Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, 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

Redirect mistake

Hi,

I mistakenly renamed the original 'What is an article?' entry with Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications. My original goal was to publish this page from my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orient_Planet_PR_and_Marketing_Communications.

Now when I search for 'Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications' the link will automatically direct me to 'What is an article?' page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_an_article%3F). How can I remove Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications from this page? Tlagura (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tlagura, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem you're seeing is, as you rightly suggest, related to this:

   09:09, 29 October 2015 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)
   07:02, 29 October 2015 Tlagura (talk | contribs) moved page Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications to What is an article? (revert)

User:JohnCD has already partly fixed this, but I think we may still have a problem in that What is an article? is now a mainspace article whereas it should be at Wikipedia:What is an article? only. Or so I think. John, could you or another admin address this please?

Tlagura, once this is all fixed, Google or whatever search engine you're using, will eventually... perhaps in a few days or hours... catch up with reality and then you will no longer see the anomalous results. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

how to replace the logo in the information box

We have created a new logo for our organisation. I wish to replace the former logo in the information box on our wikipedia page. When I click on the page information, it is mentioned that I cannot overwrite the photo file. How can I get the new logo on our page? Ingevh (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless and until you make the required declaration that you are editing on behalf of your employer, you should not be editing at all. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which has been pointed out to you previously. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

BOT

Okay. So I want a help to make a bot. It should add some extra CAT whenever some particular CAT is added even if HotCat is used or not. For example, if CAT:Egypt is added, CAT:Africa should be added bu the bot automatically. So, what should I need to know? The languages, and other requirements.
P.S. I have an account here.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If an article is in a category, it should not normally be in a parent category, see WP:SUBCAT. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I know that it will be listed, but will that happen to the article itself? For like to the page of Chelsea, London was added. Will CAT:England also come? I don't regularly add categories, but I don't think that happens.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Tone of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Give me a hand?

I would like some help on this situation. This article is absolutely terrifying.

• Read my edit summaries and check the changes I made
• Check my message in the talk page.
• Still in the talk page, notice that the tone and neutrality of the article have been questioned in the past a significant amount of times.

I would like someone to help me out to fix tone and bias problems. Outedexits (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on page splitting

Another editor's comment led me to support a page split at Talk:Heroes Reborn (miniseries)#Merging Dark Matters, and propose another one at Talk:List of Heroes characters#Split. However, neither of these has received any responses. Is this a situation where I can assume there is no opposition and be bold and create the new pages myself? Should I wait a few more days for comments? And is there any specific procedure/template/tag I need to use to "close" the discussions? Thanks, 2macia22 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @2macia22:!

given that many people do not edit Wikipedia on a daily basis, unless something is critical (like a copyright violation or controversial content about living people) it should generally be a time frame of at least a week before you can consider a "no responses" to be tacit approval. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tom Powers Article Need someone to help

Are there people available to work with me to help me organize and write an article pertaining to a musician who has claim to fame? I have started the page but am totally overwhelmed by the requirements to have an article or piece created and approved. I have the newspaper articles and proof of the significant accomplishments. But need someone to help me put it together... I am not asking for the staff to do this but maybe someone who has completed an article and can walk me thru it and advise me. Joannpowers (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the article Joannpowers wants help with: Tom Powers. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Looks like it's actually Draft:Tom Powers - Detroit - Musician Extraordinaire, White Arabian mare (The article you linked to seems to be about a different person named Tom Powers, a fairly common name.)

Regardless, Joannpowers, I'd be happy to help you first determine whether the Tom Powers you want to write about is eligible to have a Wikipedia article about him — in short, he is eligible only if there has been substantial coverage of him, in multiple sources independent of him (i.e. not press releases or an autobiography), and those sources are what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. All that taken together is what Wikipedia calls our notability standard, but note that Wikipedia's definition has little to do with general usage of the word notable. If we figure out that the Tom Powers you want to write about meets the notability standard, then I'll be happy to help you get your draft into shape too, since working with new editors on drafts (even editors with a conflict of interest, something you may have) is one of my hobbies here at Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I did a little bit of work on the draft, though. The title will probably have to be changed to something like "Tom Powers (musician)" though, because "extraordinaire" is a little bit too over the top. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Joannpowers, I was sorry to learn that Tom Powers has died. I have also just learned (without wanting to) that you may have a close personal connection to him. In that case it would almost certainly be better if you did not try to write an article about him here – one of our requirements is that our articles must be neutral in tone, and it's our collective experience that it is very difficult for people with a close connection to the topic to maintain that sort of neutrality. I see that GrammarFascist has offered to help you determine whether Mr Powers meets our quite stringent notability requirements. If you find that he does, I think that asking for an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles may be the best way forward – unless someone else is prepared to write the draft for you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

wikitable IPA no longer working?

Got logged out this morning, and noticed that setting a table to class "wikitable IPA" no longer forces the contents to display in a font that supports the IPA. Is it broken, or has something changed? Thanks — kwami (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami hello and welcome to The Teahouse. If no one here answers the question, WP:VPT is the usual place to report problems such as this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll move the discussion there. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating a new page

I have a question in regards to creating two new pages. Can I create a page about an e-magazine? Can I create a page about the advertising company that publishes this e-magazine? The reason I ask is because I read that certain pages may be removed if they aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. (Amy Sarkiss (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Amy Sarkiss, and welcome to Wikipedia. You are correct that articles can be deleted if they are not considered to meet the criteria for inclusion, and the relevant policy guidelines here are outlined at Wikipedia:Notability. The simple version of this is that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. So, has the e-magazine you want to create an article about been discussed in other, third-party sources such as newspapers? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the magazines base is in Egypt and has been featured on television and in a separate magazine. The e-magazine's website has the interviews posted. (Amy Sarkiss (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

another important question: do you have any connection with the magazine or the advertising company? If so you have a conflict of interest and should follow the guidelines listed here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Amy Sarkiss - in your last comment you said "interviews". Interviews with people involved in a subject are not independent of the subject, and do not contribute in any way to its notability (in the Wikipedia sense). An article about the magazine (or the publishers) should be almost 100% based on what people who have no connection at all to the magazine have published about it: Wikipedia is basically not interested in what subjects say about themselves. So you would need to find places where people have published about the magazine with no input from the magazine or anybody associated with it: if you can find some, then there can be an article on it; if you can't then there cannot be. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are other internet sources. Blogs and websites that have been created by individuals who aren't related to the article at all. However, I'm not sure if they are considered "credible sources" according to wikipedia standards. (Amy Sarkiss (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are almost 5 million pages in Wikipedia and many hundreds of thousands probably dont meet the criteria to be here. However, that is a terrible basis to make a claim to let another article that doesnt belong here be created. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

How do i fill out copyright for a wall of text from my own blog?

I have a blog which i posted a summary of a book a read. I posted it on there and i was told i needed a copyright form something filled out. What is going on with this? Winterysteppe (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Winterysteppe, there are two separate parts to this question:

• How can I make the text I wrote OK to use on Wikipedia? and
• How can I make sure that my text gets used?

I'll answer the second one first: sorry, but you can't. There's no guarantee that any content you contribute or donate to Wikipedia will be used. If the text in question is this, my guess is that the chances of it being used even in part are very slim indeed. You could perhaps try asking about that at Talk:The Lords of Vaumartin.

If you want to go ahead and make the text available anyway, the easiest way is to put a suitable copyleft notice such as CC-BY-SA 3.0 on your blog page, and mention on the talk page of the article that you have done so. Otherwise you can follow the instructions at WP:DCM and email permission; there is sometimes a backlog dealing with those emails, so that process may not be quick.

Why do we insist on this being done in one of these ways, rather than just taking your word for it? It is just possible to imagine a situation where someone might lie about being the author of a text; if we took that person's word and accepted the content, we would be infringing the intellectual rights of the real author. So we play safe. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Some Words of Wisdom from the New Yorker: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

How to update the references?

Host AmaryllisGardener brought me here. I relatively new to editing at Wikipedia. So I wanted to ask, how do i update the references in a page? Winterysteppe (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Winterysteppe: and welcome to the Teahouse!

The help page WP:REFB give a lot of information about the technical side. The reference information is placed in the body of the article next to the content it verifies and the magic of Wiki displays that information as footnotes at the bottom of the page. The help page give templates that help identify the information needed and make a pretty display, but they are not absolutely mandatory as long as the appropriate information is provided to accurately identify and credit the source.

The process side is done by finding reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight, like published journals, standard publication books, or major newspapers. Some places to start looking for acceptable sources if you don't have access to major collections through your library are books.google.com, news.google.com and scholar.google.com . They won't find all acceptable sources and not all hits from there will be acceptable but its a far greater percentage than just regular google search. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Removing info box after review process

Dear Wikipedia,

I want to close review process of the page: E-Infrastructures Reflection Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Infrastructures_Reflection_Group

We fulfill all reviewer requests many months ago and we want to remove info box "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."

I tried to contact with reviewers via talk page but without success.

I really appreciate your help.

Regards, Marcin Lawenda e-IRG http://e-irg.eu/ Mlawenda (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Marcin, and welcome to the teahouse. The current version of the article E-Infrastructures Reflection Group has not been reviewed (A previous version was, and was then deleted as a copyright violation. A user did remove the "unreviewed" tag in August 2014, but the editor in question has since been blocked for misuse of Wikipedia, so that "review" was not necessarily meaningful.

The tags at the top of the article are called maintenance tags, and may be added or removed by any editor as they think appropriate. Looking at them, I see that the "orphan" tag was no longer appropriate, as there are now three articles which link to this one, and I have removed it. The other three are certainly still appropriate and should not be removed.

Please read the information which has been placed near the top of your user talk page. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what eIRG wants to say about itself: an article should be based almost 100% on what others, unconnected with the subject, have published about it in reliable places. Publications of the EC are reliable, no doubt, but they are not unconnected with one of its groups. That is what the tags mean.

Your wording suggests to me that you are yourself connected with the Group: if so, you need to read Conflict of interest to discover why you are discouraged from editing this article. Furthermore, if you are being paid to edit it (including as part of employment), you must declare this - see WP:PAID for more information.

What needs to happen to this article is that somebody needs to find some substantial independent published information about the Group, in sources such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. If such sources cannot be found, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the group at present: we say that the Group is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word). If those sources exist, then the article can be written; but every single piece of information in it should be individually cited to a reliable published source - and nearly all of them to independent sources. See referencing for beginners.

I'm sorry if this sounds unwelcoming: we try to make the Teahouse a welcoming place. But I suspect that you have been given a job by the Group which it is very very difficult for you to achieve - apologies if I am making wrong assumptions. In any case, please read, carefully, the various guidelines that have been linked on your user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Hi, Mlawenda! It's hard to know where to start – there are a lot of problems here:

• First, since you are associated with the group, you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit that page directly; you are always welcome to make suggestions on the talk page, Talk:E-Infrastructures Reflection Group.
• Second, if by any chance you are employed by the group, please note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact.
• The article as it stands has little or nothing to demonstrate the notability of the group. You'll need to show that it has received in-depth coverage in several independent reliable sources; you can list these on the talk page.
• Most of what it says at present is uncited: in general, the text should contain only what is verifiable from those same reliable sources; if it isn't verifiable, it should be removed.
• The article as it stands is at imminent risk of deletion; I suggest that you ask the kind Teahouse editors to move it into draft space (i.e., to Draft:E-Infrastructures Reflection Group), to give time for some improvements to be made.

Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

how can i remove my article to my sandbox?

i am concerned that my article may contain some inaccuracies and need to move it to my sandbox, how can i do this? (Greaser25 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Greaser25. Which article are you referring to? Is it Yellow Jackets Motorcycle Club? If so, I don't know if you can move it from mainspace to sandbox space; the best thing to do is just to edit it as it is and fix the inaccuracies. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Help needed to undo vandalism including a move

The page Wee Waa was vandalized, and also moved to Javed Ali (country town). Now instead of describing an Australian town, it refers to resisting the lizard people. I am not sure how to undo the move, and I don't want to mess things up by doing a partial undo ... can somebody please help? Gronk Oz (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

After messing things up a bit, I think I've got everything in order. Deor (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @Deor: - that's perfect! --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lifting a redirect in order to create a new page under the redirect term

Hi! New here, and trying to rely on myself by reading through all the tips, rules and regulations but there is something that I can't work out. It would be great if someone could point me in the right direction for lifting a redirect from [Ocean Cleanup] to the Great Pacific garbage patch. There are separate German -> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ocean_Cleanup and Dutch https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ocean_Cleanup wiki pages for this organization, but on the English wikipedia these search terms direct to the Great Pacific garbage patch. Those are clearly related but not the same. On top of that some statements on research and organizations seem a bit messy and confusing on the GPGP page. I would love to start sorting out the GPGP page and contributing to a separate English page about The Ocean Cleanup. To start working on The Ocean Cleanup page, the redirect needs to be lifted. I have read through [redirect page] but it remains unclear to me what to do when a redirect needs to be lifted in order to create a separate article for the redirect term. Where can I best put my request for lift on the redirect without deleting the redirect term? Thanks a lot! Merelsara (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Merelsara, welcome to the Teahouse. You read the wrong section. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. Click The Ocean Cleanup and then "(Redirected from The Ocean Cleanup)". Note however that articles by new users are often deleted for not meeting our requirements. You could try Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead to get a review with feedback and a chance to improve the article if it's not accepted the first time. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thank you for your swift response and warm welcome! I will dive into the right page and first apply the article for feedback.

Merelsara (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Merelsara. Prophylactically, based on what it seems you may be doing, please note our copyright attribution requirements for when you are copying content from one English Wikipedia article to another location, and when translating from a foreign language Wikipedia article into English. Both simply require an appropriate edit summary in which you state what you are doing, and provide a link to the source you are copying/translating from.

For copying from an internal page to another internal page, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and specifically its subsection at the shortcut WP:PATT.

For translating, please see Wikipedia:Translation, and specifically its subsection Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate.

Both provide model edit summaries for your to tailor for your purposes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for your guidance, I will keep your comments in mind. Kind regards, Merelsara (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Re.: 5 minutes of your attention

I would like to offer to my fellow Wikipedians to have a look at the sketch of the following idea: AN ANNUAL COMPETITION IN PHOTOGRAPHY AMONG WIKIPEDIANS ONLY, and to consider a possibility to turn this sketch into a working project by ideas, suggestions and constructive criticism, or to offer a better plan to solve the “problem”.

The tDear hing is, that many articles (as I have noticed) on various subjects of science can be illustrated in much more interesting, expressive way, in better quality and, what is even more important, in stronger connection to the essence of the subject; that’s why I propose to hold a competition in photography for (as a first step) the science articles.

It is necessary to stress here, that the appearance of the new photos in the articles is getting less attention of the Editors, than the appearance of the new articles, that is why good texts are bit by bit being filled with obscure and sometimes confounding photos, which often does not correspond to the current level of photography and doesn't reflect the latest scientific concepts and achievements.

The proposed competition could attract a focused attention to the articles of all participants, what will help to improve the quality of edited photos, and the winners will become a Wiki’s known and recognized experts, as each winning photo should be marked by the symbol of the win —Wiki-medal; thus, the winners will be able to give valuable advice to those, who need it, and to help the beginners to join future competitions, being better prepared.

Each day really gigantic number of people are approaching each Wiki page, and especially articles about science, such as palaeontology, astronomy, geology, etc...

For many of the readers these articles are the only immediately available source of information they have, and illustrations are incredibly important, as they act here as the “windows” to the World of Science, and this wonderful world should be presented correctly and interestingly.

I believe, that many Wikipedians can offer high quality photos of their own work for each of selected by Editors topics (articles). Those who are not interested in photography, could participate as the creators of designs for Wiki-medals, or to vote for the best 3 photos on each topic.

As the purpose of the competition, in the first place, is to improve a quality of the illustration of the articles, it will be appropriate to have competition without 1-2-3 places, but with selection of 3 best photos for each article, and prize the winners, for example, in category Chemistry, by 3 Wiki-medals of the same, ‘chemistry’ design, but in category Astronomy — by 3 Wiki-medals of the different design, created specially for the article Astronomy, and so on.

Every next year Editors could offer, let's say 4 (probable, it will be the optimal number) new different subjects for competition and 4 designs of Wiki-medal. Designs should reflect the assents of the subjects by its symbols. All designs, being different, should be contained in the chosen shape, which remains constant. On my page I presented an example of 4 designs of Wiki-medals for the best illustration of the following articles: Chemistry, Geology, Mineralogy, Gemmology.

It doesn't mean at all, that I wish to suggest to narrow down the Photography Competition to some single category, as for example, the illustration of science articles, or wider—to narrow down competitions to Photography only.

There’s an endless variety of the possible types of brilliant competitions and only the will and creative ideas of Wikipedians are needed for their development. I’m offering to take Photography Competition under consideration just as a first step, and if it will be found by Wikipedians, as the positive step, then the advice, recommendations and suggestions of the experienced and willing to help Wikipedians will be absolutely essential and invaluable, as there are a lot of questions here, for example: how to organize the competition technically? Whether it is possible to create a special contest page? In what form shall Editors vote for the best photos? And many more.

But the first question - what Wikipedians think about this proposal?

Thank you.

Regards, Chris Oxford. Chris Oxford (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

How would this differ from Picture of the Year, and how do you propose to address the issue of people thinking the winning photos have some kind of special status and shouldn't be removed from articles, which has been an ongoing problem for as long as I can remember regarding WP:Featured pictures? There isn't much correlation between aesthetic attractiveness and encyclopedic value. This isn't to say I'm automatically opposed to such a process, just that there would need to be very good arguments in favour of adding yet another layer of bureaucracy. - iridescent — Talk 15:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris Oxford and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you are relatively new to the community you may not know that most of the pictures used in the Wikipedia are stored at another Wikimedia project called the Commons. This is where the pictures, videos and audio recording are kept, currently 28,780,973 of them. On this sister project there are many competitions that are similar to the one you are outlining in your post, such as "Wiki Loves Monuments" and "Wiki Loves Earth". In fact, there is one that is almost exactly what you propose. It is held on a monthly basis, you can read all about it here. This month's challenge is "100 years later". Previous themes have been things like "Personal Protective Equipment", "Fountains and wells", "Fossils", "Steps, Stairs and Staircases", "Household items in use", etc. With so many active photographers the subject needs to be more narrow than just "Chemistry" or "Geology", since the number of entries for such large categories would be impossible to handle. I'm sorry, but I don't see the reason for having two similar competitions. Best, w.carter — Talk 18:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I also see that you have uploaded some pictures here at the Wikipedia. It would be better if you uploaded them directly at the Commons. Start on this page. If you look at the pages where your pictures are, you can see that they are all tagged with a notice that they should be moved to Commons. w.carter — Talk 18:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first place I would like to thank Editors iridescent and w.carter for their replies. Summarising your comments, I can confirm, that I myself was concerned about (and that is mentioned in my proposal) some aspects, which you pointed out.

I certainly suspected, that the organization of new competition is not an easily achievable goal.

Answering Editor iridescent comment "There is not much correlation between aesthetic attractiveness and encyclopaedic value.", I can say, that quality image, brightly and cleverly stressing the essence of the subject, can have not less encyclopaedic value, than dull, technically poorly executed one. Of course, if we are talking about photos, possessing historical value, the quality is not that important, but if we are talking about today’s level of the illustration of the science articles, than the ideal image just has to combine two qualities: both encyclopaedic and aesthetic, and only in this case an image will have Wiki value, and the purpose of the proposed competition “Photos for Science Articles” was to select exactly such photos.

But I understand, what Editor iridescent meant and completely respect his point of view: photos for science articles should be not just “nice pictures”. On Talk:Mineralogy it is possible to find the discussion (Hope diamond) on the subject directly related to the issue, which we are discussing with Editor iridescent here. During the talk on Talk:Mineralogy me and some Editors agreed on the fact that the photos must conform to the essence of the article and should not be “chosen because they are pretty”, as a knowledgeable Editor RockMagnetist aptly remarked. So Editor iridescent now can see, that actually we are on the same page.

I thank Editor w.carter for welcoming me to the Teahouse. It’s correct - I’m quite new to the Wiki community, but I already heard about such photo competitions as Picture of the Year, "Wiki Loves Monuments", "Wiki Loves Earth", but I did not consider them as an analogue of the competition “Photos for Science Articles”, as they targeted different fields, although, of course these photos may be used in such articles as Architecture, etc. But Commons’ Photo Challenge monthly thematic competition was a complete surprise for me. It really has similarity with Photos for Science Articles; the only difference is that Photo Challenge is monthly competition, but I offered annual one without 1-2-3 places, and focused on illustration of Wiki’s Science Articles only, not on completely different subjects every time. That is the only difference, but the basis is really similar.

But I am actually very pleased that I was not alone on this path, and that this idea also "visited" my colleagues Wikipedians, and that it was already put into reality.

Probably Photo Challenge competition will include regularly Science thematic by fields, as they did for Palaeontology (Fossils), and as I have seen, the article Fossils obtained, as result, exclusively perfect photo material. I'm often reading magazines Gemmology and Gems & Jewellery, published by the UK Gemmological Association (Gem-A) and always find there the articles on the latest scientific discoveries, illustrated with photographs of rare minerals in rough & cut forms and antique and modern masterpieces of jewellery art. I know, that UK Gemmological Association has a huge collection of minerals from all over the world, most of which are the gifts of geologists and collectors of minerals, and must be available for educational purposes. For illustration of the Wiki article Mineralogy etc., this collection can be used by photographers as an invaluable source of excellent examples of different minerals.

As Editor w.carter suggested, I looked at the pages with my pictures, and found the notices, mentioned by him. When I uploaded photos to the pages, I marked them as "free image", but now I realized (thanks to w.carter), that it is not enough to make them available for other Editors, so I'll move photos to Commons as soon as I will get another free hour.

I am sure that useful information out of discussions, including this one, will help all new Wikipedians to orientate better in the Wiki-space.

Regards, Chris Oxford.

Chris Oxford (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent and W.carter: Please

1. sign your name with four tildes ("~~~~"), which will automatically generate your signature linked to your User and User talk pages
2. use colons to indent, not spaces.

A line beginning with a space is automatically formatted like this, which is not what you usually want and certainly not what you wanted in your contributions above, which I have reformatted. (Original formatting here.)

--Thnidu (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu! We sure did sign our posts the right way when we first made them. But the original question was answered so long ago that it had already been archived. What happened was that Chris Oxford copied the old text from the archive to his post here. Hence the faulty formatting. But for some reason the 'ping' you made above did not work, I just saw this post while browsing. I think it was the multi-mentioning, I have seen that fail before.

And Chris Oxford, when you have moved the pics to Commons, be sure to tag them for deletion here at the Wikipedia. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RMOS Consultancy profile creation in wikipedia ?

Hi why i am not able to create a profile for my firm in wikipedia ? my account got suspended everytime i try to do so / plz help!

thanks in advance! RMOS Consultancy RMOS Consultancy (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of company profiles. If your company is sufficiently notable for the encyclopedia to need an article about it, then someone else will write one in due course. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you have not read the replies to your various previous questions on the same subject: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 396#How to create a talk page for RMOS Consultancy ?, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 398#Regarding RMOS Consultancy, and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 September 28#How to edit a page for RMOS Consultancy ?, nor have you read the messages on your user talk page at User talk:Rajnitsharma. Please don't ask again until you have read the previous replies and taken note of the advice which you have been given. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Bukarester FC

Can someone help me with this German Team ? Draft:Bukarester FC ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks

Hi Alexiulian25, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia rather than a place to request help with draft articles, although some volunteers here may be willing to respond to the latter. May I suggest asking for help at somewhere like WikiProject Football? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hispano and Hispanos

We have an article titled Hispano and another one titled Hispanos, which is the ordinary plural of Hispano. They are on different though related topics, and they don't even cross-refer for disambiguation. IMHO that's a mess.

In fact, there's a lot more mess than that; see Talk:Hispanos § NOT a term or ethnic group. But the title issue is my main reason for bringing the topic here. Can anyone advise or help on it? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I'm seeing Hispano redirecting to an article titled Nuevomexicano, which I believe is quite different than Hispanos. I'd have to take a closer look to see about cross-referencing, but at first glance they appear to be quite separate topics. 2macia22 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@2macia22: Though I haven't looked up the reference in the explanatory footnote [Cobos, Rubén (2003) "Introduction" A Dictionary of New Mexico & Southern Colorado Spanish (2nd ed.) Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe, N.M., p. ix, ISBN 0-89013-452-9], I wouldn't be at all surprised if different groups of Hispanic people were called "Hispanos" in their respective areas. Perhaps that mention merely needs rewording. --Thnidu (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice

Resolved

I recently found out how to use Edit notices, but I could not add one to my talk page. When I tried to create page User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice, it says that it is supposed to be the talk page of "Imfrankliu/Editnotice". How can I add an Edit notice to my talk page? Frank (User Page) (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Imfrankliu. Edit notices are created by a template placed in the wikicode at the top of the page in question, not on another page. Please read Wikipedia:Editnotice where the technical details are explained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No Cullen328, User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice is correct. I see it has been created now. What was the exact message you got there about "Imfrankliu/Editnotice"? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frank, it looks like you figured it out: The Edit notice you created before posting above was User:Imfrankliu/Editnotice not User talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice. So the message you received was to alert you of that wrongunexpected filename. —teb728 t c 04:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, PrimeHunter TEB728. I decided to create User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice anyway, and it seemed to work. Thanks! Frank (User Page) (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

how to delelete history on ios app

I want to remove any Wikipedia footprints from my iPhone ios7, so that when I loan the phone someone won't be able to see what I've been up to. So far, the only thing I can think of is uninstalling the app, and then reinstalling. Is there another, "built-in" way to do this? More generally, is there a tutorial or "odds and ends" page? Thanks!184.66.104.13 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The Teahouse is for asking questions and getting answers about editing Wikipedia. Your question seems to be about how to remove or hide your usage history from an Apple device. I think that the experts in Cupertino who work for Apple are better able to answer your question than we are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an iPhone but I think the question is not about the builtin browser by Apple but about the Wikipedia Mobile app by Wikimedia Foundation, linked on iPhone at Help:Mobile access#Official apps. If you don't get an answer here then you can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls?

On the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberal_Party_%28UK,_1999%29 , user Emeraude has taken it upon himself to defame the party as a far-right organisation, and refuses to accept evidence to the contrary. He has demonstrated behaviour that in any other context, would be considered trolling and/or slander. What can be done about this? I have previously tried discussing this issue with him, but without success. Rhialto (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you to discuss on the article talk page. There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Also, assume good faith and please do not characterize differences of opinion as trolling. If discussion on the talk page does not resolve the matter, the dispute resolution policy identifies several venues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find a reliable source describing the party's politics and use an inline citation for any changes you make to the infobox. Or are inline citations recommended against when inside infoboxes? (I haven't been a serious editor in a long time, but I'm thinking of coming back, but my knowledge of style and policy is probably rusty.) (And of course, other editors are expected to always provide verifiable citations as well.) 72.204.168.159 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rhialto. When you accuse another editor of serious misconduct, as you have regarding Emeraude here, you should inform that person. I have just done so, because it is important for any editor to know when they are being attacked. The issue is how to accurately describe a tiny political party that has received only a handful of votes in a few elections. It may be that no source which is reliable for evaluating political ideologies has commented on the ideology of this party, since it is so small. It seems clear that many of the individual leaders of this party have "far right" backgrounds. The question is whether or not that is sufficient to describe the ideology of the party itself that way. In my opinion, that is not sufficient, and a reliable source stating that explicitly is needed. I am inviting Carrite, an editor with lots of experience working on political party articles, to comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jim and all. To find an answer to this matter I popped by the fascist website Stormfront.org and ran a little search of their message board archive, which ultimately led me to THIS piece on the NLP. It's a National Front splinter, so "Far Right" is an accurate description, but seem to favor a multi-cultural ethnic-nationalism-for-all approach that needs to be considered seriously. My advice is to accept the nominal identification but to really work to explain the group's ideology, which seems to be more complex than run-of-the-mill White Nationalism. Hope this helps, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly true that, many years ago, a couple of the individuals involved in the party had far-right associations. However, that was before the party was even founded. This is comparable to, for example, describing the German Nazi party as a far-left party due to a historical association with some left-wing movements. It might be "technically correct", but it gives an entirely wrong impression of what they were about and what they did. Emeraude has chosen to disregard evidence such as the party's "shop local" campaigns and statements in the party's manifesto, as well as adding entirely unsourced statements to claim the party is elitist, monarchist, and anti-Russian. It is telling that almost half of the entire article discusses events that happened before the party even existed.

I have tried on more than one occasion to add cited references to the article, but as Emneraude has reverted them each time, it became an exercise in futility. Rhialto (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Eugenio B. Bito-onon Jr. turned for for lack of notability

This article was turned down by the reviewer for lack of notability. I tried asking the reviewer for clarification, but haven't gotten a reply. I reviewed the general notability and notability guidelines for politicians, and I believe that the person in question does qualify. Bito-onon played an important role in the establishment of the 1st and only permanent Filipino civilian settlement in the highly disputed Spratly Islands. He's been interviewed multiple times by international media. He's made a tour of the US, giving talks, interviews and meeting several US officials along the way (How many mayors from the Philippines do that? This information isn't very encyclopedic so I haven't added too much info: I would basically have to find each specific mention of an US official from pics, etc, and add that to support the claim about meeting with multiple US officials, such as this photo caption "PENTAGON MEETING. Kalayaan Mayor Eugenio Bito-onon (3rd from left) meets with Dennis McGinn (4th), the US Navy's assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment, accompanied by members of the US Pinoys for Good Governance on September 28, 2015.") Photo courtesy of Eric Lachica/USPGG) I'm not sure if this is the proper forum to ask, but I'd like to get more feedback from others on whether this person is notable. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fraenir and welcome to the Teahouse. Being the mayor of a fairly small community may not pass the notability guideline for politicians. However, it looks to me as if this draft passes the General notability guideline. I don't have time for a full review at the moment, but I will do one soon. However there are a few points I would like you to clean up.

1. You have shortened footnotes pointing to "Hayton" and "Kaplan" but these aren't linking properly. Please see WP:SFN and Help:Shortened footnotes for how to format these so that the notes link to the actual refs. I have made an edit and I think it fixes this, but please double check. (When i started this comment I thought the sources weren't listed, I didn't look at the "Further Reading" section.)
2. Many of the online sources have only partial metadata. Please list the work in which the article was published, the author (if known) and the publication date or year (if known), and the page number for sources in print or PDF format or any format where a page number is relevant.

If the above is done I will probably approve this when I have a chance to review fully. Perhaps SwisterTwister. the experienced editor who declined the draft last week, would care to comment. DES ^(talk) 15:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I really appreciate it!

1. I understand that most small community leaders will not qualify for notability guideline for politicians; however, if I'm not mistaken, he should still pass #2 (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage). and #3 (Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".)? Are all 3 points required to pass notability guideline for politicians? I highly doubt this, as it appears point #2 was created specifically to deal with cases such as Bito-onon. I'm just asking these questions because I want to understand these policies a bit better.
2. I'll try to make those fixes to the best of my ability. If you have any other concerns about the presentation or content of the article, please let me know. Fraenir (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct, Fraenir, passing any one of the specific criteria, or passing the WP:GNG (which is basically point 3) is enough, there is no need to pass all of them, This is generally true with all the subject-specific notability criteria, passing any point from any of them, or the GNG, is normally enough. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, so what is required to pass #2 (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage)? Does major here mean 1. "A local political figure of an important place", 2. "A local political figure of high standing" or 3. "A local political figure with importance beyond the office"? #2 doesn't make sense, and #1 almost means that notability lies with the office and not the person, so #3 should be the most reasonable interpretation? Fraenir (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fraenir. In my opinion, WP:POLITICIAN is the wrong tool for evaluating the notability of this particular person. The New York Times does not normally write several times about and interview the mayors of tiny villages. The same is true of other worldwide media organizations. He is notable because he is the senior Philippine government official on the actual front lines of the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. This is an issue of great importance and potential danger in international relations, and in my opinion, Wikipedia ought to have a biography of this person. I also invite SwisterTwister to comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I have accepted the draft. DES ^(talk) 11:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

how to tag word,people,place or else~~

how can i tag work, place, names, animals on my article?Faizan mumeed (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Faizan mumeed: and welcome to the Teahouse!

First, as an important frame of reference, it is not "your" article - it is a Wikipedia encyclopedia article that anyone can edit.

But to your actual question, I am not sure what you mean by "tag" but you can "link" to another Wikipedia article in the body of an article by placing the article title in double brackets like this [[ARTICLE NAME]]. But do not link every word, only the important ones. We also have a system of WP:CATEGORY that use double braces brackets [[Category:American male journalists]] at the bottom of an article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

School block

Materaialscientist blocks some IP vandals as school block. Someone posts on IP talk page,"WHOIS" message, that the IP belongs to school. Wikipedia must have a bot which will automatically tag this WHOIS school IPs. The Avengers (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, The Avengers, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not automatically block all school IP Addresses, only ones that have a significant history of vandalism or abuse. In general, blocking requires some judgement, so it is not normally done by a bot. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that The Avengers was asking for them to be blocked, but for a bot to automatically add the message on the talk pages of school IPs. - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that will help us identify User IPs from school/college IPs.--The Avengers (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear what to me what User:The Avengers is requesting be done by a bot, or whether it can be done by a bot. Interpreting a WHOIS is normally done by a human, and some of the interfaces to WHOIS use a CAPTCHA to block their use by bots. Not all school blocks are identified as school blocks. It appears that adding a school block identification to an IP address is done after there has been administrator attention. Is there a reason that we need to identify school IP addresses if they aren't being used for vandalism? The Avengers refers to user IPs as opposed to school IPs. Do they mean IPs that are assigned to ISPs for dynamic assignment to users? It isn't clear what is being requested, or whether it is a task that can easily be done by a bot, or why a bot is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review the page NEXA

Dear editors, I request you all to visit my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexa and help me in making it more efficient. I have taken care of all the parameters for making this page. I will appreciate the helps of any kind. Thank you Edito Freak (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Edito Freak: I don't believe that you took into account the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT as parameters that must be followed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@TRPoD, I will take into due consideration the points you raised. I am working on them and I believe to improve myself and my contributions.

Thank You Edito Freak (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Edito Freak: you will need to remove pretty much everything : "premium" , "leading" , claims of "new" "first" "innovative" "only" . everything only supported by Press releases. etc etc.

any other analysis must be attributed to the person making the analysis, and those analysts must be noted professionals from reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with TRPoD regarding judicious use of the term "premium" in the article NEXA; per multiple reliable sources cited, that seems to be a term for a class of automobiles, apparently analagous to the "luxury" automobile classification used in the United States. (I'm afraid I am not familiar with terms used for different classes of vehicles in other English-speaking markets.) Thus "premium" is here descriptive rather than evaluative, and does not in itself violate NPOV. The article as a whole does still contain other promotional language which needs to be removed or rewritten, even though both Edito Freak (who created the article) and I have removed some. However, on the whole, with sufficient references to reliable sources, substantial coverage by same, and a base of facts beneath the veneer of promotional puffery, the article seems to be shaping up well. It may well be that the topic seems like it shouldn't meet Wikipedia's notability standard, but the sources cited indicate that it does. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

we wouldnt use the descriptor "luxury" for US car without specifically attributing it to reliable sources either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What's happened to my article

I wrote an article, titled "Southern 80", a few weeks ago, but now I'm not sure what's happened to it. I believe I submitted it for checking and then publishing, and it said it might take a few days, but I'm not sure what's happened - and I'm finding the Wikipedia user interface a bit awkward to use/overwhelming. So hoping someone can point me in the right directionJminchin80 (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jminchin80. It's here. --John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jminchin80! For future reference, you can always access your contributions list by clicking the "Contributions" link at the top-right of every page. In this case, your contributions are viewable at Special:Contributions/Jminchin80. As John mentioned, your article draft appears to be here — and it doesn't look like you've submitted it for review. You can do so by placing {{subst:Submit}} at the top of the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, it has not been submitted for review. If I were reviewing it in its current state, I would not accept it. It's quite well written, but unfortunately good prose is not what qualifies an article for publication. You need reliable, independent sources writing about it in detail. Your sources are not that. The sponsoring club is not independent, and a magazine published by an insurance company is of dubious reliability. What you need are magazine (mainstream magazines, not trade or advertising publications) or newspaper stories. Water skiing a couple miles killed me, even as a teen. Can't imagine doing it for a hundred miles. Good luck. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks very much for your feedback. I did have that concern when I submitted the article, regarding references. For a niche activity like this, which does not feature in mainstream media, nor for which there are any books published, how would you suggest I find some reliable sources? I can try to use the newspaper from the town which the water-skiing event is held, but apart from this sources do not exist. Look forward to your response, and thanks again for the help. Jminchin80 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, coverage in mainstream media is pretty much what qualifies a subject for an article. Lacking coverage in magazines, books, newspapers, tv & radio news, or trusted academic journals, a subject just doesn't qualify for an article. For certain subjects, and events are one, that coverage has to be from a widespread area. So Altho adding things from the local paper will not hurt, it may not get you over the hurdle either. FYI, I did decline your article, and in the process of reviewing it, moved it to Draft:Southern 80. John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

George Bell (bishop)#Child abuse allegations: 1. Questionable editing practices, 2. POV

Hello. George Bell (1883-1958) rightly enjoys a high standing for his courageous stance against area bombing during the 2nd World War, and later against expulsions of ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. But as of this month it would seem that he was also a child abuser. I have two concerns about coverage of this emerging story on Wikipedia.

1. On two occasions (2015-09-08 and 2015-10-26) an IP has made an unencyclopedic edit and then undone it themselves a minute later. These IPs seem to have a reason for doing this, but it's not clear to me. Is this acceptable behaviour? If not, does something need to be done about it?

2. I'm considering placing a POV flag for the first time, as I think the current version casts more doubts on the allegations than can be justified by the sources. Should I just be bold and do this, or should I talk it through with someone first? GroupCohomologist (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GroupCohomologist.

1. I don't know what the IP's reason for doing what you describe could have been, unless it was something like a kid playing around on mom's or dad's computer and making unencyclopedic edits, which the parent then reverted.

2. If I was you I'd just be bold and do it. Accusing someone (even posthumously) of being a child abuser, or anything else along that line, without having reliable sources to back it up is slander. He may have been a child abuser and he may not have, but until we have more sources we can't know. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Given that high quality sources including The Guardian and the BBC are reporting that compensation has been paid to the victim, and that a police investigation stated that Bell would be arrested if he was still alive, and that the Church of England has issued a formal apology for Bell's conduct, I think that the sourcing is very strong, White Arabian mare. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that GroupCohomologist was saying that we were not stressing the accusations strongly enough, that we were saying less thqan the sources warrant, Cullen328. By the way, White Arabian mare in US (and I believe UK) law, it is not possible to slander or libel a dead person, as I understand it. DES ^(talk) 00:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In those cases, the accusations need to be stressed more strongly. I'm going to say that in general, though, I don't really like cleanup tagging and almost never use it; to me it's easier just to fix the problem. Most of the time it seems like the tags just languish indefinitely and don't get removed even if the issue is cleared up. :( White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Thank you very much to White Arabian mare, Cullen328 and DESiegel for taking time to comment. I had "brevity is the sould of wit" drummed into me as a child; but unfortunately this time I was so concise that my concerns were unclear at first. Sorry about that.

May I trouble you with some more detail on my first concern? The story officially broke on 2015-10-22, but earlier on 2015-09-08 a MAC address pre-announced the story: factually accurate, but phrased in an unencyclopedic way and of course unsourced. Two minutes later they removed their own contribution. Then on 2015-10-26 an IP address added a (potentially libellous) PA on the victim, deleting their own contribution one minute later. Of course, the AGF explanation would be that both editors quickly realised that they had made an honest mistake. But the bad faith explanation would be that this is a neat way to get your message out to those watching the page, who can't easily answer back. Is this legitimate behaviour, or is it gaming the system? GroupCohomologist (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

GroupCohomologist there is no way to know what the IP editor's motive was, nor is there much of anything we could do about it even if we thought the motive was to "game the system". However, such an almost instantly self-reverted post isn't a very effective way to "get the word out" as only those who read the article history will ever see it (which usually means only those who edit, many of whom will know better than to accept unsourced info anyway), and Google and other search engines are very unlikely to pick it up. And anyone watching the page could post on the talk page about the edit, with a link to the diff, if it seemed worth responding to. One could also post on the IP's talk page. DES ^(talk) 13:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanny I believe this should be a disambiguation page, but i can't change the title CokeAndVodka (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @CokeAndVodka: welcome to the Teahouse!

The page in question is in fact a disambiguation page. It just does not have a disambiguation (in parens) after its name - because there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which would be appropriate to place in the un-disambiguated use of the name.

For your overall question, articles are not "renamed" - they need to be moved to a different name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi CokeAndVodka. That is a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are only given the parenthetical addition "(disambiguation) if the base title – the title without any embellishment – has a primary topic. So for example, if a particular title has four topics people might be searching for, about equally, then when they type that topic into the search and land on the page listing all four (a disambiguation page at the base title), they can reach their goal upon a second action of clicking on the one of the four they were seeking.

However, if 92% [for example] of all people who type a term or phrase into the search engine are looking for only one of four topics by the same title, it would inconvenience many more people to have to "click twice" if the base term led to a disambiguation page. So the article on that much-more-likely-to-be-searched-for topic (the "primary topic") is at the base name, the disambiguation page is given a title with "(disambiguation)" added (and a hatnote is added at the top of the primary topic base page directing the other 8% to the disambiguation page). Make sense? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Snow Bowl (2008)

The originating unregistered editor requested, at the Help Desk, a review of Draft:Snow Bowl (2008). I neither declined nor accepted, but used the Comment feature to ask questions that, in my view, involved notability. The unregistered editor has now asked me to explain in the article draft and on their talk page at more length. Since this forum is the usual place for discussing declined drafts, I am asking for the opinion of other reviewers and experienced editors here. It isn't clear from the draft why the game is notable as a Snow Bowl, because there is nothing unusual about playing American football in light snow under slightly-below-freezing conditions. Maybe I should have done a lot more research into when there should be articles about individual post-season games before the Super Bowl. In any case, I am asking for comments by other editors here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• valid decline non promotion the New York Daily News is a tabloid and a single reference to that publication does not establish that the subject has received significant coverage from reliably published sources that are independent of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

About references

WikiPedia asks for references. In the article there are at least 3 external hyperlinks that appoints to the existnce of this person. Why are these hyperlinks denied by saying there are none ?? 81.205.214.61 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

These two edits to this question are the only posts that have been made from your IP address. If a draft was declined, I would suggest that you, first, provide a link to the draft, and, second, register an account to facilitate discussion and a contribution history. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia requires not merely links that "demonstrate" the existence, but reliably published sources with a reputation for accuracy, subject matter expertise and editorial oversight that are not related to the subject and have found the subject worthy of discussing in a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

To be a "reference", those reliable sources spoken of are not just listed in a vacuum. It is not a "reference" unless it's ... well ... being used as a reference. A "link" could be to an extremely reliable source, as described above, but it would still not be a "reference" as we mean it, simply by virtue of its listing in some ambiguous manner alongside the content. Rather, a reference is a special kind of listing where we are telling readers, in effect, "this source we are listing corroborates (verifies) the information in this article". Ideally, pointers to references are done through the use of inline citations, so you can tell exactly where the information in some specific portion of text can be corroborated. When a link is places in an "external links" section, "further reading" section, or otherwise does not explicitly indicate it is "a reference", it would be folly to treat them as references and so we don't. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline of Draft:Bukarester FC

I declined Draft:Bukarester FC at Articles for Creation, and have been asked by User:Alexiulian25 on my talk page why I declined it. As I explained in my decline, I didn't see adequate evidence of notability, including that it wasn't clear that the team met the fully professional standards of WP:NFOOTY. (I realize that those rules are primarily meant for players, but I was using them for a team also.) The submitter says that the team is notable, but there isn't a whole lot of information on it because it only existed a few years before it folded during World War One. I realize that means that there is a shortage of reliably sourced independent coverage. I also noted that the article would require heavy copy-editing for grammar. What is the opinion of other reviewers and experienced editors? Was I justified in asking the author to include more information, such as at least a clear statement that the team was in Liga, and was I justified in expecting the submitter to request the heavy copy-editing before submission? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• valid decline the article fails to establish the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• valid decline I agree with TRPoD. Nowhere near notable enough. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

move proposal

Am I allowed to make a move proposal as an I.P. without an account? 92.19.28.191 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Although it is always best to make your account and get registered, as far as my Wikipedia understanding of policies is concerned anyone can propose that but you must have a good reason for that. Any autoconfirmed experienced editor may then move it on your behalf. Hope that helps. JugniSQ (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So you may request page move. JugniSQ (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Am new editor, have seen note that my article has close paraphrasing, but no info/detail is included. How to resolve?

I have just posted my first article on Wikipedia. The article was an original piece of work, with many references added. None of the article was cut and pasted or copied from elsewhere. However, there is now a banner that says the article contains "close paraphrasing". I have no idea which section of the article is being referred to, but I definitely have not "closely paraphrased" anything ... how do I clear this issue up and remove the banner? Thanks. WikiForester (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Continuous Cover Forestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, WikiForester, and welcome to the Teahouse. The tag was added by Adam9007. You can leave a message for that editor on User talk:Adam9007, or perhaps he or she will see this thread and respond here as to what sections of the article included close paraphrasing of what sources or works. The article history shows what user made which changes, and can often be used to reach out to the editor who made a change, asking for reasons. It is good practice in such a case to leave a comment on the article talk page with more detail than a tag can provide, to aid editors who wish to fix issues raised in a tag. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiForester, the copyvio detection tool finds significant overlap with http://www.ccfg.org.uk and with https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260031518_Continuous_cover_forestry_in_Britain_challenges_and_opportunities. You might want to check for similar phrases and sentence structures with those sites. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

As per DESiegel, you can use the copyvio detection tool to see where the similarities are with which web pages. Adam9007 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Adam9007, when you tag an article and an editor then asks why, it would be helpful to indicate what sort of problems you actually found. This is especially true with a comparatively new editor, as per WP:BITE. For the matter of that, it would really be better practice in a case like this for you to have proactively left a note on Talk:Continuous Cover Forestry describing the issues you found in more detail than a tag supports. I do this frequently. Moreover, while the copyvio detection tool is excellent at detecting actual copying, it is not as good at finding close paraphrasing, and my use of it was merely a guess at what you might have found. Please tell us at least what works you found paraphrasing of that induced you to place the tag. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, but I am the co-author of the paper you quote, and do not feel there is an issue with the close paraphrasing. I wrote the article in my own style and added all the references I thought necessary. There is no copyright issue and there is no issue with the underlying ideas. So, I really do not feel that "close paraphrasing" applies. Grateful for any further clarification or preferably remove of the tag for "close paraphrasing". Thanks for your help. WikiForester (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiForester, do understand that even if you were the sole author of the paper, given that it had been previously published, Wikipedia will treat it as copyrighted and will not allow it to be copied from or closely paraphrased unless it is freely released. See Donating Copyrighted Material for details on how to do that. I have often speedy-deleted direct copies of other sites even though the posting editor says that s/he runs the site and wrote the content. For one thing we need to verify that, and for another we need a clear release. DES ^(talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed more of the concerns raised by editors, thanks for careful review, but now want to remove the messages and headers. For example, there is no longer close paraphrasing, no longer a lack of links to other wiki pages and also there are additional references in all the locations suggested by the editors. A wide range of sources all freely available as downloads have been carefully selected. There remains the issue of linking from other websites ... but that is a job I will have to do another time. Thanks for helping to now clean up the page and remove the notices WikiForester (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @WikiForester: I had a look and it seems as if you dealt with the close paraphrasing issue nicely (at least the tool is happy now). I've also removed the COI tag as that is only appropriate if the topic is being discussed in a biased way, which I can't see in the article. That leaves the lack of wikilinks to and from other articles, but that shouldn't be too hard address with a bit of casting around. Once that is done, you can remove the respective tags from the article yourself (it's the first four lines). Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

References cleanup - where is the Reflinks tool now?

What happened to the Reflinks tool for references cleanup? Is there something else available now to do these tasks? --Djembayz (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Djembayz. It has turned into reFill, available under Tools at the left hand side of pages. It has some limitations (Internet Explorer doesn't cooperate and put's # in instead) and some editors will revert it because of the way it formats some things. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Will give it a try and see if it gets reverted. --Djembayz (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Djembayz and StarryGrandma: Reflinks is available at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py I believe that reFill is a similar tool from a different person. I had to set an item in my preferences to get reflinks to appear on the left side tool list, it is there now. Reflinks also has some limitations -- it tends to stuff things into title that should be separate, but it is usually an improvement over a bare url cite. DES ^(talk) 13:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Djembayz and DESiegel: Thanks DES! I tried it on my Samples page and it does a much better job. First it leaves one in the editor after making changes making it easy to fix up, and shows the diff so you can see just what happened. It uses "publisher=" for the publisher instead of "work=". I couldn't find anything to set in preferences but copied this from your common.js to mine:

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
$(function () {
 mw.util.addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + mw.config.get('wgPageName')
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=20&lang=" + mw.config.get('wgContentLanguage'),
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

StarryGrandma (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Advice on article rejected for notability?

Hello, I've been working hard on getting the article Draft:Wei_Dai published:

• Worked on the article for a while before submitting for review.
• After the initial rejection, I made dozens of improvements.
• I asked the reviewer for suggestions, but never got a response.
• Did my best to read through WP:REFBEGIN and WP:PEOPLE and find reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• I asked for more info on the "Articles for creation help desk". No reply.
• I contacted other editors who are working on related articles, but did not receive any constructive advice.
• After many more edits, moving my user space version to Draft: namespace and merging content from existing draft, I submitted the article again. It was rejected.

Part of the problem here is that it is difficult to establish notability for a cypherpunk who deliberately avoided media attention, interviews, etc.

Considering the influence his projects have had, plus the many sources which do mention him (although briefly), I am confused what more is needed?

Reliable sources that are independent of the subject:

• New York Times.
• Wall Street Journal.
• The Sunday Times.
• The Register.
• Business Insider.
• The Washington Post.
• Engadget.
• IEEE Spectrum.
• University of Maryland, Department of Mathematics.
• Journal of Peer Production
• Unenumerated - Blog of world-famous cryptographer Nick Szabo
• International Association for Cryptologic Research.

I'm close to giving up... am I wasting my time with this? -- JonathanCross (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JonathanCross. I'm afraid you may be. I haven't looked at your references, but just on the basis of what you've written here, somebody who has "deliberately avoided media attention" may well not be notable. You say "the many sources which do mention him (albeit briefly)" (emphasis mine). Brief mentions are not generally enough to establish notability. I am become increasingly clear that "notability" is a very unfortunate word for the Wikipedia concept, because people repeatedly assume (reasonably) that it means famous, influential, significant, popular or some thing like that. It doesn't mean any of these. The way I think of it is that it means "there is enough independent, reliably published, material about the subject to make it possible to write an article on the subject". If Wei Dai is often mentioned in articles on something else, he may well appear in a Wikipedia article about that something else; but do those mentions, even taken together, allow one to put anything significant into the article. As I say, I haven't looked at your references - this is just in response to what you've said above. I hope this helps. --ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response ColinFine.

"there is enough independent, reliably published, material about the subject to make it possible to write an article on the subject"

(Emphasis on the word "enough" added by me)

There is a lot of sourced information there, so it doesn't seem to be a quantity issue from what I can tell, but more that subject does not have mainstream articles about him as a person. Do their accomplishments not count towards notability?

do those mentions, even taken together, allow one to put anything significant into the article

Would you mind taking a look at the draft? (I of course feel there is an abundance of "significant" information in the article. :-)

If it is true that Wikipedia will not allow this article to be published (shame), then I'd like to somehow alert others not to waste their time the way I did. Can I add a note on Talk:Wei_Dai pointing to the draft? -- JonathanCross (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Jonathan. No, I think an article is possible here – and you're close. Some possible additional sources for you to mine from (I haven't looked in depth at these, just giving you some options): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. For the book sources you might use the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books to easily get the citation to place (though I always tweak its output, usually adding location information; changing the name format to last, first; changing the exact publication date to just the year; and most importantly, the page parameter always needs fixing: either add an end page for the range, or remove the en-dash – then hit make citation and copy the code). This is more of a general note, but to the extent relevant remove any extra citations to less reliable sources where they are just added to give a veneer of more sources. That detracts from articles, makes them more difficult to review and is actually a red flag for reviewers that often correlates to non-notability by overcompensation for lack of reliable, in-depth sourcing existing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I'll check out those references (seems they are considered more reputable) and remove some of the less notable ones as you suggest. Cheers, -- JonathanCross (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Wei Dai is certainly notable enough for an article. Jaldous1 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

He seems notable to me too. He's relevant for several things, which means a separate article may be preferable over mentioning him in another article (on a topic he is relevant to). Avoiding media in itself doesn't mean he can't be notable; there seems a lot of coverage anyway, and he doesn't necessarily need to be the main topic of reports, as long as his role in the main topic of those reports is significant. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability per WP:BASIC. Gap9551 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is owner and controller of Wikipedia?

Yes, I know, it's the Wikimedia Foundation, but who controls it? There must be some boss or so. --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Like all American non-profit and charitable organizations, it has a board of trustees. Please see Wikimedia Foundation#Governance - Arjayay (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ueberwolf (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ueberwolf. The executive director of WMF is Lila Tretikov, but the WMF has no day-to-day editorial control over Wikipedia content. That is in the hands of volunteer Wikipedia editors like you and I. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, thank you, but there are e.g. administrators and bureaucrats who have to control the WP e.g. that there are no lies in WP, but only the truth aso.. --Ueberwolf (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Ueberwolf, but our administrators and bureaucrats are just volunteer editors who are trusted with additional powers. They are not paid. The responsibility for maintaining accuracy though verifiability is the job of all editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but buraeucrats e.g. cannot be degraded anymore and if they are for whatever reason blocked they can unblock themselves. So they have a major power, don't they? --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't they? --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Follow up to "Blacklist/blocked-link error in error?" question yesterday

Hi PrimeHunter and JohnBlackburne Thanks for helping me investigate. I have had to post a new question here because I was stopped from "editing" / adding a reply to your responses again with the Blacklist/blocked-link error. The last page I tried to edit was Cravath, Swaine & Moore just to delete "Swaine2012" in order to fix the cite error which I think you will see there presently. It is not always the same page but I don't recall the other pages in this moment. I don't believe I have tried to add templates (not sure I know how). I will meanwhile check for possible malicious code on my machine. Thanks! remando (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look and had no problems fixing it by changing the names of both definitions so they were distinct. There is probably a more elegant way to do it, as the refs are almost identical differing only by a page number, but it fixed the error. I did not encounter any problems such as you described. I am just an autoregistered editor like you so you should have been able to make the same or a similar edit.

To be more particular over what you might check it could be a rogue browser extension or plugin. They are used to do things like ad-blocking but can do almost anything including things you don’t want. They operate within the browser which might explain why you are seeing a problem just editing. You might also try using another browser to see if it makes a difference.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The template {{Rp}} can be used, to give a page number after the reference. It would look like this.¹ It's far from ideal but it is one solution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

Thank you JohnBlackburne and Rich for helping with my troubleshooting! I am on different machine this afternoon to see if it makes a difference. I was just blocked again from editing in this space a few minutes ago using the same browser as before (Chrome) but now I am trying with a new browser, so fingers crossed you will be able to see this message from me. remando (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC) It worked! Thanks again! remando (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. for anyone else with this issue, I removed all Chrome extensions and can successfully edit via Chrome now. remando (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:TAFI -->Comedy horror

I am posting here on behalf of the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject, calling out to any newbies who would like some genuine editing experience under the guidance of some experienced editors. This collaboration sees a group of editors come together to work on improving one article over a week, and is a fantastic opportunity for any Wikipedian. The current TAFI article is comedy horror.--Coin945 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to move two different article pages to acknowledge incorporation of new municipality in Minnesota

In reference to the page "Rice Lake Township, St. Louis County, Minnesota", and the unrelated page "Rice Lake, Minnesota" (Clearwater County). Request to move two pages.

Incorporation as a municipality is now an established fact for the Rice Lake in St. Louis County. It is no longer a civil township. The article page name should be changed. The page should be moved and updated with city status. The former Rice Lake Township incorporated as the city of Rice Lake on October 22, 2015. In an order dated August 20, 2015, Minnesota Administrative Law Judge Barbara Case ruled that the township "has established the relevant factors by a preponderance of the evidence, and therefore Rice Lake Township's petition for incorporation is granted." The incorporation effort began in June 2014. On October 13, 2015, residents of Rice Lake turned out to elect their first city mayor, and their city councilors. The results of the election were certified. The first city council meeting of Rice Lake was held on October 22, 2015. Cite the following reference.

The name of the article page for the now former township should be changed to simply "Rice Lake, Minnesota". There is currently another article with the page name "Rice Lake, Minnesota", but that is a Census-designated place in Clearwater County, Minnesota. That page name also needs to be changed to "Rice Lake (CDP), Minnesota" in order to disambiguate between the two different pages. This should happen to acknowledge the legal change that has recently commenced as a result of the incorporation of Minnesota's newest city. Changes should happen to both of these existing pages. They both need to be moved and updated, the Rice Lake in Saint Louis County, and the Rice Lake in Clearwater County.—AlphaTaxonomy (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)