Wikipedia:Teahouse

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.

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

Most recent archives
1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237

Confusing feedback from different reviewers

I'm working on my first Wikipedia submission, a profile of Jon Lee (volleyball). The first reviewer said I needed more references, which I added. The second reviewer said that the submission didn't meet the "notability" standards, which left me incredulous. Do you have a sports editor or someone I can work with to figure out what additional information and/or references I need? Thanks.

Mdelapa (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload an image that is a graphic?

I am having trouble to upload an image, i do know where it fits. It is a graphic that is crucial for the article I am writing. It is not free, it belongs to ArtTactic Deloitte, but with the due quoting its legal to use it. How can I upload it?Yurenni23 (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yurenni23 and welcome to the Teahouse. You most likely can't use the graphic. If it's possible for you (or anyone else) to make a graphic that contains the same information as the existing one - as is the case with most maps, charts, tables, diagrams and other graphics - then due quoting (or "non-free content use" as we call it) is not possible. This is because our non-free content policy is stricter than fair-use. Specifically, such use would fail the no free equivalent criteria. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's Talk Page

I had an entry removed recently by an admin and wanted to discuss edits to the page in order to have it reinstated, but I'm not seeing anywhere at the bottom of their talk page to discuss changes. It's my first article and I'd like any help I can get to ensure it meets guidelines.

Bfmaccount (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bfmaccount, welcome to the Teahouse. Just go to Jimfbleak's talk page - User talk:Jimfbleak - and click the "New section" tab at the top of the page to create a new section on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Bfmaccount. When you visit a user's talk page, you can click on the New section tab at the top of the page. You can also go to the last entry on the page that has a side edit link, click edit, then create a new section below the last of the text by placing a title with two equal signs on either side, and then posting below that, e.g.,

==Title==

Text of your message--~~~~

Or you can do the same after clicking "edit" at the top of the user's talk page. I have looked at the entry deleted by Jimfbleak (who will now be pinged to this post) and note that it was a copyright violation of this website. Unless you wrote that material, it was also plagiarism, as it presented it as if it was your own writing.

If you are the owner of the text, we could only use it if you or someone else with ownership over the copyright released it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain) and provided that release in a verifiable way; we could not use it simply with permission for use here. If applicable, some of the the methods for providing a copyright release/freely-licensing are given at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please don't copy and paste previously published material again. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the author of the material, but it was originally posted under an account that was unusable due to its name being the same as the Wiki article (Username was Baldorfoods) - is that where the plagiarism is being noted?

I've pared down the material significantly to avoid being promotional/advertorial. Is there another option outside of releasing any copyrights? Bfmaccount (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not if you want to use previously written material in the same form, or closely paraphrased. Most business owners and others with a conflict of interest coming here to promote their business would not want to give up the copyright to their website text, and for good reason. Usually it's far too promotional to use anyway (though Baldor's website material is not nearly as promotional as what we often see). Also, any article will not be acceptable unless it meets notability standards by citation to reliable, secondary, independent sources, e.g., material like this this, this and this. Be aware that an entry here cannot be controlled by its subject; being the subject of an article does not give the subject any "ownership" over the content. So, if sources publish unflattering material, as seen in the last source, that very well might make its way into any entry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wikia community central

Please could I ask is Wikipedia part of wikia community central or is it two different sites?LoVeNoTwAr101 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, LoVeNoTwAr101. There is no formal affiliation between Wikipedia and Wikia. The indirect connection is that Jimmy Wales co-founded Wikipedia and then later started Wikia as a private business venture. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know if something is "of note"

Hi everyone, long time user, first time editor. I'm currently working on a paper about a recent sexual harassment scandal at a New York law office. I was surprised in my initial research to not find a Wikipedia entry. The firm has taken on a number of larger companies in addition to the scandal, but I'm not sure if that makes them noteworthy. Wanted to get some thoughts and advice. Thanks! Hellstormer (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is notable (click on that blue word for a full explanation) if and only if it has been written about in reliable independent published sources. That is the only criterion. I don't know what you mean by "taken on a number of larger companies" (started fights with them? hired them as lawyers?) but it's not relevant. Maproom (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be relevant if it has been reported in independent sources, which would help establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the description, there are two things that come to mind:

1) even if the "scandal" has been the subject of non-trivial treatment in reliable, secondary, independent sources (i.e., the core standard to establish notability of a topic), it still might not warrant an entry. See the notability guideline on events; and

2) any such article describing negative material, allegations of sexual misconduct, etc., must be verified through inline citations to high quality sources (from the first edits), especially with respect to any material involving living people. Please see also WP:CRIME. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost draft?

Hi I've just opened an account (3 Dec) and went to look for the draft of a piece I'm writing on a British government film organisation in WW2 but can't find it. I thought it would be there when I logged on - my user name comes up ok - but there doesn't seem to be any way to discover what's happened to my draft. When I tried to ask a question in the Help page it said I couldn't as I don't have an account, but I do (I think!)....I've tried sub pages etc. Your help/guidance would be most appreciated. Thanks PAULFSARGENT (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PAULFSARGENT. This is the only contribution you have made under this username. You could try using the search box with some key words.Charles (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and if you can't find it that way, check whether you have created two accounts with similar names, or possibly were not logged in when you created the draft. If you have a fixed IP address, then look for contributions from that address. Dbfirs 21:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can try logging out and clicking Special:MyContributions if you were not logged in at the time and still have the same IP address. Or you could just tell us the name of the organisation so we can look for it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete a messed up draft and write a new one

Hello I was working on a draft article. and it has been rejected several time due to some formatting issue and absence of in-line references. Though I have corrected it now..it looks like all messed up. can I delete the draft and make a new one totally fresh?Sathyamvada (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sathyamvada, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is rarely a need to delete an article completely and then to start a new one. If you don't like the formatting, you can replace it. In fact, you can replace all of the content of the draft article if you wish. That is to say, you can delete and replace the content, but I don't see the need to delete the article itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if you abandon an article altogether and don't want it any more, you can request deletion by adding the following code at the top of the page: {{db-userreq|rationale=Draft article I no longer need.}} (you can put whatever explanation you want in the "rationale"). An Administrator will see that and clean it up.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary and Middle Schools

I looked at schools that have articles on them in my state and they are all high schools. Is there a restriction on adding articles about schools below a high school in grade level or can I add articles about elementary and middle schools?ShadowDragon343 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShadowDragon343 - There's no restriction, per se, but non-secondary schools have to pass the general notability guidelines (or GNG, as you'll see it referred to). Very few elementary/middle schools can meet that criteria. Wikipedia works on consensus, and per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, a secondary school generally only has to show it exists and is accredited in order to be eligible for their own article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So unless say a to be president went to one or a major news event happened there then it can not be added? Okay thanks!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that wouldn't count to making the school notable. Notability is neither inheritable or transferable. There has to be significant independent coverage of a school in order to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a primary school needs to be of historical or architectural significance to be notable enough for an article. If the school is on the National Register of Historic Places in the US, or a similar official list in another country, that would be strong evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm having difficulty following your reasoning here, Cullen328. If a school is housed in a building that meets our notability requirements (and I agree that listing on a national register of historic buildings would go a long way towards establishing that), wouldn't we then want to have an article on the building, regardless of who the current occupant happened to be? And to have an article on the school only if it was notable for its activities and achievements? A school cannot inherit the notability of the building it happens to be using, any more than any other tenant can. I grew up in a listed building, but even that can't make me notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

someone deleted what I wrote yesterday

Why?

And how do I complain?

Radical Jazz Woman (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Radical Jazz Woman, and welcome to the Teahouse. The changes you made to Cal Massey (which are summarized here) were reverted by editor Chubbles with this edit, with the comment that they did not conform to Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view and using reliable sources. If you wish to discuss whether those changes should be included in the article, the best place to do that is to start a discussion thread on the article's Talk page, at Talk:Cal Massey. If so, the discussion will centre around what can be verified in reliable sources, and iTunes is not generally considered reliable for comments like "Massey was shut out of recording because of his radical politics", so you might like to collect some other references to back it up first.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the photo you added, as, given your assertion on Wikimedia commons that you own the copyright on the photo and agree to license it for use by anyone (including commercial use without compensation), it is a useful addition to the article. It would be useful for you to add on commons when you took the photo, as currently this is listed as yesterday's date. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I work with Musicians that PLAY the music of Mr Massey.

One of those Musicians is a protege of Fred Ho and what I said came from the mouth of Fred Ho who ALSO wrote extensively about Cal in his book Naked Practice

Radical Jazz Woman (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Jazz Woman, I have good news and bad news.

The bad news is that, unfortunately one cannot use private statements from persons to verify claims in an article. Wikipedia content needs to be based on published, reliable sources that people can check for themselves. The policy discussing this is called the "No Original Research" policy, and, although it seems restrictive at first, it is a necessary policy for building a reliable encylopedia.

The good news is that the book you mention, Naked Practice, would be an excellent source. The things that Fred Ho says about Massey can be written into the Cal Massey article. Please have a look at Wikipedia:References for beginners for guidance in using this book as a reference.--LukeSurl^{t c} 15:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an official teahouse host but Radical Jazz Woman, I am concerned about the status of the image you uploaded as being yours.[1]. It looks as if it might be a scan of a print of a photo taken by someone else. If it is, the copyright holder might justifiably feel aggrieved and have cause to complain. It is easy to get muddled about copyright and if that has been the case here, a proper Teahouse host may be able put you on the right path. SovalValtos (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like a photograph or scan of a newspaper picture that uses stippling to obtain shades of gray, with the pixel frequency of the camera or scanner beating with the dot frequency of the printed image. The point is not that "the copyright holder might .. feel aggrieved", but that Wikipedia's lawyers require us to respect copyright law. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons – it could not have been taken on 2 December 2015 and is obviously taken from a print publication. Radical Jazz Woman, if you did really take that photograph of Cal Massey before he died in 1972 and still own the copyright (i.e., you did not cede it to whoever published the image), you can release permission to us by following the instructions here. If you do so, please put a note on the talk-page of the image to say that you have, or leave a note on my talk-page and I will do so for you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same article in different languages (Wikidata error)

Hello,

Someone had erranously linked the same article by two different synchronizations, and I can't fix it myself, unfortunately. Basically the same article was having two different wikidata-links. These need to be linked to each other;

The same version in other languages got lost as well due to this, (In the Azerbaijani, Georgian, and some other languages, but I cant find them right now...)

Is it some bug? Can anyone link them all together again? That would be great. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon, it quite often happens that more than one Wikidata item gets created for the same topic. I've merged two items so that the four pages above (and the Arabic version) are linked (not wholly without hesitation, as some of those pages are not just in languages that I don't know, but in scripts that I can't read). I'm going to ask Kober, who created the page here and who I believe to be a speaker of Georgian (another particularly beautiful script that I can't read), if he/she would be kind enough to tell us if there is also version on ka.wp that should be linked with these. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to do references

Hi, I am new here..I have edited before and know how to create links to articles but I need some help with references. I tried to add reference at this article using the formatted layout. When I copy the script from other references and replace with relevant details, it comes out fine. But when I try to add formatted script myself, I keep getting error. Can anyone please tell me what I doing wrong with the referencing. Thanks PSL Fan (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry, I have worked it out now. Thanks! PSL Fan (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear you got it sorted out, PSL Fan. The trusty copy-and-change technique works fine, and it's how I started. There is also a handy facility that gives you a fill-in-the-blanks form that you might like to try - there is a very short video showing how to do this, on YouTube here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do i tag someone?

I have an alternate account i created so i can use in public. its FrigidSoil. How I tag a user?Winterysteppe (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Template:User alternative account banner useful? --Jayron 32 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes reverted

I updated the revenue on Accenture's page according to their official financial report with proper citation but someone reverted the changes back to an incorrect figure and the citation provided by him is also of no relevance to the matter.so please,I want to know how should I respond to this? Whether I should revert it back to a correct one or let it remain as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.198.39 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. From your comments, I guess you are Dpshmrt even though you were not logged in when you asked this question. You are quite right about the revenue figure - the figure you gave is the one in the company reports. If somebody wants to change it, they will need to provide a better source. I have put it back. As for the lede, I avoided the problem by updating it with 2015 figures so there is no need to debate which source to use for old (2014) information. Thanks for bringing this to our attention; I have put that page on my Watchlist to monitor it for a while.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a new page

Hii, I am a new comer to Wikipedia and I want to learn how to create a new page. I want to create a page on a small town located in the Dhemaji district of Assam, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagat Subedi (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jagat Subedi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest that you have a read of the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article and then make use of Wikipedia:Article wizard when you are ready to get started. If you do that, you will get feedback on your submission from experienced editors, which will ensure that it complies with Wikipedia policies and significantly reduce the chance that it will be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page - It has been proposed for deletion - how do I overcome the objections

I created a page - Firebug (Dinghy)

It has been challenged on two grounds - relevance and promotional

I believe it is relevant because...

1. The design is the work of a highly significant boat designer. John Spencer (boat designer) 2. Over 1,000 of these boats have been built as part of a continuing programme. 3. Examples of the Firebug have been built in over 30 countries, often in places where resources for recreation are limited. 4. The class has been reported in multiple boating magazines. Watercraft (Highly respected UK publication), Wooden Boat (High circulation USA publication), Afloat (Australia and New Zealand) and Australian Amateur Boat Builder. 5. The large scale construction of boats at home was the foundation of mass dinghy sailing post World War 2. This activity has been greatly reduced with the availability of fiberglass craft, but the Firebug represents a significant number of people and community groups reverting to the earlier model.

Promotional?

(I regard) the content of the page as factual, but I have been connected with this global community for a decade, so it is difficult to avoid being partisan. I have waited all these years for someone else to write-up the Firebug on Wikipedia and no one has, yet many far less significant dinghy classes are documented.

I seek guidance to overcome the objections from more experienced users of Wikipedia

MRossV (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need references. For a specialist dinghy this is not as easy as it seems. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

Obviously this is likely to be from specialist press rather than major national dailies. Once you are sure that you have achieved it, you, yourself, may remove this particular type of deletion notice. Not other types, though. Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MRossV, and welcome to the Teahouse. The concern is not relevance, but notability. To demonstrate that a subject is notable in the sense that that is meant on Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You can do this by citing sources, as described at Help:Referencing for beginners. The multiple boating magazines you mention will help here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should look for coverage in books and major newspapers. books.google.com and news.google.com are good places to find generally appropriate sourcing although not all hits there are reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: editor Velella has removed the PROD tag. He/she is also helping with rewording and adding a reference, plus I added some as well - but it needs more since it is still tagged for Notability. MRossV, if you can provide details of any of the magazines you mentioned above that will help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, MRossV, WoodenBoat, published for over 40 years, is an excellent source for helping establish the notability of recreational boating topics. Keep working to improve this and related Wikipedia articles. Thank you, and I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - An independent editor has reviewed the article and removed the Notability tag. There are enough references to determine that it is notable, although more would still be better.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I initiated this page, I felt that it, and I were most inadequate.

I am deeply grateful for the efforts and encouragement made by more experienced users to make the page acceptable. I understand the removal of interrogations on the page mean it is now considered acceptable.

In simple naivety, thank you to all of you.

MRossV MRossV (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to reduce image size in articles?

I am working on an article in which I posted an image file for a photo I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It is showing in the article in its enlarged form. How do I reduce the size of the photo in the article? Also, what is the easiest/best way to change or eliminate the caption under an accepted photo in my articles? The caption usually shows up with the text used to describe the photo for public domain use, and that caption is not usually appropriate for a caption in an article. Thank you so much for your help.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitzi.humphrey I have updated your article with this edit to show you rather than try to explain. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for more info. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnails is the crucial bit here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you both for your help and advice.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):I can also recommend the excellent User:Yunshui/Images for beginners to help you sort out the pictures. w.carter-Talk 21:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article declined at Articles of Creation

Hi,

I am writing an article about a notable person. The issue is that the requirements to prove notability do not take into account circumstances in developing countries.

For instance, the individual I am writing about spearheaded the largest initiative for the Central Bank of the Dominican Republic. It is difficult to cite that because that organization did not have a website until fairly recently.

Is there someone I can chat with about this circumstance? I know it is not specific to me, but there has to be a way.

Thanks.

Azeremen12 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azeremen12: The general rule is, broadly, this: "For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."

We are not concerned about whether there is a website, just about references. If the individual is notable in our terms they will have been written about, so you ought to be able, in whatever language, online or offline, to find them. We cannot have one standard for one nation and another for another.

It's a great question, but the answer will always be consistent. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Draft:Leo Perez Minaya. (It would have helped if you had told us what the article was.) You say that he led the largest initiative for the Central Bank of the Dominican Republic, but that that is difficult to cite because they did not have a web site. Was that initiative covered in a newspaper or magazine, either in the US or in the Dominican Republic? It appears to me that the subject probably is notable but that independent reliable sources need to be added. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor contact

Hello. How do I contact a contributor to Wikipedia. Thanks, Tatanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.97.156 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tatanka, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you know the editor's name, then you can go to their user page by typing "User:" followed by the name into the search box, and then click on the "Talk" tab to go to their talk page. If you post a message there, the editor will see it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:JCI Insight

I reviewed Draft:JCI Insight at AFC and declined it as inadequately sourced. Its author, User:Hoptman, posted to my talk page, saying that the one reference may not have linked because the issue of the sister journal had not yet gone on-line, and suggested that I accept it now that the journal is on-line. My real concern was that there was only one reference, and that to its sister journal. Also, she identifies herself as an employee of the society that publishes the journals, and that is a conflict of interest. However, I would like the advice of other editors as to what the notability of academic journals. Is there a guideline for notability of journals? Does anyone have advice for the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is an academic journal, there is Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In that case, a new academic journal would be a case of WP:TOOSOON, because the criteria can't be evaluated yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

using a picture from German wikipedia

Hi, friendly people. I recently translated an article from the German wikipedia. (It's here: Wilhelm Neumann-Torborg). The German article included a picture of Herr Neumann-Torborg: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:NeumannTorborg.jpg I would have liked to include this image in the English article, but I don't know how to make it appear. Help please? Many thanks. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. There are two possibilities: You can try to upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons under an argument that copyright has expired, which seems highly likely. If you click on the image on German Wikipedia, you will see the data associated with the photo. The German editor who added it thinks copyright has expired but little is known about the origins of the photo, so that has not been proven. It would be up to you to convince the volunteers at Wikimedia Commons that it is copyright free.

The other option, which is easier but more limited, is to download the photo to your computer and then upload it here on English Wikipedia as a fair use image of a person who is dead. For details, please read WP:NFCI paying special attention to #10. In that case, the photo could only be freely used in the English biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to upload files, you must have a registered account at least four days old and must have made ten acceptable edits with that new account. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the artist died in 1917, if it can be shown that this photo was published in a book, newspaper or magazine while he was still alive, then it would indisputably be copyright free. Under US copyright law anything published before 1923 is free of copyright restrictions. US law governs because our servers and WikiMedia Foundation headquarters are in the US. The only hitch would be if it was a private family photo first published much later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't have any sources older than the '60s so I guess that means I would not be able to convince anyone that this picture is ok to use? Please let me know what other arguments would be convincing. I did a reverse image search but this image seems to have originated with the German wikipedia so there is no further information on it.184.147.121.46 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find any evidence of publication earlier than the appearance of the photo in the German Wikipedia, then I recommend that you proceed in accordance with WP:NFCI #10. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the required improvements

I have several notifications that there are parts of the page "Ahmed Abou Hashima" do not conform with the regulations of Wikipedia. Can you please highlight for me which parts need to be improved so I do the necessary changes.

Marwa bayoumi (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, don't panic - these can all be fixed. Those tags are there to help enhance articles, not to cause problems. The article Ahmed Abou Hashima was tagged for Notability, Original Research, Advert, and BLP sources by GenQuest on 3 October. Notability - I think this is a stretch considering the awards this gentleman has won, and there was an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Abou Hashima back in May 2014 - the decision was Keep. Advert - the article is certainly written in a promotional tone: I would like to see a lot more factual material about his career (which only gets a brief mention under "Background") and less on Awards (which currently takes up most of the article). Awards are great, but they generally come as a result of what he has achieved - and that is what most of the article should focus on. Original Research and BLP sources - there are a few statements that could have sources, or better sources, but one practical difficulty is that most of the main material is in Arabic, so many editors will have trouble contributing to it. It would benefit from having more references from outside the company; at the moment nearly half of the references are the company's own web site. Wikipedia is more interested in what other reputable sources say about the company, than what it says about itself. I'm sure other editors can help more, but I hope this is enough to get started.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of tone, Marwa bayoumi, wording such as "Egyptian Steel produces durable, high-quality steel using efficient, innovative techniques and with an eye towards energy efficiency" and "in the magnificent Jumeirah Emirates Towers" are far too promotional. The article needs to take a much more descriptive, neutral, encyclopedic tone. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are also major issues with the Egyptian Steel article - some of which is written in the voice of the company, not an encyclopedia: "As part of our social responsibility towards the community...". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the text of that article also turned out to be in violation of copyright, so I have had to remove it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Ahmed Abou Hashima has serious copyright problems, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit links in my user page?

Hi, My user page does not have language links. How can I add language links? MochaMilk (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MochaMilk, I'm not sure what you mean by language links. Do you mean the babel userboxes, that say something like, "this user speaks American English" or tells what other languages you speak, and within the userbox there's a link to the language's article? If so, you can find them at WP:UBX. Don't use ones for different languages unless you know that language, though. You're writing English, so you could have the English one in either American or British English, whichever you speak. There are also userboxes for dialects within the language. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if MochaMilk might mean links to their user page on other language versions of Wikipedia? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cordless Larry. I'm Nana. Can you tell me on how to add links to my user page on other language versions of Wikipedia? MochaMilk (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One way to do it is to use an interlanguage link. See Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links on this. What you need to do is add a colon, the two-letter language code and another colon before the page you want to link to, so to link to your user page on the Korean Wikipedia for example, you would use [[:ko:사용자:MochaMilk]], which produces ko:사용자:MochaMilk. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Jacob Riis also known as The Making of an American

I reviewed Draft: Jacob Riis. I declined it because Jacob Riis already exists. I advised User:Anonhiststudent that they were welcome to edit or add to the existing article. Anonhiststudent then posted to my talk page: "I'm trying to create an entry just for The Making of an American similar to How The Other Half Lives. It's supposed to be a standalone entry. Happy to fix it if that's the case." I am bringing this here for advice by other experienced editors. My advice would be that most of the draft is about the autobiography, and so it can mostly be left standing. The article should be renamed to Draft: The Making of an American, and the lede paragraph should begin with something like: The Making of an American’is the autobiography of Danish-American photojournalist and social activist Jacob Riis. Some information about the book, such as editions and versions, should be added. I think that the book is notable and should have an article. Most of the declined draft is about the book. The draft needs more wikilinks. It is mostly good.

When the draft is accepted, the author should edit Jacob Riis to wikilink in The Making of an American. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that The Making of an American is an existing article on a short silent film. Disambiguation will be required when the draft is ready for acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of two reviews and an obituary, the article is referenced mostly to the book itself. That's a primary source and we prefer independent secondary sources. What do other biographers of Riis and historians of the era say about his autobiography? Summarizing those accounts should be the backbone of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for wiki page

Hi - So I am having a really hard time figuring out how to differ from reliable sources and citations for my page. I know that's where my page is struggling with to get confirmed but I want to make sure I can get it submitted correctly.

Linaloe ximena (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linaloe ximena, you can start by searching Google books and Google news for books or articles about the subject of the article you're writing. Not everything on there is reliable, but what comes up is in general much more reliable as a source than what you get from a basic Google search. Most of the time, the search engine will also bring up the best sources on the first 2 or 3 pages. You can also ask at your local library. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Draft:Sheikh Omar. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of Sheikh Omar is already described both in Coffee and History of coffee. It is a matter of opinion whether a freestanding article about this legendary or mythical person is justified. Personally, I would want to see lengthy, detailed coverage in academic sources in order to have a new article about him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Trying To Help You Guys

I read an article about 'lingual frenectomy', the removal of a band of tissue (the lingual frenulum) connecting the underside of the tongue with the floor of the mouth. The Wiki article needed more information about the person who made a comment the Wiki writer had Posted. I quickly gathered up some specific information about the Professor, but was taken aback at what is involved just to suggest adding a Footnote for the missing details. I barely passed English in High School! I have no desire to BECOME a Wiki Contributor, I'm just a plain ol' guy trying to help YOU all! Please Re-Read what I wrote and change it as you like, or delete it entirely. Why would you ask for clarification about someone' s qualifications, yet make it like I must be some Scholar in this stuff? Honest, I DO want to help, but I'll not devote hours and hours to learn something I'd probably never need to use myself! I wish you the best (and YES, I've contributed to Wiki financially, but a fixed income prohibits my Donation being noticed... Best to you guys n grrls! Garry GarrySShelton (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Draft:Domenico Maceri. You are right, creating a new article is difficult, and not recommended for someone with no previous experience of editing Wikipedia. But what you did was a reasonable response to seeing the ^[who?] tag in the lingual frenectomy article. I have replaced the tag – perhaps inappropriately, I am not sure what the purpose of such a tag is. Maproom (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GarrySShelton and Maproom: If you hover your mouse pointer on the^[who?] tag until your pointer becomes a mitten it will display a tool-tip on what the tag is for. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try it: ^[who?]. Hmm. That paragraph, in the original context, would not have been helpful. There was no vague attribution, and no weasel words. Maproom (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect question

Take a look at this article List of Justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Judge Frank F Drowota III has a red link. It should be a blue link to just plain "Frank Drowota". Easy enough, but the name is written in a sortable box with a pipe between first and last names. How do you redirect to get a link between these two names for the same person? Please don't just correct it, but explain how you did it. Thanks Eagledj (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. {{sortname}} has a target parameter, see this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting familiar with Wikipedia markup stuff

I just started editing wikipedia (i've mostly stuck to grammar and spelling stuff) and i would like to find any information i can on the more complicated ways of wikipedia such as the programming language of sorts that is used for more intricate editing. If there are any resources that could be passed along it would be greatly appreciated. Subsolute z3ro (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Subsolute z3ro. Does Help:Cheatsheet provide the sort of help that you're after? There's also Help:Wiki markup, but that is much more comprehensive and contains lots of information that most editors probably don't need to know, at least initially. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I find this Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles very useful sometimes.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a subpage for needs like this, User:White Arabian Filly/Help for New Users, which has the basics for beginners. It may help you, since it shows how to make wikilinks, indents, and basic markup but doesn't get into the more complicated stuff. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Thomas J. Carroll need a sense for what to do next.

I'm working on my second Wiki article Draft:Thomas J. Carroll. I've made the changes that I think reflect what the original reviewer requested, but I haven't heard back yet. I would appreciate a quick view and suggestions on a) should I request someone new to accept / reject my article (and how do you do that) and/or b) what I should do in order to make it acceptable. (Suggestions for general improvements are always welcome). Note, regarding Thomas Carroll's notability, perhaps I went too far in making the article in a neutral tone. Among other things, he was clearly a pioneer in methods for training and rehabilitating the blind (just Google "thomas carroll pioneer blind"), but how do you say that without using adjectives like "pioneer"? Thanks!! RobSVA (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Note: I purposefully cited individual pieces of information within a section even if they were from the same place. This is so that if I add additional information in the middle, I don't have to go back to the source to check if all of it came from that source or just the last bit. RobSVA (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RobSVA, I'm not an expert on the drafts process, but if you want formal feedback from reviewers (you say you haven't heard back), I think you need to hit the "Resubmit" button. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Cordless Larry (talk)! I didn't really understand the problems that got me rejected in the first place (other than my formatting for citations that repeat) Instead of resubmitting and just getting rejected again, I'd like some real feedback first. RobSVA (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's always good to understand the issue before resubmitting, RobSVA, because otherwise it is likely to be rejected and possibly annoy the reviewers if they think their concerns haven't been addressed. Their concern here was that the notability of the subject has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The article certainly includes a lot of references, but I wonder whether any of these are about Carroll as a central topic, or whether they just mention him in passing? I haven't checked them all, but the titles suggest the latter. It would therefore be a good idea to find sources that are primarily concerned with Carroll, to demonstrate that there is significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding his being a pioneer, it's important not to confuse notability (as that term is used on Wikipedia) and importance. Notability here is really just about coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is very useful information: "Notability does not equal importance.". I totally misunderstood that. So, Notability is coverage in reliable, independent sources. The irony is that I added most of the references that are not centrally about Carroll until after I got the review about "notability" which I took to mean "important" and a limited number of references. I still need a bit of guidance on what the priorities are: newspapers, books, websites. I'm assuming that if an article is about him, the fact that the magazine that has multiple articles, is not a problem with regards to "...Carroll as a central topic, or whether they just mention him in passing". If so, then the Newsweek, Banks, and Lackner articles qualify as do the obituaries. Also, does an entry on Carroll in an encyclopedia fall in the same category? If websites count (I don't mean things like the Google Books), then a large portion if not most of the websites that I listed are primarily about Carroll. For example, the American Printing House for the Blind link is exclusively about Carroll. I assumed that I should minimize use of http://carroll.org because that is not necessarily independent, but perhaps I went too far.

Note: IF a reviewer wants me to put together a table on the references regarding the type and whether Carroll is central or peripheral, I can do that and/or I can point out the ones which best meet the criteria. RobSVA (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased that we're now on the same page as regards notability. A lot of new editors are confused by that. Newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, websites, etc. are all potentially good sources for establishing notability. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for advice on what is likely to be considered reliable (although note that not all reliable sources establish notability - keep in mind that the coverage has to be independent and significant). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably obituaries are independent. Are they third party or second party sources? RobSVA (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An obituary in a major newspaper would certainly help establish notability in my mind, RobSVA. An obituary written by a friend or colleague of the subject, published in a local newspaper, probably wouldn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

username change

i would like to change my username and use a nickname instead. where do I submit the request? thank you Stanislavzarubin (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stanislavzarubin. Instructions on chaning your username are given at Wikipedia:Changing username. I believe the form you need is at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion

please help me edit the article i've submitted. it was nominated for speedy deletion. i've provided credible sources and still. please take a look and let me know what needs to be changed or removed or added in order to avoid the deletion? thank you for you help Stanislavzarubin (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Matchpoint NYC. In view of the number of sources, I don't agree with tagging it for speedy deletion. If the proponent of deletion thinks that the sources don't establish notability, they can open a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion tag has been removed. If someone thinks that the subject isn't notable, they can go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources where subscription is required

I came across a featured article about X-File episode, where some references mentioned in light colour "subscription required". I clicked the link and the site asked for password. Some users say they have access to JSTOR and other sites which require subscription. Wikipedia editors pay money for editing? I think in talk page of the article, such user's name must be mentioned. The Avengers 12:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's more likely that editors' access to these resources is via university libraries, The Avengers. There are also a number of initiatives to give Wikipedia editors free access. See Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library for more info on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even my local community library gives me access to some resources that would normally need a subscription. Drop into your local library and have a chat; the librarians spent years learning their skills and in my experience they're keen to have an opportunity to use them to help somebody.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has arrangements with some database providers, such as JSTOR, to provide a limited number of free accounts for editors who meet certain requirements. Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases is the main page for finding out about what resources are available under this program. Clicking on any title in the list will bring up a page with more information about signing up for that resource. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism (unnoticed)

Why Vandalism even on important articles is not noted early. See [this.-Nimit (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, जैन. I was going to respond that List of statues by height is not a very prominent article and is therefore unlikely to be on many editors' watchlists, but checking the statistics, it actually has 115 watchers. Remember that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, though, and they have limited time to spend spotting and repairing vandalism, alongside all of the other editing tasks that they might be involved in. The best thing to do when you spot obvious vandalism is to deal with it yourself, as you did here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

creating new page.

I am new here . I want to create new page. Please explain.Shaan2005 (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a few useful links on your user talk page. Among them is WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Tower

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shanghai_Tower&action=history

Check the recent edits. I am not familiar with the subject. The Avengers 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess, thought it seems to be back together now. It looks like four users (Sino Student, Sino Teacher, Sino West, and Lazer ffffff) may not have realized they were changing the live article, and were playing about with making and over-writing changes. I have put messages on all their talk pages to alert them to it. I notice that almost none of them have ever made any other edits, apart from a similar change-and-revert to G.E.M. (singer), so I think as long as they don't do it again we can write this one off to a mistake.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help updating Marsy's Law

Hello, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia so I'm reaching out here to see if anyone can help update the entry on Marsy's Law, California's 2008 Crime Victims' Bill of Rights. In 2014, Illinois voters approved a constitutional amendment to strengthen its rights for crime victims. Marsy's Law in Illinois became law in 2015. The Illinois law is modeled after the California law, so it seems like it would be a good fit to include information on Marsy's Law in Illinois in the main Marsy's Law article. I have not made any of the edits because I have a financial conflict of interest and I know it is best not to update the entry myself. (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All). So far, I have posted my suggested edits on the Marsy's Law Talk page, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Law and on Talk pages of four editors who seemed interested in the topic, but no-one has assisted. Can someone here can offer any pointers or look at this request? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Marsy's Law is specifically about the California law. I would suggest that a separate article could be created about the Illinois law, and that the two articles reference each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JulieMSG - Robert McClenon's right, you've done enough research on it to start its own article. If you need help, get back to me on my talk page and I'd be more than happy to help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To deal with your conflict of interest, use the Articles for creation process and work with a reviewer on any bias in your draft. —teb728 t c 02:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon, onel5969 and teb728. Thanks for taking a look at my request and responding here so quickly. I have two questions: 1. Would you support a standalone article for Marsy's Law in Illinois even if it was short? 2. If a new article was created for the Illinois law, would you support adding a sentence or two to the California article so the two articles cross reference each other? I appreciate your feedback. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JulieMSG - I think there's certainly enough to warrant a standalone article, and I think it would be imperative to link the two. I think a mention of any laws which were prompted by the CA law would warrant a mention on the CA page, since that is a legacy of the CA law. Similarly, I think mention of the CA law on the IL page would also be warranted as part of the history of the law. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I continue a conversation that I started last week?

Last week I asked how to take the first steps toward organizing an Edit-a-thon. Cullen328 gave me some helpful suggestions (Thank you!). I'm only a part-time worker at the nonprofit where I'm organizing this Edit-a-thon, so I'm only just now getting back to this question. But it says this is an "old" or "closed" conversation, or words to that effect, and that I'm not allowed to "edit" it. Of course, "edit" is the wrong word for what I want to do. What I want to do is "continue" this conversation, by asking Cullen328 (or anybody, really) a new question. Am I allowed to do that? If so, How do I do it? When I find out how to ask a follow-up question, here are the questions I want to ask:

) I'm drafting the content for our Edit-a-thon page in my Sandbox. I have another experimental article in the Sandbox, with a reference at the end of it. This morning I wrote the draft of my Edit-a-thon page, in my sandbox, after the other experimental article. When I did, the reference from my experimental article jumped all the way to the bottom of the Sandbox, under the content for the Edit-a-thon page. I don't want that. How to I tell Mr. Sandbox that the new batch of content I wrote today is an entirely different article? Or an entirely different page?
) What's the difference between an "article" and a "page"?
) Can I start a new "article" or "page" in my sandbox? If I do, is that called starting a new sandbox?
) Am I allowed to have more than one Sandbox?

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grindall Reynolds. I've reformatted your questions above to make them easier to read. As you've found, once a question has been archived, you shouldn't edit it, so what you've done here is the best thing.

The answer to most of your other questions is: you can have as many user subpages (or "sandboxes") as you like. You start them by editing User:Grindall Reynolds/name of this subpage. The one named "sandbox" is special only in that there is a link to it from the top of the browser window. You can't usefully create more than one article in the same page, so I wouldn't recommend trying. "Article" and "page" are often used interchangeably (especially by people who don't understand that this is an encyclopaedia, and think that the can create a "page for" somebody or something ;-)). Used more carefully, a "page" includes many things that aren't articles: talk pages, project pages like this one, user pages etc. --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ColinFine.

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just great. Now I have an error message that say "User account "GrindallReynolds" is not registered. If you wish to use "GrindallReynolds" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username."

Except GrindallReynolds is already my user name. Bet you ten bucks that if i click the link that says "Wikipedia:Changing username," it will tell me I can't register that username because it's already taken (by me). This is very frustrating, and I really want to give up. Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if I do give up, then I will never learn how to create a subpage.

And if I never learn how to create a subpage, then I won't be able to move my Edit-a-thon page out of the sandbox and make it a subpage of "Meetup." Or of GLAM Wiki. I still don't know which one would be the right one for an Edit-a-thon about Henry David Thoreau sponsored by a library. Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Aside] As one who worked as a graphic designer (print) for decades, it drives me nuts that when I type more than one paragraph in one of these little comment boxes, the first paragraph is indented . . .

and the second one is flush left. Why does it do that? Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:GrindallReynolds is not registered and it is not the username you are using. Your username is User:Grindall Reynolds with a space between the "Grindall" and the "Reynolds". The software is that picky. Those are two separate username. -- GB fan 20:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GB Fan

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put a colon at the beginning of each new paragraph. That is the way the software works. -- GB fan 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Grindall Reynolds: The thing with the indentation

works like

this. You can

see it if you look

in the editing window. :)

I have left you some notes on how things work here on your talk page. Please create a new sandbox and experiment with things like this. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 20:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GB Fan and/or w.carter, who may or may nor be the same person. Do I type a return and THEN type a colon, or do I just type a colon and the software automatically replaces it with a return? If that's the case, how to I tell the software when I really want a colon to appear, I'm not using the colon as secret code for "start a new paragraph?"Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I figured out how to create a subpage (yay!). I copied the whole text of my Edit-a-thon page and pasted it into my brand-new subpage. I had to recreate all the links and formatting, which got stripped away in the copy-and-paste. It was a lot of work, but it was worth it.:Guess what?:It said I had something called an "edit conflict" and "The upper text area contains the page text as it currently exists (without your changes). Your version of the page (with your changes) is shown in the lower text area.":But there isn't an upper text area or a lower text area. There's jus a big text window with nothing at all in it except this:

REDIRECT User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage

From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

which Is NOT the 75 lines of type I copied and pasted and just did all the formatting and links to all over again. How do I resolve the edit conflict without starting the whole process a third time?Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!!:That wasn't what was in that text box at all! What I saw in the text box was

REDIRECT User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage

From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

Now I'm totally confused!Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grindall Reynolds by posting that code for the "big box" here you accidentally proposed the Teahouse for deletion. I have neutralized that now. w.carter-Talk 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It happened again. What Isaw in the text box was:

Open fancy bracket, open fancy bracket, db-rediruser, close fancy bracket, close fancy bracket

REDIRECT open plain bracket, open plain bracket, User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage, close plain bracket, close plain bracket

Open fancy bracket, open fancy bracket, R from move, close fancy bracket, close fancy bracketGrindall Reynolds (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page with the redirect tag is User/GrindallReynolds/subpage. Your content has been moved from there to User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage. You'll see that the first slash should have been a colon, and that (as mentioned earlier) you had omitted the space between "Grindall" and "Reynolds". — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 November 2015‎

I have deleted that page as it is not needed. -- GB fan 21:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that worked. Thank you for your patience.Grindall Reynolds (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. If you have any more questions please ask. and just for the record we are all different people. -- GB fan 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Grindall Reynolds: ... and we tend to butt in on conversations a bit willy nilly. To answer one of your questions that got lost somewhere in the whole commotion: You type a return first and then a colon. It is only when a colon is placed first in a row that it produces an indentation. In normal text it is just a colon. Like this: ":". You used it several times yourself in the text above. that should have given you a clue. :) Inside different kinds of brackets it is part of the code here. You can see more about all of this at the Help:Cheatsheet. That link was also among the links I posted on your talk page. Please take some time and look through that before continuing. w.carter-Talk 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain when I see a page I created has been 'partolled'?

Please explain when I see a page I created has been 'partolled'?InfoDataMonger (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InfoDataMonger: The patrol log (part of Special:Log) shows whether the page was patrolled (reviewed). See this example: [2] (you can change the "target" parameter). The page in the example was patrolled two times because after the first patrol it was deleted, and then created again. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time when a new page is created it is listed on Special:NewPages. Editors then go through the new pages and look for pages that need work, should be deleted, or are good to go. After a new article is looked at the editor may tag the article for cleanup, tag the article for deletion or think the article is good to go. In each case they "patrol" the page so it no longer shows up on the list of new articles. On your new article, Harold Armytage Sanders, Eeekster tagged the article with having to long a lead and also patrolled. -- GB fan 14:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit clash) Hi, InfoDataMonger. Don't panic; this is a good thing. New pages get a quick check by an experienced editor to make sure they don't contain anything that would be unacceptable (defamatory material, child pornography, etc). Being marked as "patrolled" just means that no serious problems were found.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gajpanth

Hi, everybody. I need help, I need any Indian cultured or Jain cultured people so that they can help me in this new article Gajpanth. If you are helping please reply on talkpage of Gajpanth Thank you, Regards BOTFIGHTER (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BOTFIGHTER: Hi, and welcome. Teahouse is a place to ask specific questions about editing Wikipedia. If you need experienced users for collaboration, try contacting WP:WikiProject India or WP:WikiProject Jainism. Wikiprojects are pages specifically designed to bring together editors of similar interest and specific knowledge. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Username Change on Urdu Wikipedia

I want to change my user name on Urdu Wiki from Anjana Larka to اجنبی لڑکا but unable to find a place where I can request my username change. I don't want to change my name globally just only on Urdu wiki can someone help me how and where I can request that change? Anjana Larka^{Talk ✉} 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anjana Larka The easiest way would be simply to create a new account as اجنبی لڑکا and use that account on Urdu Wikipedia instead of Anjana Larka. A drawback is that your present 13 edits on Urdu Wikipedia would be attributed to Anjana Larka not اجنبی لڑکا. I doubt it is possible to change your username just on Urdu Wikipedia; it would have involve somehow un-unifying your global account. —teb728 t c 06:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anjana Larka: Since the WP:SUL was implemented, users use a single username across all Wikimedia projects. You can rename your global account (M:GRP), but you can't change your username just in Urdu Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also have the opportunity to change your signature on that project so that it displays anything you want it to show when you sign posts, etc. I don't know if this would be "good enough" for what you want to do, or not, but it is a way to show a particular name on just one Wikipedia project. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 14:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I wasn't aware of that rule will consider creating a new account. Anjana Larka^{Talk ✉} 14:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana Larka, you could perhaps consider keeping the same username, but using the Urdu version of it as a signature on ur.wp. To create that signature you'd need to go to this page (I think – I can't really read that language!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davide_Lazzeretti

Hey there, I need help revamping this article. The previous edition made little sense to me.

Kolmias (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kolmias, and welcome to the Teahouse. Given that Davide Lazzeretti was reportedly an Italian preacher, you could ask for help from participants in WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Italy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a source to get you started. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kolmias! I happen to know a good deal about the life and death of Lazzeretti. I think I should have a good printed source for details of his life, possibly with illustrations, but I'm away from home at the moment and can't check. Meanwhile, there are brief biographical details in this long page; ping me if you need help with the Italian. You were right to remove the rest of it, looks like someone has been trying to self-promote here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interacting with a new user who may need a kind of welcome that I'm not good at

I'm looking for someone who is good with new editors who seem to think Wikipedia is a place to make friends (WP:NOTFACEBOOK). Trust me when I say I don't think I'm the most qualified person to welcome this new editor or, if it comes to it, to help her realize that Wikipedia doesn't have what she is looking for.

If you are that person, please hop over to this new user's talk page and introduce yourself. Thanks. There is no need to keep me in the loop on this - I have the editor's user page on my watchlist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there, davidwr, trying to strike a balance between helpfulness and firmness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look and advise what needs to be edited

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchpoint_NYC I've created this page and included references which in my opinion are reliable such as NY1 News, businessinsider.com and few other publications. What's needs to be done to avoid deletion? Thank you Stanislavzarubin (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanislavzarubin: I left you a comment at Talk:Matchpoint NYC. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright conundrum

Now I've come across an article, Medium shot, which I ran through Earwig's copyvio detector against a web search, and found that a substantial portion of the article's content is identical to this page. The question of course, is who copied from whom; unfortunately archive.org has never made a copy of the definition.net page. That page doesn't specify where it sourced its definition, and certainly doesn't credit Wikipedia; on the contrary, it offers citation formatting for anyone wishing to cite the page, in APA, Chicago or MLA. On the ohter hand, the article history here shows the text in question evolving gradually via changes made by different editors over several years; at no point was the exact text found at definition.net pasted in as a discrete chunk.

If it were unambiguous copyvio, I would nominate Medium shot for speedy deletion (or more likely blow it up and start over), but I'm not sure what the correct course is. If the definitions.net text came from here, they should either attribute it properly or remove it, but I'm not sure I have a strong enough case that they stole it rather than having it stolen from them to contact that site and tell them they've violated Wikipedia's copyleft licensing. Thanks in advance for your advice. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of who copied from who, just by looking at it. I would be more inclined to think the other site copied from WP, because I've actually seen that done more times than I've seen content from other sites copied onto WP, but we really can't be sure. The last paragraph of the article is very unencyclopedic, too, with the "you" and other tone problems. It may be better to just blow it up and start over with a fresh page, especially because we are not certain what the copyright status is. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GrammarFascist, the Wikipedia article is the original one. Looking at an article's page history is useful here. You can see the wording develop early in the page history from its creation in September 2001. The other site copied it sometime after the wording change from "blurry" to "fuzzy" on May 1, 2006. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with StarryGrandma on this: it's a WP:backwardscopy. The definitions.net page says that its text is from Freebase; Freebase acknowledges that the text is from Wikipedia. In this case, there's nothing for us to worry about. A {{backwardscopy}} template could be placed on Talk:Medium shot if anyone thinks it necessary.

GrammarFascist, in general, if you believe there's a copyright violation and are not sure how to deal with it, you can always blank the suspicious content with {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} (putting a </div> at the end of it) and list the article it at WP:Copyright problems; but bringing it here will probably work too. Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone review my draft article?

Can someone review my draft article? It's located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Normhowe/Quality_Culture Normhowe (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Normhowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. By review, do you mean you'd like other editors to look at your draft and offer advice, or do you mean you're ready to submit the article at Articles for Creation and need a submit button? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrammarFascist, I mean look at my draft and offer advice.Normhowe (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Normhowe, I'll have a look, and perhaps some other Teahouse volunteers will as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, GrammarFascist.Normhowe (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{I fixed your indenting for you — always use one more : than the person you're replying to.)

First things first, Normhowe: I adjusted the formatting of all your references, partly because in a couple of cases you were citing one source multiple times as if it was a new source each time, and partly because there was information missing from or formatting problems with nearly all of the references you had. (Don't feel bad about that; reference formatting is one of the steepest learning curves Wikipedia has. I used the handy fill-in-the-blanks forms accessed via the "Cite" link in the blue bar at the top of the editing window and the "Templates" drop-down menu which appears when the "Cite" link is clicked — this makes reference formatting much easier.) Note how I used <ref name=example>{{citation}}</ref> and then <ref name=example/> to cite one source multiple times. One thing to watch out for with <ref name=... is that each different source's reference has to have a unique name. I used the abbreviation of the publication name in most cases, so the first Harvard Business Review reference is called just HBR. But I couldn't reuse that name when I got to the second Harvard Business Review article, and I instead called that one HBR2.

Moving on to the content of the article, I noticed while doing the references that the sentence "The brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail." came directly from the article cited, but you had neglected to put quotation marks around it to show that those were not your words. I fixed that for you, too. You must be very careful not to include text written by anyone else without attributing it as a quotation; that's a copyright violation, and could cause the entire article to be deleted even if it's still a draft. I didn't check to see if there are more instances of unattributed copying, but you should hopefully remember what you wrote and what you merely copied, and you should make getting rid of any other "copyvio" (as Wikipedians call it) your priority in working on the draft.

Once that's taken care of... well, I'll be honest, you have a lot of work ahead of you. Quality Culture may in fact be a subject suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but the draft you have written is definitely not appropriate. One of the main problems is that you have used promotional language, such as referring to Joseph M. Juran as "the famous quality guru" (we don't do that on Wikipedia; we use objective descriptions only, such as 'Management consultant Joseph M. Juran'). There is also an overall tone to the article which is more how-to than descriptive, such as "Employees should be given opportunities to participate in improving the quality of the product." where the WP:NPOV way of phrasing that would be something like 'Quality culture proponents commonly suggest giving employees opportunities to participate in improving the quality of the product.' (but I don't know whether that sentence I just came up with is accurate, and it would need to be cited to a reliable source or sources).

The overall effect of this draft is as if it was written to be a magazine article advocating for quality culture to be implemented in readers' businesses. And there's nothing wrong with that — feel free to submit it to any magazine you like, minus any plagiarism! — but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. That's why Primefac gave you the link to What Wikipedia is not. Maybe you got distracted by all the other "nots" and missed the "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" section. (The "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section is also relevant, in that your draft is advocating for and promoting the adoption of quality culture; a Wikipedia article about quality culture can only describe it, and perhaps also include judicious mention of the fact that some authoritative figures advocate its use.) I'm afraid much of the draft can't even be salvaged by rewriting, though I think that some of it can. You should feel free to ask whatever questions you have about my analysis. I apologize if I've come across as harsh; my intent is definitely not to scare you off contributing to Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 06:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment below moved to what I believe is the right section by ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GrammarFascist. Your frankness is both helpful and refreshing.Normhowe (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GrammarFascist. I've revised as you suggested. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it.Normhowe (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your link to GrammarFascist, because the markup you used turned everything green. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not letting me cite

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and was editing an article. I was trying to cite, so I clicked the cite button, but it wouldn't let my add anything in it. I tried a different article and it still was not working. The first one I tried a web address and the second a book. Please help! Thank you in advance.

GimbarratoGimbarrato (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gimbarrato and welcome to the Teahouse.

Did you try to reload the page and maybe you should try editing in source.

I know it's not the best answer but i'm pretty new to Wikipedia myself.HolyRidek (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gimbarrato, welcome. If you are clicking the "Cite" link in the pale-blue bar at the top of the editing window, you're missing a couple of steps: you still need to click where it says "Templates" all the way at the left of the second pale-blue bar that clicking the "Cite" link opens (or closes); then you need to select either "cite web", "cite news", "cite book" or "cite journal" from the drop-down menu. That should open up the appropriate form with fields for you to fill in.

(If you're using VisualEditor, however, I'm afraid I can't help you, because I disabled it for myself years ago and no longer remember how it even works.)

If you followed the steps I outlined and the form is not appearing, please tell us what browser you're using and what type of device (desktop/laptop computer, tablet, phone, or other) so we can better help you troubleshoot. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 23:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbarrato, there is even a video showing how to do this, on YouTube here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbarrato is using WP:VisualEditor. Adding source should be easy – literally three clicks (as shown in this animated gif). Gimbarrato, could you please tell me what web browser and operating system you're using? Do you have NoScript or other extensions installed? What's the URL/web address you were trying to use? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a title

How do I change a title to an article by deleting a word? The article is Corkin Frederick Cherubini which I want to change to Corkin Cherubini. Midolly Midolly (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Midolly, and welcome to the Teahouse. To move a page, you click on the "Page" drop-down menu in the top right, and then "Move page". However, to do this your accounts needs to be autoconfirmed. This will happen after you have made ten edits. That said, Draft:Corkin Frederick Cherubini is a draft article so I wouldn't worry too much about the title. It's more important to get the content up to standard. Corkin Cherubini sounds like an important and interesting character, and is mentioned in a number of other Wikipedia articles, but you need to sort the referencing out. Rather than simply listing sources at the end of the article, you need to use footnote citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Footnote citations" (using <ref> tags) are never required. The sourcing style in the draft is a legitimate form of WP:Inline citation. However, manual numbering is also incredibly difficult to maintain, because you have to re-number every time someone adds a new one or re-arranges the existing contents. For your own convenience, I strongly recommend switching to WP:PAREN (parenthetical comments like "Smith 2010", which are very popular in academic papers) or <ref> tags (little blue clickable numbers, which are very popular on Wikipdia). Either of these will be much easier to maintain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The manual numbering was added after I had commented here, WhatamIdoing. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I also need to change the title of an existing page and I don't understand the guidance above. I don't see any "page" drop-down menu top right, or anywhere, in the edit screen. There is the "page options" drop down but that doesn't seem to let me rename the page. Can anyone point me in the right direction?Keydet92 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably because you are not yet autoconfirmed, as I explained above, Keydet92. I will move the page for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, after reading the autoconfirmed page it looks like I also need 4 days. I'm trying to rename "Stevens Model 520" to "Stevens Model 520/620". I appreciate the assist.Keydet92 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Keydet92 - I confused you with Midolly, who started this section. I'll take a look at the article that you want to move. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it, Keydet92, but you really need to add references to the article, otherwise it is at risk of being nominated for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question moved from talk page

Hello, I can't submit my questions to the teahouse because despite signing the ask question link is still dead.The questions I want to ask are is it true there are 25million pages on wiki including all languages?and is an autobiography a reliable source?Thanks84.92.84.254 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I don't know why you can't post to the Teahouse directly. In answer to your questions:

At the bottom of meta:List of Wikipedias you can see that there are currently 36 907 975 articles in all the language Wikipedias put together (and 141 603 046 pages including talk pages, project pages etc).
An autobiography may be a reliable source, if it is published by a reputable publisher; but it is not an independent source, so it cannot contribute to notability, and it may be cited to support only limited information (uncontroversial factual data): see WP:PRIMARY. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks87.127.113.154 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on WP:NLIST

The guidelines seem to indicate that the same notability standards apply to lists of people as to articles themselves. In other words, if an individual doesn't have their own bio page, they shouldn't be on lists of e.g. "Notable alumni" or "Notable residents". Is it appropriate to simply remove all such list items without a linked article? I'm looking at California Academy of Mathematics and Science in particular. Thanks, Qzd (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered about this too. I've tended to remove people who don't have articles if they appear to lack notability, but of course there can be notable people who aren't yet the subject of articles. If notability is established through references in the list, does the lack of an article matter? If anything, a red link to a clearly notable subject might encourage someone to create an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At California Academy of Mathematics and Science#Notable alumni, the issue with most of the entries is a lack of references, so notability is not established and they should probably be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The existing references are not great either. As much as I think professorship should convey notability (it seems like every professional athlete has an article), I don't think that's the case for WP entries. However, I've kept them in the list for now. Qzd (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being an (assistant) professor isn't enough in and of itself to meet the notability criteria, no. Take a look at WP:PROF for guidance on this, Qzd. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:LISTPEOPLE. It is certainly wrong to remove people simply because they don't have an article. The question (at most) is whether they meet the criteria to have an article. The requirements for references are much more substantial. Unfortunately the guidance is rather incoherent and should not be read too literally. Thincat (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "it depends". Every page gets to make its own 'rules' about which names should be included. The most common approach to alumni at a large/old/famous school is to pick the most famous people, all of whom already have articles, and then to have a separate list of all the notable alumni, which includes hundreds (or even a couple thousand) of people, all of whom probably could qualify for an article (=lots of red links). For smaller/newer/less famous schools, it's common to include whatever you can source. Until the list has more than 10 or 20 people in it, there's not much need to worry about anything beyond WP:BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent Unwanted "Editing"

I invite you to look at my entry (John Robert Greene). Someone continues to put in a category ("Living Persons") which I do not wish to have in my entry, which I have repeatedly said in the edit comments (after I have undone his or her edit) that I do not want. I am convinced they are just playing around with this edit of my entry. My last comment to them was that I was going to report them for vandalism. Is this all that I can do? Much thanks for your help.Scrivener13 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but per WP:OWN you don't get to decide what goes in as it isn't "your" entry, even if you are the subject. Action would only be taken if the entry was problematic, a category linking you to some kind of wrong doing, for example. In this case the category suggests you are a living person, which, unless you're contacting us from beyond the grave, seems accurate and unproblematic. It is a maintenance category used on all such entries and its inclusion means that the article falls under our WP:BLP policy, making it less, not more, likely that people can "play around" with it. Valenciano (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you John Robert Greene? If so, and if you are posting here, you appear to be a living person. Read the article ownership policy. You do not get to control "your entry". Before reporting someone for vandalism, in adding a valid category, also read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this edit summary, Scrivener13 is Greene, which makes it all the more confusing that he is claiming not to be alive. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before jumping to a conclusion, can I ask what is the reason for this request? Is there some reason why it is not appropriate to classify John Robert Greene as a living person?--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't guess why Scrivener13 wants the "living persons" category removed. But I will explain why the category is being added, and the consequences. All Wikipedia articles which are about living persons should be in this category, so it is being added to John Robert Greene by editors who believe he is still alive. This is important to Wikipedia for legal reasons. If someone adds some defamatory sentences, sourced to a dubious publication, to an article about a dead person, there will be no legal consequences. But if they do that to an article about a living person, there is a danger of Wikipedia being sued; so the standards of sourcing, and relevance, that must be met before adding negative content to an article about a living person are higher. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rafic Nakib

I and other reviewers declined Draft:Rafic Nakib. User:PoppyJr78 posted the following to my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=692875215&oldid=692869693

I would appreciate feedback from other experienced editors. The basic problem that I have is not with the notability of the journalist but with the tone of the article, which appears to be written to praise him. He probably deserves praising, but not in the voice of Wikipedia. Do other editors have any comments or advice or encouragement (such as to say that the article is getting better, which it is)? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the original poster's statement that he will be writing pages about this individual in French and in Arabic, I assume that he means for the French Wikipedia and the Arabic Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I removed The adjective "devoted" from the death paragrah. and frankly I don't see any praise tone left in the artilce. When I am neutrally admitting that his wealthy successful friend appointed him as GM, you call that a praise! iam just saying things as they happened. The "pen against guns" paragraph is full of facts and that's why he was unique and his courage in the face of dangers must be recognised. Also it's written in a very modest tone while saying what he notably did!PoppyJr78 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the title "pen against guns" itself is a bit promotional, especially when it begins by saying that he "became an active defender of the freedom of speech". Our aim is not to praise his bravery, but to provide information. If the reader then concludes that he was a great man, that is up to them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz, thanks for your care and editing. The title of the paragraph "pen against guns" was a mere describtion of the events as they happened when Gunmen used force against a media organisation( which means automatically an attack on freedom of speech)! However I am open to your suggestions. Give me another title with a mroe neutral tone! even if the title looks very neutral to me because it describes exactly the content of the paragraph which is full of many indpendent reliable sources talking about the attacks. I don't mind removing the line "active defender of the freedom of speech" if we keep the title of the paragraph as it is. What do you think? PoppyJr78 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Hi everybody. I changed both the paragraph title "pen agianst guns" and the line "became defender of freedom of speech". I think now the tone of the article is 100% neutral. I hope you will approve it as soon as possible because i want to focus on wariting the arabic and the french versions and adding a couple of photos to the 3 articles.Thanks in advance. PoppyJr78 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Hi all,

A few days ago GrammarFascist so nicely found some articles for me.

The Michigan Daily, which is a university paper but may be one of the few of those which counts as a reliable source; I encourage other Teahouse volunteers to share their opinions about that. The Michigan Daily - Nov 11, 1996 and The Michigan Daily - Nov 19, 1998 are the articles in question.

I'm not sure about this source, either: Virginia Medical Monthly – 1990 It's published by The Medical Society of Virginia, but I can't tell how much fact-checking or editorial control are in place.

I wanted to know if anybody else has thoughts on if they are reliable sources? And if so what other college Newspapers would be considered reliable? Major college newspapers?

Thank you all for your input! And thanks again GrammerFascist for finding these!

Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you're getting two issues confused here, Aagreeny4. College newspapers are usually considered reliable sources for verifying facts, but they are not particular well regarded when it comes to establishing notability. I'm sure that these sources are perfectly reliable on the topics they are reporting, but whether they establish its notability is not so clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Would the two from the Michigan count for his notability because they state information about him and his work, in addition to others opinions about him? Or do the opinions not count toward notability? Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the uninitiated, the article concerned is Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green, as discussed below. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aagreeny4. In my opinion, the Michigan Daily sources are weak for establishing notability. In effect, they are fairly brief and formulaic descriptions in a student newspaper of a speaker appearing on campus. They do not offer extensive biographical details about the person, and in my opinion, they do not rise to the level of significant coverage. As for the Virginia Medical Monthly source, the snippet I can see is so brief that I can express no opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some searching, I've found many mentions of Mike Green - mainly in events listings - but a lack of in-depth coverage. Has a newspaper or magazine ever published a detailed article about your father, Aagreeny4? That would definitely help in establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only newspapers would be college newspapers. There are some from a couple local newspapers in New Jersey. He does have notable mentions in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Scholastic coach which I have in my article. There are some other articles in "Athletic Management" but I am having trouble finding that source since it would be an older issue. I know he was also listed among the outstanding young men of America, and I am thing to find and article about that and his work, I think they either have a book or release that would describe his work. Aagreeny4 (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide information about the local New Jersey newspaper articles, Aagreeny4 — newspaper name, article title, author if given, page number, and date published — we can evaluate whether those sources would help establish notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are the two I have Avedissian, Eric. “Cape May resident counsels students on dangers of drug and alcohol abuse”. Cape May Star and Wave. 13 March 1997. Print.

     Explains his background and his work. It describes his message and the job that he does, while listing a few schools he speaks to. States his sobriety and the message or content in his speech. Emphasizes how his approach to the message is different than others. Provides detail and some quotes from his speeches.

Kelly, Shannon. “Wall parents get a look at “one nighters””. The Herald. 11 Dec. 1997. Print

      From Wall township in NJ, explains the speech his gave to the students at the local high school. States his work across the country, names his business and his background. Explains quotes and the message from the speech. Explains how he got into the business.  Tells how he travles the country with this message.

I have a few others but I don't have complete source information.

     "Anyone given drink...Can cost you everything" by Ned Hartwick- but I don't know the papers name.
      "Drug farce eclipsed by SADD asembly" by Aidan Finley- I don't know if this in the name of the paper or just the section, the paper is only of the article about Greeny and doesn't have the whole paper but I can tell it says Opinion on the very top. and its from Haverford PA.

I also have one from the Oklahoma Daily, but I don't know if that is a school paper or which it is.

Thank you for helping. Aagreeny4 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone advise Aagreeny4 on this? Cullen328? GrammarFascist? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cordless Larry, thanks for following up. I posted about the Michigan Daily question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard but haven't had any responses there yet. I also checked Google's newspaper archives for the additional articles Aagreeny4 listed above, but unfortunately they don't seem to be included there. I haven't used other newspaper archives (I believe they all require subscription, though I know at least some make memberships available to Wikipedia editors) but it's possible one or more of the articles I couldn't find is archived elsewhere online.

Note, Aagreeny4, that searches will fail if the title is not entered exactly as found on the article; I tried both "Anyone given drink...Can cost you everything" and "Any one given drink...Can cost you everything" in case you had mistranscribed that title, but still found nothing.

Thanks for digging up these sources, Aagreeny4. Technically sources aren't required to be online, but since there are questions about your father's notability (in the Wikipedia sense), other editors would prefer to see at least a couple of sources they can verify themselves. If consensus at the noticeboard is in favor of The Michigan Daily, of course, those articles would probably take care of notability on their own... except that sources from multiple publications would also be preferable, as having all evidence of notability cited to a single newspaper, even multiple articles from that paper, tends to be less convincing. DES, have you been able to get a copy of the Chronicle of Higher Education article yet? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GrammarFascist. I hadn't realised that you had already raised this at the RS noticeboard, but thanks for doing that. I have attempted to find these sources on Nexis, and managed to find one about Green that includes the quote "Any one given night, any one given drink can cost you everything". It's from a local newspaper called The Ledger and discusses a talk that he gave at Florida Southern College. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this would work or it is possible, but I have copies of the articles. If there is somewhere to upload them to I could put a link to them but I don't know where I could upload them to. Just and idea. Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for searching for those articles! Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are likely subject to copyright, so you wouldn't be able to upload them to Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consensus at the noticeboard seems to be that The Michigan Daily can't be used to establish Mike Green's notability (the rationale given, which makes sense to me, is that college newspapers cover every campus speaker, so their coverage doesn't necessarily mean the subject is notable), so we are left with trying to verify mainstream newspaper coverage and scholastic coverage. Cordless Larry, I believe you can't link to sources found on LexisNexis, but perhaps you could put a comment on the draft's talk page summarizing the extent of the coverage (and perhaps also cite any information substantiated by that article in the draft?) to make it easier for other editors to AGF about that source? Similarly, if DES finds that the Chronicle of Higher Education goes towards notability, he could leave a comment to that effect on the draft's talk page.

That would still leave us one short, as three sources establishing notability is usually considered the minimum. I don't know where archives of past issues of Scholastic Coach would be found; probably at some university libraries, but I don't have access to any of those. (I did find this result at Google Books, but it only establishes that the article exists and mentions Green; the preview available doesn't make it possible to determine whether the coverage is substantial.) I also found this article in the Toledo Blade... while the Blade is indisputably a reliable source, I'm not sure this brief article would be considered more than a mere mention. It also has a writing style which implies it may have been an unedited press release. (This Reading Eagle article is definitely a mere mention.) I'm also still not sure it would be worth trying to pursue the Virginia Medical source, which seems to be a newsletter published by the Medical Society of Virginia; probably not a sufficiently-reliable source for establishing notability, though the preview Google provides does suggest coverage might be substantial.

@Robert McClenon and SwisterTwister: You're both admirably thorough in ensuring that drafts are really ready for article space before they're approved. Could you offer your opinion as AfC reviewers as to whether established editors with access to the Chronicle of Higher Education article and the article accessible via LexisNexis vouching for those sources on the draft's talk page would be sufficient for you to consider those sources to help establish Mike Green's notability? Your opinion on the usefulness of the sources in the above paragraph would also be appreciated. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The Ledger is a write-up of a talk that Green gave at Florida Southern College in January 1999. It starts with some quotes from the talk, briefly describes Green's background and public speaking experience and then quotes the college president on why he invited him to give the talk. There are then some more quotes from the talk, followed by a few student reactions. All in all, a fairly standard local newspaper treatment of an event. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping with the sources and your effort in helping me! 
I have found other sources through Lexus Nexis from The Philadelphia Daily News, July 26, 2006 Wednesday "Teens & Booze: A dangerous Combo", The Philadelphia Inquirer "Facing up the drug threat. A push to keep athletes clean  from July 6th 1986. 
I also found from The Leader-Telegram (Eau Claire, Wisconsin), September 7, 2012 and St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), November 7, 1992.

These were found on Lexus Nexis so I can't put in a link but would they be acceptable? Thanks everyone! Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

Hello! I am not very new to Wikipedia, but one question is bugging me: can any editor make a WikiProject (ie. WikiProject Spiders), or is it specially reserved for experienced editors or something? Thank you. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]