Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anon124 (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 11 May 2015 (→‎tagging users in teahouse comments: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

つがる, a Teahouse host

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

tagging users in teahouse comments

If I write a comment/question under a Teahouse question, is it possible to tag other users in the question? How does one do it? What is the advantage of tagging them, do they get an email notification, or.......? Greg Dahlen (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Dahlen: One way to tag people is with {{ping|username}}. When the user is on Wikipedia, this gives them a notification that they're being mentioned, so they can look back. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you can tag multiple people using this format: <nowiki<@Greg Dahlen, Example, and Example2:</nowiki>, which gives: @Greg Dahlen, Example, and Example2: Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Article and Interim Stub Creation

Dear teahouse staff,

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Northwood_Mortgage

How are you? My article about Northwood Mortgage was recently declined. Could you please let me know why and which of my references are not strong enough? How could I improve?

Also, could I start the page as a stub first before turning it to an article? I put the stub tags at the bottom and resubmitted it. Is the stub approval as tight and does it have to wait in line for review like article creation?

Thank you for your time and advice :)

Regards, Sam Ssmith1520 (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssmith1520:: Sure, I'll try to critique the sources as best as I can. Mortgage Broker News.ca does not have any hallmarks of an independent source. It looks, from what I can see, to be a republisher of press releases, and a website which exists solely as a promotional vehicle for mortage broker companies. It is not an independent journalist, and as such, cannot count as an independent source for establishing notability per WP:42. The National Post article does seem to be from a reliable source. The Wikipedia article about the National Post makes that clear. But the article in question is not about the subject of the article in any meaningful way. It mentions them in passing, so the actual words "Northwood Mortgage Ltd." do appear in the article, but the article itself is about changes to the housing market in general, and not about the company itself. In order to establish notability, the source needs to be actually about the subject, rather than merely featuring the name. Newswire.ca is like the other source: It's a press-release republisher. It contains only information published by the company itself, and is not an independent reliable source. The deal is this, Ssmith1520: Wikipedia articles cannot contain text which is not verifiable. That means, every single article can ONLY contain text that we can trace back to a reliable source. If there is not any in-depth coverage of a topic in reliable, independent sources, then we can't have any text in said articles. If there cannot be any text, there cannot be an article. I hope that helps, and good luck finding good sources; however be aware that there is no guarantee such sources do exist. There really may not actually be any such sources. If there isn't, then there will also be no Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 16:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and whether or not the draft is marked as a stub is of no relevance I'm afraid, Ssmith1520. It is true that there are many stubs in Wikipedia which are lacking in sources; but this is generally because they were added before we were as careful as we are now, and they should be improved or deleted. They cannot be used as a model for new articles, whether stubs or not. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

using website as citation

Dear helpers, possibly I will be adding a section to the article "Mold" about artists who have used mold in artistic projects. Apparently if I mention a specific artist, it is good to add a citation about that artist? Is it reasonable to use the artist's own website as the citation, as opposed to an article about the artist? Thank you. Greg Dahlen (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've seen so far on Wikipedia, I would recommend using a source that is written about the subject, as autobiographies and celebrity generated websites can be a tad biased and opinionated. But if there isn't any other source then in guess you could use it as a reference, as long as it is reliable and authoritative. -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Greg Dahlen. It's always best to use an independent source if you can find one; but you may use a non-independent source for some kinds of information: specifically, uncontroversial factual data. I imagine that whether or not an artist has used mould probably comes into that category, so it would be OK to use their own website (though I can imagine some claims about an artist's materials or working methods which some would think were factual and others would dispute). However, I have another concern about what you propose doing: are you basing it on published articles or books about artists using mould? If you are, that's fine, but if it you are basing it only on particular artists saying that they use mould, then I think this would count as WP:original research, and not be allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, ColinFine, their web pages from their sites show pictures of their art: http://www.danieledelnero.com/p/after-effects.html and http://magical-contamination.tumblr.com/. In my estimation these are not notable artists (do you agree?), but I think the idea of using mold in art is notable, and I need to mention some specific artists so people can see what I'm talking about? Greg Dahlen (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Dahlen: You would either want notable artists (ideal those with Wikipedia articles) who use mold or secondary sources discussing the use of mold in art. Almost everything has been used in art at one point or another, you need reliable sources to show that mold artwork is significant.Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to solve "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline: error?

Hi, I had published an article about a wellknown Photographer in Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Domiri_Ganji

but there are some errors in the article: 1- This article uses bare URLs for citations, which may be threatened by link rot. (May 2015) I have added many links and references for any statement in the article, and i dont know why this comes.

2- The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2015) What is this one?

Can someone help me to solve these? Thank you. Newyork3 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bare URLs are where you only put the the URL address, not extra information- for citing web pages, it's recommended to add the URL, title, publciher, date and access date, see for example WP:CITEWEB. I fixed this.
  • General notability is whether or not the person is notable enough for an article, according to WP:GNG. This is determined by whether they have significant, independent coverage about them, which doesn't include things they have written. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: @Joseph2302 Thank you so much, I have searched the Public pages of other photographers on wikipedia but they were mostly empty and without any informations. some were just 1 line biography (this photographer is born on year/month and his photo collection named: "photocollection") but they did not have any error with them.

by Siggnificiat coverage you mean I have to add some new parts like Biography, Study, External links, Exhibitions ... to the Wiki page? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyork3 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Newyork3 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyork3: On Wikipedia significant coverage means that their were works that focused on him or discussed him. Examples of significant coverage are, books, papers, and news articles about him. An example of non-significant coverage would be just his name on a list which included thousands of other Iranian photographers. Does that help? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Winner 42: Well, what did i do was to add around 20 news Channels and known websites that were focused him and his biography.

It is included news notworks like CNN, BBC, MSN, Yahoo .. and photography societies like national geographic. I can add many more if required. do i have to do that?

Newyork3 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC) @Newyork3: You can add as much to the article as you like. I've removed the GNG tag though as you have added a bunch of sources the show notability. Happy Editing Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article does not demonstrate notability as per WP:ARTIST. Consider what is claimed of Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji (publication on the web and in magazines, and runner up in some unimportant competitions) in relation to WP:ARTIST: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Be careful, Lopifalko. The specific criteria (such as WP:ARTIST) are alternatives to the WP:general notability guidelines: they say that even if the subject doesn't meet the GNG, these are alternative criteria by which they may satisfy notability. On a quick look, Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji does seem to meet the normal requirements of notability (being written about in independent reliable sources) and so ARTIST need not come into play. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -Lopifalko (talk)

Using social media as a reference

Would we be allowed to use social media - in this case, twitter - as a reference, especially if it is a primary source of information? For example, if Martin Garrix stated on his own twitter account that he had collaborated with another artist to create x, would that be an accurate and reliable source of information? -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Not even if the source is confirmed to be true? I find that a bit strange... -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSN Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:TWITTER, there are possible cases where tweets from verified accounts might be acceptable sources, in the same way as other self-published primary sources (and with all the same provisos). It's unusual for that to be the case, though, and generally other sources would be preferred. Yunshui 雲水 13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PotatoNinja123: If it's confirmed to be true, that must been other sources agree with the Twitter account. In that case, you can use the other sources instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with this policy or anything, but it's a tad obscure as to why a source generated from the original social media post is actually more reliable than the social media post itself. -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main concern is that primary sources can be self serving rather than secondary reliable sources which tend to be more neutral. In this specific case, I would use twitter as a source if other sources cannot be found yet as the claim appears to pass through WP:TWITTER as a primary source, though this is usually not the case. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I translated an article that already existed in 3 languages, but was denied because the topic was not significant enough??

As the title says - I translated an article (about Swedish Best Sommelier of the World Andreas Larsson) that already existed in 3 languages (Chinese, French and Swedish) into English, but my submission was denied because I was told he was not a significant enough person?? What makes him significant enough for 3 languages but not a 4th one? I am confused. SyrahQuaffer (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every different Wikipedia has different notability criteria- just because things are notable for another language's Wikipedia doesn't necessarily make it notable under English Wikipedia guidelines. For English Wikipedia, you need reliable sources (in any language) that show significant, independent coverage. The relevant guidelines are WP:GNG, and also WP:BIO for biographies. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):Hi SyrahQuaffer, your draft Draft:Andreas Larsson is currently unsourced. I can't speak for the Chinese, French or Swedish Wikipedias but, on the English Wikipedia articles need (1) sources to verify the information is true (2) reliable published sources (such as newspapers/books) to demonstrate that the subject/person is widely known and/or important (see WP:GNG for the 'notability' guidelines). Maybe there are fewer active editors and admins on the other Wikipedias, leading to articles like this one not being challenged. I wish you luck in improving your article. Sionk (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SyrahQuaffer. Though I haven't looked at them to see if they contain the depth of coverage we require in sources that we do need per above, you might start looking for sources to add using this and this search. Focusing on books and news rather than a regular web search tends to concentrate reliable sources. Please note that the article was not "denied because the topic was not significant enough". The draft was rejected in its current state because it did not demonstrate notability, which in no way is an assessment of whether the topic is notable – as we use that word here to refer to the world taking note of a subject through substantive publication about the topic in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SyrahQuaffer, taking a look at what your signature implies, I have to ask: Are you by any chance sv:Andreas Larsson (sommelier) or do you have a close connection to him? If so, you should also read the pages regarding conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. w.carter-Talk 10:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a problem with a template

Hi there, I'm having a problem with a template (for a book award) that I edited. The template was pointing to a disambiguation page. I edited the template so the link on it points back to the page it was originally pointing to (the page of an author, who was affected by a page move and the disambiguation page). I checked to make sure the edit was correct on the template and checked several of the affected pages to make sure that the template on those pages was now linked to the correct page, not the DAB. However, it's now been a day and the DAB page is still showing about 30 pages that all have this template link, and no other links to the author's name, still pointing to the DAB page. I got a Bot message about it. How do I fix this? I have been to most of the pages concerned and verified that the only link on those pages is the one in the book award template at the bottom - which I already fixed. If someone needs the specific template and pages name to help with this, I can provide it later - but I am really baffled and would like some help. Or is this something that just has to wait a few days for the change to "push" through the system? Many thanks in advance, TheBlinkster (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add, I got a message from the bot that DAB solver could be used to fix the links...but when I open up the DAB tool link and click it keeps saying there are no DAB links to fix (which is what I expected as I already fixed the template). The DAB page is Margot Bennett (disambiguation). Can someone please take a look and tell me if I need to do anything or will this go away on its own? I'm not finding anything to "fix." TheBlinkster (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlinkster: I'm tempted to say that you have fixed the problem and the What Links Here page is simply out of date. This could be due to issues with the job queue, but all that matters is the problem has been fixed and it will eventually update, maybe after those other 26064771 jobs... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: Thank you very much. I will wait and see if the problem goes away as the page updates further. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and WP:NULLEDITed the handful of articles that transclude the templates you've edited, in essence bypassing the job queue (which for less than 60 articles I'm not too worried about). Does that resolve your issue? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Technical 13: Yes, I see all the pages with the template that I had updated are gone from the "what links here" now, thanks loads! I saw there was one page left that needed a manual fix, I must have missed that one, so I just fixed it manually. I think I'm good now and thank you for your expert help. TheBlinkster (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible racist comment

I am worried the comment here[1] is racist. Should I act on this?DrChrissy (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop canvassing. As an editor with 11,000+ edits, many focusing on fringe topics, you know what channels you can use to raise your "concern". --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy: That's your decision to make, and if you think it is, then WP:AN/I is the place to go. Personally I think it is just a bit of humour, nothing too bad, but once again it's up to you. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it's humor. I think it's like someone stating that Chinese publications would not have an accurate portrayal of the 14th Dalai Lama. State promotion of traditional Chinese medicine is written into their constitution. --NeilN talk to me 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, imagine that, somebody says that Chinese SCAM studies are always positive. Clearly racist. Unless of course it's merely a reflection of the evidence:

In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective.

— Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials.
Oh, whew, that's alright then. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That study is 17 years old! I am aware that this is not the forum for such discussion so I will not post on this thread again unless it is in response to the direct question I posed.DrChrissy (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indent?

How do I indent on a talk page? I look at the link that talks about indents, but it never said how to do it...Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect categorising

Is, for example, 2012 Icelandic presidential election (the redirect, not the page this leads to) an alternative name or incorrect name for Icelandic presidential election, 2012? I have used the R from alternative name template but am not entirely sure. Rubbish computer 16:32, 10 May

Rubbish computer, it's an alternative, I don't see how it can be described as incorrect just because the words are not in the right order. Nthep (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new question on an article talk page

Dear helpers, I was looking at the talk page for the article "Mold": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mold I would like to create a new section in this talk page which would contain my particular comments and questions, but I can't see how to do it. Can you tell me? Thank you.69.230.179.59 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, KylieTastic. I had just seen that and was trying to delete this Teahouse question when you answered. But I can't see how to delete a question. Is it possible?69.230.179.59 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't work just enclose your question with 4 equals signs (2 on each side) and a new section with a heading should be created.

-PotatoNinja123 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can also go into Edit, go to the bottom of the page and type "== Your heading ==" and write your comment on the next line. Liz Read! Talk! 17:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PotatoNinja123 and KylieTastic, do you mean add my edit to the last section created by someone else? Greg Dahlen (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing song genres

I recently added a genre to an infobox but had it promptly removed by another member who claimed that a reference was needed, even though it's fairly obvious that it's correct (don't bash me for this; I'm just saying...). Looking at other song pages, none of the genres seem to be referenced - at least not in the infobox - and It leads me to think that the references may by stated in the description of the edits. So I tried this once, but then had my edit reverted once again. Honestly I find this really frustrating and feedback would really be helpful.

-PotatoNinja123 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PotatoNinja123. The relevant policy is WP:Verifiability, which says "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The question is whether the genre of a song is verifiable without giving a citation. I have no doubt that in general the answer is No, because there are some songs whose genre is disputed. If the song is one where everybody would agree, then you can make a case that it can be verified without a citation; but I'm not certain there are such songs, partly because the list of possible genres is open-ended. So my preference would be not to allow a genre without a citation; that is, without a reliable independent source. I have a suspicion that quite a lot of songs could not then be assigned a genre (though I may be wrong). I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Others might disagree with me, of course. One thing I am sure of is that just because other articles do something doesn't necessarily mean that's the right thing to do. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well where does the reference go then? I doubt it would go In the infobox, unless of course it is a note which can only be viewed unless you're editing --PotatoNinja123 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFB - the reference goes where the content is added. the info box is supposed to be a summary of the content about the subject, so references to genres should be in the body where the genre is discussed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source reliable or not?

I posted it here about the neurodiversity site wrongplanet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wrong_Planet#Possible_Criticism_Section.3F Ylevental (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw the same link, I would have used it. Just remember to cite it properly and make sure that the reference comes from a reliable and authoritative source.

-PotatoNinja123 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanografi Company

Gocmar07 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)I make a definition about Nanografi Company. I want to ask some question. I want to add some file and template.And ı had a membership 3 days ago.Is there rule for this situation?Gocmar07 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gocmar07. The page you posted at Nanografi was a blatant copyright violation of that company's website, copying and pasting content owned by it. We cannot accept such content here. It also read as content written to advertise the company, which is how material written by a company, for itself, usually reads. So even if it was not a copyright violation, it was not the type of writing we would desire to see in a proper article. The process it was deleted under is called speedy deletion, which allows immediate deletion by an administrator of this encyclopedia if a page meets one of the criteria for that process. Here, the page was deleted as unambiguous advertising and as one that did not indicate by its text the importance or significance of the topic (though it also could have been deleted for the copyright infringement).

You will see that these were the bases by clicking on the red-link for the company I placed earlier in this reply. Before ever reaching enhancements to an article like template and files, the fundamental issue of proper content would need to be addressed. We would need a neutrally-written page, containing no copyrighted content, no original research, and one that met our notability guidelines, by citing reliable, secondary sources, independent of the company, that wrote about it in detail. This would also allow verifiability of the content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statustop

Does anyone know what has happened to the {{Statustop}} template Ive tried using it on my userpage and sandbox but none is working any thoughts? TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaLover1996: I don't think there's anything wrong with the template; the problem here seems to be that you're just missing a "Status" subpage. According to the template's documentation page, it seems like you need to make a subpage (if using default parameters the page should be User:TeaLover1996/Status for you) and place one of the five parameters given in the documentation on the subpage in order for the template to work. You don't appear to have that subpage, which might be the reason why it didn't work for you. CabbagePotato (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template contained a "display:none" parameter, which meant the template's output wasn't displayed. I have no idea why it ever worked, but I've removed that parameter, and now it works again. Huon (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CabbagePotato: It worked before without me creating a subpage, so why do I need to now? TeaLover1996 (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TeaLover1996: Oh, I didn't know that you don't need the subpage to use it. The template's documentation page said that you needed one, so I just assumed it was the only method available. CabbagePotato (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL

I have recently been greatly expanding the Birmingham pub bombings article, and have included the names of the victims in one subsection. Another user has removed the names with the justification of the talk page (which is 8 years old and itself including opposition to removal of the victims list). Some articles such as Bloody Sunday (1972) and the 2014 Isla Vista killings include victim lists, whereas others do not. This article could and, I feel, should, too in spite of the edit reverts I have seen. It seems like this WP is a grey area. My understanding is that WP:NOTMEMORIAL has nothing whatsoever to do with victim lists, but, rather, it is to stop people starting pages about specific non-notable people as a memorial to them. That would not and should not happen in this case. Can a final consensus on this please be reached as I basically do not wish myself and the other editor (whose integrity I 100% respect) to engage in edit warring. Many thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kieronoldham:. Please see Wikipedia:Victim lists . I think the clear point to remember is that we are writing an encyclopedia. I fail to see the encyclopedic value of lists of names that no one knows and and that had no significant impact on the wider world and who merely happened to be tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks. This is a good start, although the link you sent may be passionately contended as in more than seven years, 10 editors have contributed to that article since its inception and, sadly, impartiality may be breached in the seemingly approved structure ("I feel that", "I have yet to see" etc.). As the link you sent unequivocally states in the header, this is contentious and in my humble opinion, as I stated in my 1st message, why is there complicity in the usage of victim lists in some articles but not others. Many similar articles have similar lists, but, the main point of my reply is that WP:NOT refers to articles per se; not lists/names within an article. I'd say, as per "notability", these people should be included as this act was the worst act of terrorism in mainland Britain between WWII and the 7 July 2005 London bombings (and the 7/7 article is another example of many which has its own fatalities list). It is a good start, though. Thanks again. I'd welcome two or three other editors' opinions though before I finally steer my judgment. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are lots of articles in the 4+million that have inappropriate content. That doesn't mean they are examples that should be followed and that inappropriate non encyclopedic content should be spread to other articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If these other articles have vociferous claims/efforts to remove them as this one now does I'd acquiesce. Aside from the points in my earlier two messages, I reiterate that I believe a fair, balanced and neutral discussion as to the pros and cons of this gapingly grey area on Wikipedia should be engaged. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Kieronoldham and thank you for a sincere and thought provoking question. I wrote an article when I was a fairly new and inexperienced editor called Ford Hunger March. Looking back on it now, I see lots of shortcomings in my article, including elements of original research. I mentioned the five people who were killed in that terrible incident, not as a list but as part of the narrative. Three killed on the first round of gunfire, one killed in a second skirmish, and a fifth who died much later of his wounds. The fifth was an African-American who couldn't be buried in the same cemetery as the others due to segregation. For me, this is an important distinction. We can mention a few victims in the narrative. We can list notable victims, with blue links. But it seems unwise to me to have long lists of the names of non-notable victims. I readily acknowledge that reasonable people will disagree. But that is how I see it after thinking about it for a few hours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Kieronoldham, if the victim lists or memorials are available at another website, it would seem like a link to that webpage would be OK to add into the External links section of the article. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply as the subject of the article is not the victims but the bombing. Wikipedia:Victim lists is an opinion, not policy. Many wikipdedia articles oncontroversially include the victim(s) name(s) and in this case it takes up a tiny part of the article, approx 1.4% by word count. Some readers will want to have the names available. As the information is sourced, not overwhelming, and similar information is available in other articles why remove it here? It is notable that ironically some of the victims were of Irish descent and that some of the victims' relatives are campaigning for the case to be reopened. Flexdream (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant in Ireland-related articles on Wikipedia I have to say that there was once a co-ordinated campaign by a group of Irish republican editors to keep the names of victims of Irish republican attacks out of articles whilst ensuring the victims of Ulster loyalists/British forces where stated. No doubt as it humanises the victims which they want for "their" victims but not the "others".
The majority of editors in our WikiProject are not against the inclusion of names but this "cabal" ensured a MOS couldn't be adopted as it didn't have consensus due to their irrational refusal. This "cabal" is now largely dormant or retired from this site, which now means maybe we could go forth and get a set in stone MOS for the Ireland WikiProject on this issue. In fact I notice that several of this "cabal" where the principle opponents and removers of the names in this article.
There is in my view nothing wrong with having the names of the victims listed as prose in the article if needs be. This is an encyclopedia and what are they for? Enlightening people with information. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to people creating memorial pages, which this is not. This is the academic listing of victims of a terrorist attack.
Mabuska (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you redact your irrelevant and offensive WP:POV comment and WP:AGF like the rest of us- if you are capable of doing that. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Host

I applied to become a host at the Teahouse, what do I do now? TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read this aGain and you will know that you are a host now!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I am a Teahouse host now? TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TeaLover1996 - it's not an application but a public declaration by you that you want to help out as a host. As for what to do now, just check by here whenever you can and answer any questions you can. Obviously you may not be able to answer a lot of the questions at first as your relatively new here, but by reading the answers other give is also a great way to learn new things and as time goes by you'll be able to help more people. One hint (pokes @Acagastya: on this one) is to mention the person in the answer, or use the {{Ping}} or {{Reply to}} templates so people get a notification of an answer (does not work for anonymous IP editors). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic: Sometimes I ping sometimes I leave {{teahouse talkback}} on the respective talk page.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:@Acagastya: Ah sorry I missed that! Also good advise to do that for the IP edits (I always forget that tempate) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This reminded me to actually sign up to be Teahouse Host, good work people. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or do the same two hosts pop up in that box in the top right that I swear was supposed to cycle...? Random question but does anyone know? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, It's HostBot's job, it just like picking the same people.... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HostBot displays host images based on how active each host is here at the Tearoom. Since I have made over 2500 comments here, you will see my ugly old face quite often. Sorry about that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny because that is why I was commenting. I was wondering why it liked picking you so much , thanks for explaining... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cullen328:
You are a helpful person, always ready to help new persons like me.
And yes you are NOT ugly but sober and graceful
Best regards
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonconstructive?

Is it permissible to remove puffery if this may cause there to be less information on the article, as in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Pedro_College_of_Business_Administration&oldid=661536484 ? Rubbish computer 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely yes. If it's unsourced puffery it should definitely be removed. Even if it makes the article shorter, it vastly improves the quality- I've removed up to 80% of text from articles before as unsourced puffery. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is a relief to know as I have already done this many times. Rubbish computer 21:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can't find my question

I asked a question here on Wikipedia:Tearoom approximately three weeks ago, but now I can't find the question or possible answers. Any tips on how to find it? Would it help to have the exact wording of the question summary, I didn't think to write it down at the time? The question involved a section I added to the article "Mold" about artists who had used mold in art pieces. When I looked at the article I saw my section was gone. I couldn't seem to get any info about the deletion on the "edit" page, but wasn't sure I was looking correctly. Is there a way to know if a person deliberately deleted the section? Is there a way to know who did it? Is there a way to contact the person as I'd like to know why it was deleted? Thank you.69.230.179.59 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The questions has been answered here- questions that no-one has commented on for a few days get automatically archived. For future reference, on the right-hand side, there's a search bar that searches this page's archives. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new languages to existing article

Hi wikipedia....I am new and novice in' well everything at wikipedia. I want to translate pages to another language like English to Nepali or Hindi but I don't have any idea how to do that. I only edit pages which has already translated and does not have any information but I want add new languages to pages and it would be nice if someone can help me out with this...so, I can add some bytes to wikipedia database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightendark (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightendark, start at WP:Translate us and feel free to come back here if you need further assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submission for review

an article by another author titled Preetam Pyaare was requested for deletion by me coz it had incorrect information. i started writing another article for the same person with proper references which are very much permitted by Wikipedia rules. it was deleted too only because this personality is not famous enough??!! and this person has been voted world wide and has fans world wide...there are so many silly articles floating on wikipedia about much less known personalities..i want to put it for re-review. please tell me how can i do it? and as per wikipedia rules my article had at least three notable references. i was told that my language sounded like i m advertising for him which also i corrected. still it was deleted. why this unfair thing? Toshwets (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Toshwets: Draft:Pritam Singh (Actor, RJ) is very much not deleted. If this is the draft you are speaking about it has simply been pushed back to you for further work. Please enjoy doing that work. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

How do I get my current signature to appear when I type 4 tildes?

My signature TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:00, May 2015 (UTC) as I have to repeatedly copy and paste my signature as I cant get it to work properly TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This will fit:
<span style="font-family:Tahoma">'''[[User:TeaLover1996|<span style="color:#006400">Tea</span><span style="color:#ff0000">Lover</span><span style="color:#0000ff">1996</span>]] [[User talk:TeaLover1996|<span style="color:#800080">(talk)</span>]]'''</span>
It produces: TeaLover1996 (talk). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Is this an alternative?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 16:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: Substituting a signature above 255 characters is not allowed by WP:SIGLENGTH. See also WP:SIG#NoTemplates. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay PrimeHunter, I will notify the user not to follow it. But, why if the template is substituted and there will be nothing left except the code, which will also be generated by the ~ symbols? And how will one know is template was used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acagastya (talk • contribs)
The edit box is harder to use if it's full of huge signatures. I think 255 characters is bad enough. If we wanted to allow more then we could just request an increase of mw:Manual:$wgMaxSigChars. It's technically possible to substitute a longer signature but it's against WP:SIGLENGTH. Somebody may notice its length and complain. If a substituted signature is below 255 characters then I don't think others can see it was substituted. WP:SIG#NoTemplates says it is "permissible but discouraged". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about removing comments

Hello, am I allowed to remove comments that appear to contain possibly offensive material and do not seem to contribute helpfully to a discussion, such as this one (which was posted to this page)? CabbagePotato (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more question, Should be that (IP) editor warned? If so what is the appropriate one in TW?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 08:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you KylieTastic for answering my question (as well as Acagastya's) and removing the inappropriate comment. Really appreciate it! CabbagePotato (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CabbagePotato: If you find content on your talk page which may offend ou then yes you are allowed to remove it, also keep in mind you can remove anything usually non-harmful content is usually placed in an archive, hope this helps TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TO JEREMIAH RE: EDIT OF NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION

Jeremiah Y.:

Regarding the National Automotive Parts Association ("NAPA") entry, you left a message saying that my edit seemed to be a test so you changed it? Nothing about my edit appeared to be changed, but, in any case, as Mr. Baxter's granddaughter, I felt obligated to correct the information on the site, especially since Wikipedia had NAPA being created as a retailer in 1925 by a company that didn't even exist until 1928. That inconsistency was there in black and white, yet no one noticed that the facts, as stated, were impossible. It also was not a retailer until Genuine Parts did whatever it did to make it so after 1970 or 1980.

Since the first edit, I have refined the text and eliminated extraneous information so that it reads better. Can you explain why you thought my corrections were a test and what you did to change them? Thank you for your anticipated clarification. MarthaQualitymatters1555 (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC) 76.180.67.212 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Qualitymatters1555. A better place to post this comment would be Talk:National Automotive Parts Association. Jeremiah Y. might not see your post here. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this i blog?

Is this is a blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.51.205.186 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, see WP:NOTBLOG. Wikipedia is not a blog or social network- it's an encyclopedia, written about notable things in a factual, neutral way. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple merges in Parental leave

Hi! With the advice of my instructor in a Wiki Education program, I have merged several related (short!) pages together into the existing Parental leave article. I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia this quarter and would love community feedback on how to make the article better! Melody.waring (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a quick look through at your changes and everything looks good to me. By the way, I can't think of a better article to edit for a Feminist Economics class! Happy editing! Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! Appreciate your vote of confidence. :) Melody.waring (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Can I get some editors to look over my changers to the Boeing Everett Factory? This is my first Major edit and I want someone to look over and tell me how I did.--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 21:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, you might want to add a reference to the statement, "The Boeing 777 is a wide-body airliner designed to fill the size gap between the 747 and 767. In order to have the space to build the 777, Boeing spent nearly 1.5Billion dollars on expanding the Factory, doubling it's size. Production began on the 777 in 1993" though. Nice Job Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And I got the part about the growth of the building form the Boeing 777, I don't have a reference...--AM (Talk to me!) 21:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So take their reference . They use <ref>{{Harvnb|Norris|Wagner|1999|p=133}}</ref> as their source, so I would say you can use it too. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Winner 42. Totally agree with EoRdE6 that you should use the source from there if it verifies the content. Just dropped by to note you would have to use the underlying source from the sources section, not the shortened citation code above, and add in the page number from the shortened citation. So, the citation would rather be

<ref>{{Cite book |last1= Norris |first1= Guy |last2= Wagner |first2= Mark |year= 1999 |title= Modern Boeing Jetliners |location= Minneapolis, Minnesota |publisher=Zenith Imprint |isbn= 0-7603-0717-2|page= 133}}<ref>

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Winner 42. You can use the source discussed above, as long as you actually read the original source and verify that it actually says what the other article says. It is not acceptable to copy a source from one article to another without reading enough of it to verify in your own mind that it verifies the content in question. You do not need to read an entire book but you should certainly read the relevant pages in context. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I think you are mistaken, User:Airplane Maniac is asking the question here, I am merely responding.Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Winner 42, and I apologize to you. I made a mistake copying and pasting the user name. Airplane Maniac is the editor I intended to address. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information on an already published Wikipedia article.

How do I add/edit a Wikipedia article?2602:306:B8F2:D860:144A:587:BF6B:9BB9 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking Edit source.
Here, at WP:EDIT you will get all the guidelines!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: It's just Edit for non-logged in users (actually anyone not in the VE beta) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Click Edit if not logged it.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I suggest you take a your through the Wikipedia:Tutorial, which will explain these and other matters, and give you a foundation in the basics of editing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signature question

I would like to change my signature so that Rubbish leads to my user page and computer leads to my talk page and both are in italics. How do I do this? Thanks, Rubbish computer (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGN will guide you. But the way you want it:
[[User:Rubbish computer|''Rubbish'']][[User talk:Rubbish computer|''Computer'']].
Paste it in Signature filed of Special:Preferences. And don't forget to tick: Treat the above as WikiMark up.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 15:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above produces RubbishComputer. Maybe you want [[User:Rubbish computer|''Rubbish'']] [[User talk:Rubbish computer|''computer'']] to produce Rubbish computer. By the way Acagastya, you only need one <nowiki>...</nowiki> around the whole string to display code. The source is hard to read when it's littered with nowikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you but I have changed this already. Rubbish computer 22:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Acagastya got enough <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags yet??? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually @PrimeHunter: At the beginning, I used only a couple of sets. But it rendered as [[User:Rubbish computer|Rubbish]][[User talk:Rubbish computer|Computer]]. But then I realised a small mistake. Both the words were in italics and the '' was not visible. Thus I had used many! I was sick looking at it. But the one who wants it, mostly will copy from here to save time and won't see the codes!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 22:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

self published books

Hello, May we cite self published, scholarly books (published by Create Space, for example) with an ISBN number under Further Reading? Vocatur (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no. Further reading sections shouldn't contain links that wouldn't meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. The only exception would be if the author of the book in question was already well-known in the relevant field and had previously been published on the subject by a reputable publishing house. Otherwise, self-published books don't belong in Further reading sections. Yunshui 雲水 09:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns an author known in the relevant field who has been published by a reputable publishing house. Should I put his books under References or Further Reading? Vocatur (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vocatur: I think there are two separate issues here: citing his books, presumably as a reference for him, which, usually, is not appropriate whoever published them, and placing books under a "Further reading" section.
The first is sometimes seen as complex. Let me try to explain. If s/he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be her/his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for her/him, simply because it is the product he makes. So it is with his books. However, a review of her/his work by others tends to be a review of her/him and her/his methods, so is a reference
The second is a judgement call about whether such a section is appropriate at all, and, if so, what its content ought to be. I would err on the side of caution in this area, choosing to list only the most significant of his works, and then by ISBN to avoid linking to the site of a single vendor. Fiddle Faddle 11:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughtful answer. I have not explained well: this does not concern an article about the above-mentioned historian, but rather listing his books here and there under "Further Reading" on OTHER notable people he has written about! Vocatur (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we're talking about Albert B. Southywick here? If so, his books might be appropriate - he's reliable enough to be used as a source in books from OUP and Princeton UP, so clearly historical scholars recognise his validity; he's also been published by a reputable publishing house in the past. I'd imagine, though, that his books would be better as sources for expanding the articles in question, rather than just tagged on as "Further reading". Yunshui 雲水 11:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this useful reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocatur (talk • contribs) 13:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query regarding MOS

I could have asked it at the Portal, but if I need it for future. So
In cricket (game), is the letter C, in the headings and sub-headings like International centuries to be in upper case? And are these type of rules in the other sports too?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 08:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be lower-case I believe. The general Wikipedia rule (on MOS:HEADING) is that words in titles/headings should only be capitalised if they are names or proper nouns, which centuries isn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to "Request for deletion

Hello There currently is a stub article [General Service Area] which is wikilinked to by every town, village and community in Nova Scotia, Canada. One editor in particular has taken it upon his/her self to change over 1600 articles to use this obscure stub as the definition for each and every community in this Province rather than the usual wikilinks (town, village, community etc.) used by the rest of Wikipedia. Seeing as how NS is apparently the only region in the world that uses this definition and the definition could be eliminated at any time by the stroke of a pen by the NS Government, I would wonder if the project would be better served if we simply deleted this article under WP:N as a Google search using the phrase gives few (if any) reliable sources? This particular editor has become active again in the last couple of days and simply refuses to engage anyone who attempts to talk with him/her. See [2] Thank You,  Aloha27 talk  23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aloha27: Having looked at this issue I think it is worthy of administrative attention, so have opened a discussion at WP:ANI where any editor who wishes may comment. I have done this because the issue you report seems to me to be more weighty than the Teahouse should be handling, though is, I think, borderline for the other venue. Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on the biography of Sir Frederick Page (1917-2005). I have a nice image of his signature from "Yates, I. R. (2006). "Sir Frederick William Page CBE FREng. 20 February 1917 -- 29 May 2005: Elected FRS 1978". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 52: 231–210" But I am unsure of the copyright status of the signature and if it falls into the category of fair use KreyszigB (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey KreyszigB. Signatures are copyrighted, so long as they are sufficiently artistic for copyright protection (I suppose one might describe the two ends as block letters versus a unique cursive with a face included in it). See {{PD-signature}} and Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. It's unfortunate that the consideration here seems to require a judgement call with no brightline rule. I'm going to have to punt and say that after viewing his signature in the pdf, it seems to me pretty much right in the grey area and I just don't know. If it is copyrighted, I don't think fair use is sustainable. A low-res photograph of him, yes, that meets the contextual significance standard of the fair use policy – it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". I don't think this is true for a signature, absent extenuating circumstances (like the person was famous for the way they signed, and that's covered in the article). You might want to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, I can follow your reasoning, after all I'ts not the most important thing about him, but it is of minor interest. I've reposted the question on the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. KreyszigB (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit, something is missing from your response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. If that's an invitation to play twenty questions, I'll start with "what"?:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, someone removed part of my post (checking page history) aha, it was removed by the OP when he responded, here. I can see exactly how that happened, he was intending to follow the post by navigating there and used cut instead of copy to get the title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change (correct) the title of an existing article?

How do I change (correct) the title of an existing article. Just need to add a word to the title to change it from a general-public term to a term specific to the content.Shonzey (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shonzey: Welcome! To move/rename a page you use the WP:MOVE function with the tab at the top of the page. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I don't want to MOVE anything; just fix the title by changing one word. (I realize that changing the title has ripple effects from other articles, but must start by fixing this one title.)

Maybe method requires opening a new article with the correct title, then using MOVE to migrate all the content. Is that it? If so, I still need more guidance.Shonzey (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shonzey: Moving an article is how you change the title on Wikipedia without getting rid of the article's history. If you give me the title of the article and what change you want I can do it for you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonzey and Winner 42: I'm going to take a guess at Just in time (business). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

registration

How can i register my company herePrathamking8 (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might misunderstand, Wikipedia isn't a place to register your company for free advertising or a social network-style profile (like LinkedIn), see WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Wikipedia has neutral point of view encyclopedia articles about notable companies- to be notable enough to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP, a company needs to have significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not adding here for promotion...as i think it will be good to see my company over there..such a trusted platform..nothing elsePrathamking8 (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you cannot write articles about your companies, ergo you can give an idea in Requested articles, so other wikipedians may write it instead of you, if they decide that company is significant. With best regards, Ochilov (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, you are allowed to write about your company, it's just strongly discouraged. If you think your company passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP, then I would recommend using the articles for creation process to create your article. This allows you to get feedback on and improve your draft before it becomes a proper article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joseph. You gave some good info right there. You deserve a cuppa tea. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is place of online knowledge, the main role is to provide information and for users, to update information, You are not aloud to edit your own profile or your businesses for that matter, as this could include bias information, information which really shouldn't be here or publicity for your business. I must make it clear that as a user for Wikipedia, mainly for research, it is not a place for putting advertisements and the services and prices your company does, with your current account you can add your website, which provides this information (Z2a (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, Z2a, while what you say is generally correct, I really don't think you are saying it in a way which is helpful to Prathamking8 or anybody else. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarise already published information on notable subjects. It does not contain profiles (but users who register an account may create a user page about themselves: mostly about themselves as a Wikipedia editor, but a little outside information is allowed. A link to their company website would not be allowed). Advertising and promotional material is indeed not permitted, and users are discouraged from writing about themselves or the companies; but as Joseph2302 says, they are not forbidden as long as they follow the rules. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for discussion...Really I am not confuse more here and not going to try to create profile here anymore.

Many people misunderstood me like I am doing promotion but my intention was to make Wikipedia more wide and cover all related information for that city.

Like we have started startup in India i.e. www.deebowl.com and its performing well so I think we should be display in Wikipedia page thats all.

If anyone can think, we are eligible to mention our story here please let us know because I am not able to decide so just check once and respond.

Thanks, Deebowl team www.deebowl.com Prathamking8 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Prathamking8. The criterion for whether something should be mentioned is whether it is notable; that is: has there been in-depth coverage of the company, written by people unconnected with the company, and published in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publisher). If there has been, then there is a information about the company can be referenced to a source, and it may be included in Wikipedia. If there has not yet been such coverage (and for most start-ups, there isn't) then it should not go into Wikipedia at present. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=661882395"