' sound to its vowel. 'a' is like 'u' in but, 'æ' is like 'a' in bat. Now you are reading Singhala if you take 'i' and 'u' to be unvoiced (like in Spanish). The web font does all the hard work of applying Singhala orthography to the text. (Arguably, it renders faster than a Latin font). It is a grammar-based solution. All Indic languages behave similarly. They all have the Sanskrit phoneme chart as the core of the writing systems. See H-K Sanskrit at: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/tamil/index.html The key to understanding Indic writing is to know the 'akSara' (using H-K) concept. An akSara is first the sound. Writing shape is secondary. This means that we can have one romanized system for all Indic and apply orthographic fonts to show the text for each language. It saves effort and money enormously. Most of all, it releases the people from the Unicode trap. What does this have to do with an encyclopedia? It provides knowledge about a system that is obviously working. Compare it with Unicode Singhala. It is a way to assemble shapes using 64 keys on the regular keyboard used only by experts skilled in finger acrobatics. Since its inception in 2004, there are only 4 fonts. It is so hard that the academics who help in it proudly copyright them. Millions of dollars are continued to be paid to the West by India and Sri Lanka owing to Unicode. The RS keyboard uses fewer keys than English -- only 44 keys as opposed to 52 in English and is faster to type because it is very close to QWERTY and needs much less shifting. When and if Google updates its 1980s text editor in their Gmail page, people will write in their native languages preserving their cultures.

May I have more educated responses to the above than dismissive ones, please?

Thank you.

JC (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

What is your actual question? ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we have the web font added to Wikipedia so that more people can write to Wikipedia? JC (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As was already explained to you two years ago Wikipedia isn't a webhost or a repository for original information. If I understand you correctly, you're asking for Wikipedia to switch to an orthographic system of your own devising which is not actually used by any publisher in any language. This is not what Wikipedia is for—we reflect what other sources say, we don't make changes of our own. ‑ Iridescent 14:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I think I should just write a page about the existence of this system that uses orthographic fonts that displays romanized writing system back in its native script. The problem is then how to show the text in that form. I guess I use graphics.
JC (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't host original research. Unless your writing system has actually been the topic of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, any page you write about it will be deleted. If it has been the topic of significant coverage then go ahead, but remember that the article needs to specify the source used for each fact within it. ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your advice is noted. 'Significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources' seems to be not that helpful. Could you err on the side of informing than censoring?
JC (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how informing you of the de minimis requirement of the general notability guideline "Significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources" is "not that helpful".
If you do not have, and/or do not cite, such sources, you will be wasting your time writing an article as it will contravene the guideline and WILL be deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; this isn't me giving my personal opinion, I'm explaining to you Wikipedia's core policies of no original research and notability. If your writing system—or any other topic—hasn't been the coverage of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, than Wikipedia is not going to host an article about it. Bear in mind also that anything you write on Wikipedia is irrevocably released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, allowing anyone else to commercially reuse it without compensating you, which may not be what you intend. ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I should get it by now. So, let me come back in another three years and see if Wikipedia updated from 'plain text' mode to allowing web fonts just like moving from just text to include pictures. (That was funny leaving a blank space for the size of the scenic route and still making it available to read -- Thanks)

Learning is good for me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahangama (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Facebook cite

Is Facebook reference are accepted in Wikipedia?. U+20B3 (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, U+20B3. Social media sites such as Facebook are only considered reliable in quite a limited set of circumstances. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources? on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

issues with respect to wikipedia page: Chenming Hu

With respect to the following wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenming_Hu

I would like to know, why I see the following two issues:

1. This biographical article relies too much on references to primary sources

In order to fix this problem, I have added two secondary references. These are the only two independent journalistic accounts of the person's contributions that I could find on the internet. Is this sufficient to fix this issue? If not, what else would I need to do, to fix this issue?

2. This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. What do I need to do to fix this issue?

Adityamedury (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adityamedury. That article is unfortunately very far from what we are looking for in an encyclopaedia. Some things for you to consider:

• Both of the problems you list above can be fixed by replacing the references to Hu's own bio with citations of independent reliable sources. Because this person is inherently notable as holder of a named chair at a major university, you need not worry if there are few of those independent sources available. Any content not supported by such sources should be summarily (mercilessly, relentlessly) removed; in almost all cases, Wikipedia just doesn't care what people say about themselves – what counts is what has been said about them.
• The page needs to be written in a neutral and dispassionate tone; we don't want to be told how wonderful Hu is, we want a clear account of his achievements so that we can form our own opinion (in Witness, the girl says to Harrison Ford "You look plain, John Book"; that's how a Wikipedia article should look, too)
• You cannot simply copy content from other parts of the internet into Wikipedia, that's what we call a copyright violation; since that is what you did with your first an early edit to the page, I'm afraid all many of your edits have been undone. Please don't add copyright content to Wikipedia again. I'll leave some advice about this at your talk.
• If you are personally or professionally connected to Hu you must declare that connection in any discussion about him or about our page on him. If you have such a connection you are also strongly discouraged from editing the article, but always welcome to propose changes by posting on the talk-page, Talk:Chenming Hu.

If you have questions, please ask them here, below this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)(edited 14:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

Was the review unduly harsh

I see many stub articles in a far worse condition that the article I created. Yes there are errors, but that is what the templates are for.

That is why I added the templates. I think I made a good start.

Remember if an article is notable it should be published. Not all articles have to be 100% wikified and perfect at first publish.

I see the many low quality stubs and feel unduly treated. I know the article is not 100% right its not a FA quality article but a quick check of the classifications makes this easily a start quality article.

I think you risk making new editors disinterested if you put high limits on submitted articles that dont apply to all articles.

190.46.24.169 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Puente Alto - El Volcan Railway. Please let me know if it is something else. Actually, the review of that draft is quite friendly and supportive. The purpose of AFC is to help new editors learn how to write better articles. If accepted, your draft is much better than a stub, and I agree that it will be a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. So, please address the reviewers concerns and resubmit.

Please also consider the following: The Articles for Creation process is optional and voluntary. You asked for a review and you got one with good advice. Wikipedia is 15 years old and has well over five million articles. The vast majority of those articles never went through AFC which is only a few years old. Maybe a million or more are mediocre or poor. People just wrote them and plunked them into the encyclopedia without review. Experienced editors work every day to improve them or delete them if their topic is not notable. If AFC reviewers accepted articles based on the "lowest common denominator", then we would be failing in our duty to try to improve the encyclopedia. That is my honest opinion, and I thank you for the very good start that you have made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you like someone to copy-edit the article while it is still a draft? --Boson (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There's another problem there too, I'm afraid, 190.46.24.169: it seems that some of what you have added to the draft is translated word-for-word from the Spanish-language sources. That is a copyright violation. Everything you write here must be expressed in your own words; a translation that follows the exact sentence structure of the original is probably a derivative work. That's not allowed here. I'd normally have blanked your draft pending a complete check; but since you've already spoken about undue harshness, I'm going to ask other Teahouse hosts to comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess its better to forget then or delete it.. I appreciate you guys are trying but, this is a decent start, once its published the train groups would notice it and get involved to fix it. I made a "decent" start, not perfect for all the reasons mentioned, but it is a lot better than many articles as you have mentioned. I disagree with your logic that an article has to be perfect before submission. However you hold the power. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Thanks for your reply. 190.46.24.169 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

is my draft ready?

can someone with editing experience please review my draft, and tell me any remaining issues please so I can finalize it for article review? Draft:Scott_Nute Sandy Montoya (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Sandy Montoya (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

See Draft:Scott Nute. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Sandy Montoya (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sandy Montoya: Awhile back, you blanked the page and accidentally deleted the button to submit your draft for review. I've re-added the template. Try clicking the button that says "Submit your draft for review" at the top of the page. That'll let the appropriate people know that your article is ready for review. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Sandy Montoya, your draft is not ready, and I don't suggest you try submitting it as it stands. If this person is notable (and I haven't looked into that), a page about him needs to be based on independent reliable sources, not sources associated with or published by Nute, and needs to be written in a dispassionate, neutral and encyclopaedic tone. Stuff like "they shared the Good News of Jesus Christ with him, just like his mom had done" has no place in an encyclopaedia. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Oh, and if you are personally or professionally connected in any way with Nute, you should declare that connection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I notify the community that I drafted a requested article, pending acceptance?

I happened to see an interesting topic on the "WikiProject Missing Encyclopedic articles" under the "Monthly focus: MacTutor biographies" list (Sergei Chernikov). Since so few of these articles are left on this list, I am probably not going to be the only person who takes a stab at drafting this biography in the week before the article is approved or rejected. Should I do something to indicate this article is "pending"? Thanks guys. Oceanchaos (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I was in the process of accepting this when I found that Dodger67 had beaten me to it (thanks, Dodger!). OceanChaos, that's the sort of article you could have created directly in mainspace – an obviously completely notable subject, and a number of unimpeachable references, all in all a valuable addition to the project (thank you!). Are the journal articles available online, perhaps through some major online database? If so, it'd be nice if you could link to them, and add a {{subscription required}} template to the citations if necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. I didn't want to just drop it straight into mainspace because (1) this is my first from-scratch biography and (2) while I'm reasonably confident I got the biographical details correct, I'm a biostatistician, and need someone with more expertise to help decode his contributions to group theory. I see someone already fixed several errors I made in the reference tags, including external links. In the future, should I put notable subjects straight into namespace, even if they are incomplete/possibly riddled with coding mistakes? Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oceanchaos and Justlettersandnumbers I've dropped a note about the new article at WikiProject Mathematics, so other subject specialist would probably be contributing to it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I see this has already started to happen. Crowd-sourcing is awesome! Thanks so much! Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Good work, all. Just a quick point, though. Looking at Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov, is the list of published works necessary, or would a selected list of his most influential publications be better? At the moment, that section makes the article look a bit like a CV. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Cordless Larry, we don't usually need or want such a list. There seems to be plenty of scope and source material for those who understand the subject-matter to discuss the importance and significance of his articles in running text. I suggest removing or drastically pruning the publications list for now, Oceanchaos. By the way, I think this would make a good WP:DYK, if you're interested in that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I just grabbed all the articles in English from Web of Science that had at least one citation (there were dozens more). I don't know enough about the history of group theory to say which of these were most influential, and the number of citations in English databases is probably a poor indicator of influence of Russian publications from as early as the 1930s. I'm hoping more knowledgeable people will be able to pare this down. I tried to get a sense from the Dixon et al. article which papers were most significant, but the terminology was just too foreign.Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting the DYK tag, Justlettersandnumbers. Yes, I would definitely be interested in that. Do I draft my own hook? What about nomination? I'm way too new at this to feel comfortable nominating myself for the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanchaos (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 July 2016‎ (UTC)

One more thing: the article says that Chernikov trained more than 40 PhD and 7 doctor of science students, but I don't see that statistic in the source cited. It certainly lists some of his students, but I don't see where it distinguishes between PhDs and doctors of science (if indeed there is a difference). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Ershov et al. obituary says on the last page "The academic school that Chernikov founded is widely known. He trained around 40 Ph.D.'s and 7 doctors of science...". Dixon et al. actually lists all of them, and there are more than 40. Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Oceanchaos. My confusion came because only the Dixon et al. source is cited at the end of that sentence. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oceanchaos, I'm sorry, I forgot to reply here. If you'd like to nominate the Chernikov page for DYK, there's no reason at all why you shouldn't go ahead and do so. Nominations by new participants are encouraged, and you get five "free shots" (you don't have to do a review another nomination in order to be allowed to make your own). I'm not a very experienced participant there, but I'm happy to offer any help I can. The trick with the hook is to make sure it's interesting, but also to make sure that it's clearly and unmistakably supported by the references. On your more general question, yes, you can certainly go ahead and create articles like this directly in mainspace. Any formatting errors and so on will be sorted out by other people (some people do only that). As long as you are confident of notability and have several good solid sources, as you did here, you shouldn't run into any major difficulty. But ping me if you do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help with formatting

Hello all. I am looking for a kind of mentor when it comes to formatting for the english wikipedia. I regulary participate in the german wikipedia - subject: contempory art - and as some of the artists, i wrote about, do also exhibit in english-speaking countries, i am translating some of the articles. But formatting on the english wikipedia is not the same as on the german wikipedia, and i really would prefer not to make mistakes here :-). Just someone, who has a look on the article before i move it, thus only occasionally i need help. Kind regards --Gyanda (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Gyanda: You seem to be a competent editor, so I am not willing to act as mentor. But your spelling and formatting can be improved – I have already removed some upper-case initial letters from Regine Schumann. If you ever want me to inspect and copy-edit your work, I will be happy to do so, just leave a message on my talk page. (Unfortunately I'm about to leave for a week's vacation with only a laptop to edit from, so I may not be able to help much until I'm home again.) Maproom (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Maproom - I am a little puzzled, but will try to interpret or restate. You decline to mentor another editor because they seem to be competent. Do you really mean that they seem to be sufficiently experienced that they don't need mentoring in the usual sense? Incompetent editors don't need mentoring; they need to acquire clue, but they often don't acquire clue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: maybe it's a matter of terminology. I see "mentoring" as being ready to say "you shouldn't have done that, it's contrary to this policy". I don't think Gyanda needs such help. But he (or she?), a German speaker, does need help with English spelling and capitalisation, as we can see from the above request. I call that "copy-editing", and am willing to provide it. Maproom (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree. I will note that there are, in my opinion, very few editors for whom mentoring about Wikipedia policies, etiquette, and culture is useful. Most editors either come here willing to learn, or come here with their minds made up in some way, such as a desire to right great wrongs or a mindset that they are being bullied, or something. There are only a few editors for whom mentoring is useful. (The ArbCom in the past would occasionally try mentoring, and has more or less given up on it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gyanda. I make the same offer as Maproom. Just hit me up on my talk page when you're ready and I'll gladly do a copyedit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you people are so kind!!! Thank you for your work, Maproom. And thank you for your offer also, Fuhgettaboutit, i will go on with translating and when i am ready, i will alert you too and will be very thankful for help - and will also notice everything i learn in my "vademecum" (i already have one for the german wikipedia, it is "how do i do this and that" info, from what i gether... i am very eager to do things properly!!! Thank you!!! --Gyanda (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

One question, which i meet often: when i list Exhibitions and Collections: do i name the german name of the museum first (and add the translation in parenthesis in italic) or do i only name the german name of the museum or do i only name the translated version of the name of the museum? --Gyanda (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a common question, Gyanda, and a difficult one. My personal take is roughly this: if the museum (or whatever) is always known in English by an English name (the Sistine Chapel, say), it would be pretentious and silly to use a foreign-language name for it; if it's almost always referred to by a foreign-language name in modern English-language sources (e.g., Museo delle Mura), use that; but if it's somewhere in the middle, be guided by the name of our article on it or give both the foreign and the English name (WP:DIVIDEDUSE can be useful reading in those cases). In general, translated names should only be used if they are already established – Wikipedia should not make up a new name for something.

You can add me to your list of willing proof-readers for your translations, though my German is poor and strictly read-only. Please remember to add a {{translated page}} attribution template to the talk page of any translation you make. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumbers - i read the information on "translated page". It says: "Translations of copyrighted text, even from other Wikimedia projects, are derivative works, and attribution must be given to satisfy licensing requirements." - "of copyrighted text" - but my text is in german written by me and translated by me. As i understand it right, then i do not need the translated language information???--Gyanda (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Gyanda, that is correct – if you are the only contributor to the page you are translating; if anyone else has contributed to it, attribution is required. In practice, it's probably a good idea to just provide the attribution as a matter of course – it can help other editors to understand where the text originated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Now, i would think that the page is ready. It lacks the categories still, as i did not know how to make this "not working" as long as i work on the page. In german i would embrace it with [nowiki] - but this does not seem to work here. Would you people be so kind to have a look, whether you find a lot of mistakes in formatting? I did translate the "Art in Public Places" into english as otherwise i think it does not make sense. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gyanda/Heiner_Thiel --Gyanda (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, are you able to assist here? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've moved this to Draft:Heiner Thiel. I don't want to discourage or disappoint Gyanda in any way, but at the moment I don't see that the draft is likely to be accepted. @Maproom, Cordless Larry, Fuhghettaboutit, and Robert McClenon: would you (or indeed any other Teahouse host) care to comment? Gyanda, I'm happy to work on it, but I'd like to be reasonably sure that the work is worth doing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very surprised. Why should my article not be accepted??? I have it in the german wikipedia as well, the artist is well-known, he is exhibiting in english-speaking countries and he fulfills all the requirements - are you saying my english is not good enough or what? I am sorry, but from your both entries, i don't get what the basis is for your critical approach. Please, help me to understand. --Gyanda (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Different editions of Wikipedia apply different standards of notability, Gyanda. I'm not sure what is expected on the German Wikipedia, but the issue here is an apparent lack of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry, thank you for the information. Up to now i thought the german wikipedia was extremely painstainkingly working because they have a very strict "relevance"-policy - i added information on the draft talk which i just had at hand. I really do believe that Heiner Thiel meets the relevancy-categories, he is really well-known!!! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, then he has surely been the subject of coverage in newspapers, Gyanda. Are there media articles (they can be in German) about him, that could be used as sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has a strict requirement for in-line citations, that is, footnotes, in biographies of living persons. You have references at the end of the draft, but they don't appear as in-line citations in the draft. Please read the appropriate guidelines and insert footnotes. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry, i just added his groupexhibitions, where articles are mentioned in footnotes - somehow this whole part got erased, maybe i did this by accident. --Gyanda (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon, thank you for your advice. I try to fill in some quotations in the text - this is totally contradictory to what the german wikipedia requires. They don't want any citations in the text - unless they are extremely necessary. Strange, how things can differ. Thank you for making me alert on this. Kind regards--Gyanda (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

using reference multiple times

I was informed when we use a reference multiple times we add the "/" after the refname and it copies it, but, what if the reference, which is in the same book, is on a different page? Is it necessary to put the page number for each reference? If so, how do we do this using the "/" for repeat references? Sandy Montoya (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sandy Montoya. You're right about citing a reference multiple times. The process is described at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. As for the page number issue, I find this one of the most frustrating things about footnote referencing. Help:References and page numbers gives some guidance, but I don't find any of the available systems particularly satisfactory. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Montoya. Short citations is one answer to this issue. For example (look at this in edit mode to see how it was done – and note that I 'nowikied' the section headers only because they would not play nice with this page):

(excerpt from article):

The bill is lavender, slightly tinged with green, and black at the tip; the legs are a pale blue-gray and the claws are slate or black. ...

In Sumatra, the bird is found throughout the Barisan Mountains, and has been observed in the Gayo Highlands of Aceh province, the Batak Highlands of northern Sumata, and at Dempo in the south of the island.

== Citations ==

== Bibliography ==

• Harrap, Simon (1996). Christopher Helm (ed.). Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers. Illustrated by David Quinn. ISBN 978-0-7136-3964-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Another method is to use {{Rp}}, though it really only should be used in situations where one book is used a vast number of times for many different page numbers. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Or the {{r}} template, with the syntax {{r|name|page=n}}, good when there's more than one ref for the same fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Order of Prince Henry

What is causing the two brackets to appear at the top of the Order of Prince Henry article and how to remove them?--Catlemur (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a bug in Template:infobox order, Catlemur. It looks as if somebody added a new parameter 'classes', but missed out the line of code that checked whether the parameter was present. This meant that not only were there extraneous }} at the beginning, but there was also a bogus entry {{{classes}}} in the Infobox. I believe I've corrected it.

Resolved

--ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)