Wikipedia:Teahouse

jmcgnh, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

My query

I am a little puzzled over something. I have just looked at the article on Scotty Moore, the late guitarist who played for Elvis Presley. On looking at the history of this article, I see that the number of viewers says Fewer than 30. Yet, the number of viewers who made recent edits is 32. How can this be? i shall appreciate any responses, thank you.Vorbee (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking @Vorbee:, an understandable question. The simple answer is that one can edit an article without adding to one's watchlist.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Vorbee: I moved your post from Wikipedia:Teahouse. Questions belong here on the /Questions subpage. Do you mean "Recent number of edits (within past 30 days) 32" at [1]? It doesn't say viewers and it has nothing to do with who watches a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for asking the question. Statistics are maintained on each article. This article has less than 30 page watchers which means that less than 30 people are alerted when a change is made to the article. An interesting statistic is that about 266 people view the page every day. Another tidbit of information is that about 250 other pages (articles and such) link to this article on Scotty Moore. It also looks like the number of times per day that the article is viewed is increasing. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Page deletion/recreation

Is there a way to get the content that was deleted when my page was deleted? I have resolved the problem and would like to recreate the page. Koglesby17 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Koglesby17: welcome to the Teahouse. In most cases, you simply have to ask, and it helps if you identify the name. If you are talking about Matt Pitt, unfortunately, that's one of the exceptions. We do not restore deletions when they are for copyright issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Robert James Cimasi

I reviewed Draft: Robert James Cimasi and declined it, primarily on the grounds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, due to the length of the lists of chapters, articles, courses, etc. However, I also noted that the references did not appear to be independent. User:JessBailey33 then posted to my talk page:

Hi Robert. Could you clarify which sources do not appear to be independent of the subject? Thanks

The references include Amazon, which is not independent because it is selling his books. Some of them, while listing him, appear to belong to professional associations of which he is a member. Do other experienced editors think that I overreacted because of the sheer length of the lists, or is there agreement that better references are required? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that better references are needed, Robert McClenon and Jessbailey33. Moreover, the article reads like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. A complete list of publications, courses taught, etc. does not belong in the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Template editing

Hi, I can't edit TV episode templates (especially the plot section) in visual editing. Can I use some help? HamedH94 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi HamedH94
I have moved your question to the top, as this page is "upside down" compared to all other Wikipedia pages.
Unfortunately, as explained at Wikipedia:VisualEditor, the VisualEditor has several bugs/problems with templates, although how to get around some of the template problems are explained at Help:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_templates. Like most long-term editors I learnt wikitexxt before Visual Editor was devised, and stuck with it - looking at the problems with templates explained at Wikipedia:VisualEditor, wikitext may be the only way to deal with your template problem. - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Great question HamedH94! If you can tell me the name of the template and the name of the article that you want added I can probably help you out. If you want to get into editing templates, unfortunately you might need to master the art of Wiki-coding. Not easy, it took me years Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

new editor

hi guys i just joined wikipedia an hour ago can you tell me an amateur page to edit. but easy? CobraBlueDude (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

CobraBlueDude, Offhand, I can't think of any "amateur" pages to edit. However, I'd recommend clicking the random article button and reading the article that comes up. Chances are, it'll need editing. Easy problems to fix include typos, no punctuation, or informal wording (such as use of "you" outside of quotes). You can do a lot of good making such small corrections. Another thing you might want to look at is the WP:WikiProject Directory. Most of them will have some kind of cleanup listing. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Two Different Companies Merged Under One Article

There are many factual errors in the Wikipedia article about All Media Network that are causing all kinds of trauma for us at our business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Media_Network

It appears as though the page for All Media Guide (founded by Michael Erlewine in 1990) has just been renamed to All Media Network (which is actually a wholly different company spun off from Rovi in 2013). All Media Network does not distribute any music metadata to anybody (the entire business model section is referring to what All Media Guide did and is now done by Rovi). AllMusic is simply a consumer website that licenses the Rovi music information. How can this best be resolved?

I think having an historical article on All Media Guide (formed in 1990 and then acquired by the company that became Rovi in 2007) should be one page, and then a new page for All Media Network (websites spun off from Rovi in 2013 who does absolutely no licensing of data to other companies) should be a new page. How can this be done? ZacharyCJohnson (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Johanna Geyer Carles - french relays championships?

Hi, I am writing about Johanna Geyer Carles on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but I have a question: On her Athle.fr profile it says that in 2014: CF Relais : 4x400m TC (1. Ind). Can anyone help me understand what this is? Is there at separate french championship in relays? Where can I find results from this? Ssu (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ssu, welcome to the Teahouse. Does fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/29 juin 2016#Johanna Geyer Carles answer your question? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm closing in, but it is difficult to communicate with them via Google Translate. I have found that the CF 4x400 is actually Coupe de France, and not Championnat de France, but I am unsure if I can write that she actually is french champion (national champion), or if the Coupe de France is just a national cup/competition, that does not count as a national championship. (I turned to en-wiki because they wrote that they don't answer questions in English...) Ssu (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the CF Relays is actually Champions de France de relais. Ssu (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hindi words

Hey, suppose I wanna use Ahimsa in an article. So should I use Ahimsa (non-violence) or non-violence (ahimsa)? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It probably depends on the context. What article do you want to use it in? If you just write "Ahimsa", there may be no need to explain the term, readers who don't know what it means can click on the wikilink. Maproom (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review first editing :)

Hi, I have just done my first editing and would like someone to check I've done it correctly. Thanks.

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

Pisa911 (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pisa911, and welcome to Wikipedia! I believe your edit was a good one. You removed a statement citing an unreliable source that anyway did not support that statement, and replaced it with a claim that cites three better-looking sources. However (and this is true of almost any edit) there is room for further improvement – you supplied those sources as urls like this rather than filling out their details like this; all three sources you cited are blogs, which Wikipedia does not regard as reliable; and, trivially correctable, you put spaces between the three ref tags. Maproom (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Organizational Anatomy

I reviewed User:Olkonol/sandbox/olkonol and declined it as reading like an essay. I also noted that the references did not establish that Organizational Anatomy is considered notable by scholars. User:Olkonol then posted to my talk page:

Hi, my article on Organizational Anatomy was declined for a reason "This draft does not contain references that establish that Organizational Anatomy is considered notable by scholars in management and organizational studies." However, all appropriate links are included on the bottom of the page, a book "Organisational Anatomy" is published by a scientific publisher, the book is already in universities libraries from the USA to Australia, and this concept and book is endorsed by leading academic and practical experts. I can't understand the reason for decline. Anticipating your feedback, Best regards, olkonol

I declined it for two reasons, for notability reasons and because it did not have the nature of an encyclopedic draft but an essay. Now that the author agrees that it is about Organizational Anatomy, I have renamed/moved it. Is the article meant to be about a book, about a course based on the book, or about the concept of Organizational Anatomy in general? The author says that the concept and book are endorsed by leading experts. If so, please provide independent references. The draft has no wikilinks to facilitate evaluation of the extent to which the topic overlaps with other fields. Do other experienced editors care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon and Olkonol. The book, which seems to be written by the editor of the article, is self-published using Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The article says this concept is introduced by the 2016 book, so it is too soon to have an article. While there are reviews of the book, the topic needs to have been discussed in multiple reliable sources independent of the author, and this has not happened yet. While the article has references, it is original research at this point. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon and StarryGrandma! Thanks for response. Please suggest, what sort of reviews can be considered as independent? So far, Organisational Anatomy, which is not self-published and published in traditional way, picked up independent reviews from Small Business Trends (6.000.000 subscribers) and others; gained endorsements from reputable experts such as fDi Magazine and UKTI. Plus, multiple reviews on goodreads and amazon. Or should it simply wait for more reviews/discussions to be added? Thanks, Olkonol 109.252.44.227 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Sophie Doin

I reviewed Draft:Sophie Doin and declined it as lacking a lede sentence and references. On further checking, I was mistaken about the references. It has references, but they are not in-line or properly formatted. User:Doris Kadish then posted to my talk page:

I submitted an article entitle Sophie Doin. I understand the comments and can make the suggested changed. But before I work on it I want to know the following. My scholarly work on her is in respected venues. But I'm the main scholar who has discovered and written about her. There are 2 other respected scholars who have written on her, also in respected venues. But she is a minor author. Is that enough?

First, in my opinion, minor authors of previous centuries who have had some scholarly attention in the late twentieth or early twenty-first century are sufficiently notable for articles. I think that if scholars a hundred years later think that someone deserves their attention as a minor author, they deserve the attention of Wikipedia as a minor author. I am ready to accept the draft when the lede sentence and the references are improved. What do other editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

About references and use of photos

I had tried to make a reference to a youtube video where he had explained about his childhood and when I tried to save the reference the save would not work and the error would always be could not post edits not saved can I not link youtube videos? Thanks for help. Also, I was given permission by the owner of a photo to post it but when I am about to download the image it says may be due to copyright by youtube but it is a guys logo who I asked and he said I could use it but, I don't want to get in trouble for copyright so I'll make sure really quick. Butmynameismark (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Butmynameismark. I presume this is about Draft:Connor Scott (a.k.a the Lemon Gamer)? It is really helpful if you link to the relevant article in your question.

I will get to your questions, as far as I can answer them; but first I will say this. You have chosen to start your career as a Wikipedia editor by doing one of the most difficult tasks there is: creating a new article. Please read Your first article carefully, and understand that you need to start, before you write a single word, by finding places where people who have no connection with Scott have published substantial pieces about him. If you cannot find such places, then don't bother creating the article, because it will not be accepted however you write it (see WP:Notability and WP:Biographies of living persons). If you can find such places, then you can write your draft, based almost entirely on what these independent sources have said about him. You can fill in a little bit, of uncontroversial factual data like dates and places, from what he has said himself; but Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anyobdy says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, or associates, say about them. And you should put in no information whatever that has not been published in a reliable source (which means, one published by somebody who has a reputation for fact-checking).

So, in my view, his own YouTube statements, and photos, are details to worry about later, when you've got a solid, well-referenced, neutrally-written, article. But to answer, as well as I can: Youtube on Wikipedia is complicated. Many videos on YouTube are posted without permission of the copyright holder: those are copyright violations, and Wikipedia's rules forbid linking to them. It looks to me as if the link you've put in your draft is to his own channel, so his Vlog is almost certainly OK as regards copyright; but the Warface Q&A vidoes look like copyright violations to me, because even though he is adding his own words, the images are copyright (I'm not an expert, but this is my opinion). But even if you can use his Vlog in that respect, it is a source that is not independent of him, so it can be used only for uncontroversial factual data such as places and dates: not for anything evaluative, promotional, or speculative. (I haven't watched it beyond the first minute or two, so I don't know what he does say) Please see WP:YouTube and WP:PRIMARY for more on this.

As for images, permission from the owner to use an image on Wikipedia is not enough. Normally, images must be released under a licence which allows anybody to reuse them for any purpose: the copyright owner - not the person who wants to upload - must follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. Whether he would be willing to release his logo on those terms, I don't know: you would need to ask him. Alternatively, logos are sometimes uploaded as non-free images, not requiring the owner's permission: Wikipedia requires that the use meet all of the criteria in WP:non free content criteria. I'm dubious that, in an article about a gamer, his logo would meet condition 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." But others may disagree.

I told you creating a new article was hard! --ColinFine (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My two drafts have been waiting for re-review for 28 days. When will they be re-reviewed?

Hello, I am very new to editing and contributing to Wikipedia so please forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask this question. Anyway, I submitted two drafts for review 29 days ago, Paul Lukas (sports uniform reporter) and Peter Good (graphic designer), and much to my surprise they were reviewed the very next day but rejected. The same day of rejection I edited the two articles and added much more information including many more sources and references. I then submitted the two drafts for re-review. Today is the 28th day since I did that and my drafts are still waiting to be re-reviewed. So I'm just wondering if waiting almost a month is normal for drafts to be re-reviewed, and what I really want to know is when will my drafts finally be re-reviewed? Hopefully now that I wrote this message my drafts will get the attention they need. Thank you for reading this and hopefully the re-reviews will happen soon. If they don't is there any way I can delete my drafts and resubmit them as regular articles instead of drafts for review? If I knew the review process would take this long I would never have submitted my articles for review in the first place.T.X.Critter (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@T.X.Critter: Please don't move drafts that you have created yourself. Let another user check to see whether the drafts should be accepted. I have moved Paul Lukas (sports uniform reporter) and Peter Good (graphic designer) back to the draft namespace for further review. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

One thing which you could do to make it easier for reviewers would be to expand the bare URLs in the references. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The articles are Draft: Paul Lukas (sports uniform reporter) and Draft: Peter Good (graphic designer). When you ask a question about drafts, it is helpful if you provide links to them. Sometimes new articles get reviewed quickly and sometimes they don’t. It is not uncommon to wait a month for an article to be reviewed or re-reviewed. We are all volunteers, and there aren’t enough of us. Eventually an article that hasn’t been reviewed gets into a category of Very Old Submissions, and they usually get reviewed quickly. You haven’t done anything wrong by requesting re-review. Sometimes requests for re-review are granted, and sometimes they just sit. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, T.X.Critter. I agree with David Biddulph that you should flesh out those ugly, uninformative URL references into complete, informative references. Please see Referencing for beginners for information. Also, think of each draft article as a biography of each person, instead of a compilation of various incidents in their lives which received press attention. Instead of saying that the person was interviewed or profiled in publication X, summarize the biographical information in those sources, and reference publication X as the source. Do not list biographical details like education as bullet points but incorporate them as prose. When you say that art work is held in various collections, or that the person won various awards, you must provide references. Finally, please be patient. Drafts that are fully developed and properly referenced as encyclopedia articles are likely to get a second review much quicker than those which still have glaringly obvious problems. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding data without verifiable sources

Regarding Grosvenor Cup, the existing data by another author is derived mainly from 2 sources. In this instance, this trophy is still competed for, but our races and results are no longer published by external sources such is the drop off in interest. Our website is our only record. I have attempted to add recent results but the page was reverted as my information was unverifiable - even though I was present. How can I get around this Catch 22? Petechilcott (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Information about an organization published by an organization is a primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. These sources are allowed in some circumstances, and are usually permitted in cases where the content is uncontroversial and there are no secondary sources available.

You may want to try to start a conversation about this on the article's talk page. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

An organisation's own web site can be treated as a reliable source for the winners of the trophies awarded by that organisation. But I am puzzled: the article does not link to a web site for "Grosvenor Challenge Cup", and I have failed to find one using Google. Maproom (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How to update infobox table on page

Hello. Hoping you can help. I need to update the Total Asset Number to $1,120.8 within the info box on the right of the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyster-Yale_Materials_Handling. I can't work out how to do this, it doesn't appear as an editable area within the edit page (from what I can see), perhaps it is pulled in from another source. Can anybody help please? Thanks! Michelle Michelle Wicker (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is in the "edit page", as

| assets = {{decrease}}[[United States Dollar|US$]]867.0 million<small>(''FY 2014'') <ref name="2014 10-K" />

Do you have a source to cite for the updated figure? Maproom (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Retrieved.." remark in "References" section of article obligatory?

Hi there,

is the "Retrieved <Date>" remark (based on the respective code - like "|accessdate=September 2, 2008 |date=September 2008" - )in the "References" sections of an article obligatory or just recommended?

Thank you Duke2016 (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not obligatory, Duke2016. In fact, with sources that are unlikely to change (eg newspaper archives online) there's little point in it. But for live websites it's desirable, because their contents can change without notice. --ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Check my page

Hi there, is there anyone can review or check my article before I submit it to review. I just don't want to get rejected againAsia Pcific Smart Cities 07:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlemingKL (talk • contribs)

I assume this is about User:FlemingKL/sandbox.

The lead section is empty. The first section with any content leaves the reader wondering what the article is meant to be about. Much of it is copyright violations of this page and this one. There are numerous direct external links, in contravention of Wikipedia policy. The section on Perth, Western Australia, is sourced entirely to a web page on Perth, Scotland; neither of them is in Asia. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Uploading information about an organisation

Please advise how I create a page or article about an organisation for people with dementia 101.166.102.25 (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

First collect your sources - such as news and magazine articles about the organisation, this is important, sources that do not specifically discuss the organisation itself are no good. Then you read the Your first article guide and let the Article wizard take you through the steps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can one revert an article to a much earlier revision?

I was curious if there were a template for an article about a visual artist, for example where to put illustrations of their work. I found WP:artist biography article template, but unfortunately it had been appropriated by a young hip hop musician in Kosovo, and then by someone posting obscene stuff. The last legitimate edit was on 19 August 2015 by KylieTastic, whose talk page says she's on a wikibreak.

In addition to an answer about whether, in a case like this, I as an editor could restore the last legitimate revision in one step, I'd like someone 1) to keep an eye on this article and see that it doesn't keep getting misused, and 2) possibly improve it by adding some visuals.

Thanks, HarZim (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi HarZim and thank you for pointing this out! You can certainly revert back to a good version, no matter how far in the past it is, and I've done so here. I will keep an eye on it and hopefully others will do the same. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks--how do you revert it back several steps? HarZim (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, HarZim. You find the version you want to revert to in the page's history, and open that version; then save it. Make sure you give an edit summary explaining what you are doing. --ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, to revert a number of successive edits (not necessarily the most recent) you can select the old and new versions in the history, click on differences, then undo, again with an appropriate comment. This option may not be available if there have been subsequent changes affecting the same text. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally left my Draft: title in my post what should I do to fix this?

I accidentally left the draft before my title in my heading is there a script or wiki text I could use to fix this in the editing or is this permanent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butmynameismark (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Butmynameismark. I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but you seem to be asking about Draft:Connor Scott (a.k.a the Lemon Gamer). The word "Draft" in the title indicates that the page is still located within the draft namespace; in other words, it is not a Wikipedia article just yet. The word can be removed from the title by simply moving the page to the article namespace. I don't, however, suggest you do this because it will almost surely lead to the "article" being tagged for speedy deletion per WP:A7. It seems like you might be understanding what Wikipedia is all about, so I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Your first article. If you are unable to show that the subject of your draft satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people), there is very little chance of it being accepted as an article. If you feel that the subject is notable enough (per relevant Wikipedia guidelines) for an article, then I submit your draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of directly adding it to Wikipedia yourself. Experienced editors review drafts submitted via the AfC process and they will provide you with feedback on what is needed for the draft to be accepted by Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What's a good source?

Hi, I was wondering-is Goodreads a good source for writing an article? If not, could you please tell me some good sources? Thanks, Mango the RainWingMango the RainWing (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mango the RainWing. The content at Goodreads, like the content at Wikipedia itself, is user submitted. Accordingly, Goodreads is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article about a book, just as one Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for another Wikipedia article. We are looking for sources with professional editorial control, and a good reputation for literary criticism. As an American, I am familiar with sources like the New York Review of Books, the book review sections of major newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and so on. Then, there are "highbrow" magazines like The Atlantic and the New Republic. There are also an abundance of literary and poetry journals, many university affiliated, that have very good reputations. My list is by no means comprehensive and is admittedly US-centric, but instead is intended to give you the broad outlines of what we expect in reliable sources regarding books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. I'll keep that in mind! Wishing you clear skies and strong wind, Mango the RainWingMango the RainWing (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Gherla Holocaust Memorial Monument

I reviewed Draft:The Gherla Holocaust Memorial Monument and declined it because it had no references. Its author, User:Micuklein, then wrote:

I added the references that you requested. I have never submitted anything to Wikipedia before and I am a bit confused about the process.

At this point, one problem is that the draft says “We also researched the names of the villages from where Jewish residents were sent to the Gherla ghetto. We found 44 villages, their names are inscribed on the pedestal of the monument.” Wikipedia articles should never be written in the first person.

The Wikipedia submission process can be confusing to new editors. This Teahouse is a good place to ask questions about submission and about Wikipedia in general. The more specific your questions are, the more likely the answers are to be specific and helpful.

Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts for Micuklein, and anyone else interested in this discussion: I am a Jew though I always strive to edit Wikipedia neutrally. My late father-in-law lost many dozens of relatives murdered in the Holocaust. They were among the close relatives and ancestors of my wife and my sons, killed en masse as if they were not even human. Personally, I am gratified at such memorial projects, but as a Wikipedia editor, I must set my personal feelings aside, and look at policy and guideline issues like notability. The funding for this memorial was organized by the The United States Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. Therefore, that group's website is not an independent source for this memorial and cannot be used to establish notability. This memorial was dedicated only five weeks ago. Again, I commend the project personally, but I also doubt that it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time, unless much better sources can be produced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why this entry is not considered notable enough,

There is a page with all the Holocaust Memorials and this memorial is notable enough to have a mention in Wikepedia. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums When 14% of the population of a city is exterminated it important enough to have a mention in Wikepedia. Again sorry for the clumsy approach, I have never done this before. MicuKleinMicuklein (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The original poster has put the "we" into the third person and has resubmitted. I will again ask the original poster what their specific questions are, since they say that they have questions. (I have posted a long welcome message with many links for them to read.) Do other experienced editors care to comment?

Cullen328, The United States Commission for he Preservation of America's

Heritage Abroad is not a private organization,it is a Unites States Government Agency and they supported they helped finance the project. The Commission Chair, Ms Lesley Weiss came and spoke at the inauguration. Also, the Israeli Ambassador was at the ceremony. Also, the chief Rabbi of Romania, the mayor of the city of the Gherla, the head of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania

the Hungarian consul and many other demnitaries were present at the inauguration. The Romanian state TV station broadcasted

3 shows about the monument and the event. I think this is notable enough for an entry in WikipediaMicuklein (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Micuklein: Other editors are giving you feedback about where you draft may not meet Wikipedia standards. You may have a different opinion. If your opinion isn't backed by the Wikipedia notability guidelines, which editors follow in reviewing new articles, you are likely to see your article rejected again. Spend some time studying the standards that are being pointed out to you and try to improve the article to comply. One detail I noticed is that you should remove the Wikipedia article reference. See WP:CIRCULAR Gab4gab (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I made all the suggested changes and resubmitted the page. Hope it looks better now.

Micuklein (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics

I found Continuum expression of the second law of thermodynamics (or Clausius-Duhem inequality) but I can't find Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics the equation is the following:

${\frac {DE_{t}}{Dt}}=\nabla \cdot ({\bf {\sigma \cdot u}})-\nabla \cdot {\bf {q}}$

Is this equation already exists in wikipedia!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You should probably check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. I think you may fit in well there, and this may be too technical for your average Teahouse question. TimothyJosephWood 00:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The form that you have given for the first law is a simple mathematical expression and would not warrant its own article. I didn't find it in First law of thermodynamics. If you have a reliable source stating that that is a valid form of the first law, you may add it to the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect Question

Now I'm confused. What is being redirected where with Clausius-Duhem inequality? Is the redirect going from a form of the name with an em-dash or en-dash to a form with a hyphen? Also, Continuum expression of the second law of thermodynamics appears to be going to a soft redirect and maybe should be edited to be a hard redirect and avoid confusion. Maybe this question is beyond the scope of this forum and should go to the Help Desk, but here it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The article Clausius–Duhem inequality has an en dash in the title; Clausius-Duhem inequality (with a hyphen) redirects to it. (See the ninth bulleted item at WP:POFR.) Continuum expression of the second law of thermodynamics originally redirected to the form with a hyphen, but that double redirect has been fixed by a bot. Deor (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with my editing so I won't look dumb on my next post.

For the levels do I have to put in = =level 2== or can I just do = =early life== and same question for bolding do I have to put " "bold"" to make t he next word bold or do I just put the quotations around the word and automatically becomes bolded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butmynameismark (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Butmynameismark. See Help:Wiki markup for all of this. The hyphens are just for headings in the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

All you have to do is type ==SHAT==, or '''MONGOOSE''', hopefully those place-holders are absurd enough to prove the point. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 01:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Page Content/Copyright

Duplicate question, answered six questions below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, about 3 months ago I made a page titled "Matt Pitt" and it was deleted due to copyright and it cited Matt Pitt's bio on google plus as the source of the copyright problem. However, I made both pages and used the same content on both...The information I used on both the Google Plus page and the Wikipedia page have cited information from other sources therefore, do I have the right to "donate" the google plus page? Is there a way to be able to get my page for Matt Pitt back on Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for your help! Koglesby17 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Ramones Logo

Hello- I submitted a question last week, got an answer and now I cannot find that answer. Re: original post: I am advocating the change or update of The Ramones logo on their page to better show who the ending members of the band were, which includes Tommy, Johnny, Joey and DeeDee. Marky left the band due to alcoholism and anger over t-shirt sales. This was how the band played their last show.

How and where can I argue to have this changed?

Watermelonfree (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Watermelonfree. Please propose this change at Talk: Ramones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Watermelonfree. The question you previously posted at the Teahouse can be found at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 496#I'm trying to edit a logo. Questions are automatically archived after a certain period of time, but the archives can be searched. Just input a keyword into the "Question archived?" box located near the top of this page, and then click "Go find it!". Sometimes the best keyword for a question you have asked is your username. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo quality

Hi,

I uploaded a high quality JPEG (of an organization's logo), yet it becomes very pixelated when I insert it into the Infobox. What am I doing wrong?

Thank you.

MountainStar00 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Like this. That's odd. It doesn't look pixelated to me, but I see a gray horizontal stripe across the middle, that shouldn't be there. I doubt you have done anything wrong. I suspect the software that converts the image on Commons to the smaller one displayed here is malfunctioning. I wonder if the organization can supply an SVG instead of a JPG, that might work better. Maproom (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And now the stripe has gone. I am mystified. Maproom (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MountainStar00. I am concerned about the licensing. All files on Wikimedia Commons need to be freely licensed for use by anyone for any purpose without permission. Why would an organization want to lose control of its logo? I suggest uploading instead to Wikipedia under our policy on use of non-free images, criteria #2. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Thank you! The policy on use of non-free images is precisely what I need for this. I'm unsure how to delete the original image, but I will try to upload the image under that non-free image policy within a couple of days. Thanks again for your help.

MountainStar00 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, MountainStar00. Although I sometimes donate images to Wikimedia Commons, I am not at all an expert on their procedures. I am sure that they have a help desk which you can find on the menu on the left side of their home page. I am confident that the volunteers there can assist you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge needed

Aparoksanubhuti needs uncontroversial merge with Aparokshanubhuti please. I've seen WP:MERGE but, sorry, I don't have time to figure out how to do it myself. Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Shantavira, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions and learn how to edit Wikipedia, rather than somewhere to post requests. In this case, however, I think that because the first of those articles is unsourced, there isn't really anything to merge, so it should probably just be turned into a redirect to the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Help editing my article for resubmission

Hello, I need help editing my article "Grand Rapids Community Foundation" so I can resubmit it. It was declined the first time because of a lack of reliable secondary sources and because of promotional tone. I have added more secondary sources so I am hoping it will be able to be accepted. I am looking for opinions on whether it is better now, and on how I can make it less "promotional." I took some content from the organization's website, but they are all facts that describe the organization so I don't believe they are too promotional. Please help!

Nicwin10 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd advise against taking content from their website, not least because it's a copyright violation. That said, the article is in a better state than it was previously. You should probably rewrite (at the least) the section on their values etc, as it reads like it's pasted directly from a website and the format doesn't work well in an encyclopedia. This essay might be of interest. KieranTribe 14:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nicwin10. I would go much further than KieranTribe. Your article is almost completely promotional and needs a complete rewrite. I estimate that about 90% of the current content is either overtly promotional, or copied directly from the group's website. A Wikipedia article about an organization should include negligible information from the group's website. Perhaps the name of the current executive directors, the city where it is located, and a handful of other completely uncontroversial facts are OK. A Wikipedia article should instead summarize what reliable sources completely independent of the group say. Such sources might include newspapers and magazines published in Grand Rapids, Chicago and Detroit. A clear majority of your sources are to the group's own website, which is not acceptable. A statement like "The foundation envisions a magnetic and interconnected West Michigan community" is overtly promotional, not at all neutral, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. This sentence: "Grand Rapids Community Foundation embraces the fact that today’s complex problems require intense attention and may result in “messy” work in seeking out ways to address issues" is copied directly from the source but not shown as a quote. Accordingly, you are representing that as your original writing, when it was written by someone else. That is not allowed. Even if it was your writing, it is promotional and does not belong. Please start from scratch, after reading Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, do you have an association with the Grand Rapids Community Foundation? (When an editor focuses all of their editing efforts on a single organization, some editors wonder whether there is an association.) If so, you must provide the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

How to create a wiki page for a company or website service not as advertisement?

Hi,

I have seen there are many wikipedia pages about companies and websites, and I understand that Wikipedia doesn't allow for advertisement of business. But what makes a company wiki page not an advertisement? I tried to create a wiki page for my own website, and included many facts that would be interesting and useful for the website users. However, I received a message saying that it is an advertisement and would be deleted soon.

I would greatly appreciate advice from expert editors about how to create a wiki page for a website which is informative to readers, and not an advertisement.

Thanks! Richard Asteriago (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to find sources that discusses your company/website that are independent of you. It can not be press releases that you have given out about your company. These sources need to provide significant coverage also. I looked at your deleted article and there is a strong possibility that a website created in June 2016 will not have the coverage necessary to create an article. -- GB fan 14:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Asteriago, To add on to my previous comment. Here are some pages you should read.

Wikipedia:Your first article

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

Wikipedia:Notability (web)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Hope these help. -- GB fan 14:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, do you have an association with Flairar.com? If so, you must provide the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Since Asteriago said in his original post "I tried to create a wiki page for my own website", he obviously has an association with Flairar.com, it is his website. -- GB fan 19:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Bascially, Richard, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything at all said by the subject of an article about themselves, or said about them by their friends, relatives, associates, agents, or employees. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it. If you find articles about companies (or any other subject) that seems to be based largely on what the subject has said or wants to say, you are welcome to clean it up, or to tag it for cleanup: see WP:Cleanup process. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Hi, about 3 months ago I made a page titled "Matt Pitt" and it was deleted due to copyright and it cited Matt Pitt's bio on google plus as the source of the copyright problem. However, I made both pages and used the same content on both...The information I used on both the Google Plus page and the Wikipedia page have cited information from other sources therefore, do I have the right to "donate" the google plus page? Is there a way to be able to get my page for Matt Pitt back on Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for your help! Koglesby17 (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read the notice on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you I just read it...one more question. The information I used on both the Google Plus page and the Wikipedia page have cited information from other sources therefore, do I have the right to "donate" the google plus page?Koglesby17 (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you hold the copyright on the material on the Google Plus page, then you may donate it; but I don't know whether or not that is the case. It wouldn't surprise me if Google's conditions said that you assign them the copyright when you post: but maybe not. What sources you cited does not affect copyright, as copyright inheres in the words (images, designs), not the information. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you do have the copyright to information on a web site, and you do properly release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA license, so that it can be used on Wikipedia, that does not necessarily mean that it will be considered appropriate for Wikipedia. The reason is that information on private web sites is often written promotionally, but that Wikipedia require that material be written from a neutral point of view. So, a proper copyright release under CC-BY-SA means that the material will not be deleted as copyright violation, but it may be deleted as promotional or tagged for editing to achieve neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Echo Chamber as Secondary Sources

Some people in America pushed a narrative to media to sell their works (usually united States Democrtic Party), It called Echo chamber, For some reasons Wikipedia is not able to notice the difference between Echo Chamber and Secondary Sources. So they pushed a narrative to media to sell it and Wikipedia buy it!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Neophysics: This is not a question, and it appears to be trolling. Please stop. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the other two posts on this page by that editor were trolling. This is actually a legitimate criticism (however, I don't see how the US Democratic Party is relevant). The media echo chamber does pose a very real problem for Wikipedia, because quite often editors are unable to distinguish between fluff news sources and real scholastic sources on a topic. This appears to be especially true in the sciences. "Science reporting" is all but dead, to the extent that even otherwise respectable media outlets can no longer be trusted to report scientific information accurately. A few months back, I tried to firm up the WP:RS guideline on this point, but unfortunately there was no consensus. Sławomir
Biały 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Accounts?

I have an alternate account called Nomromex which I would like to get registered as a Legitimate Alternative Account (LAA). My question is: Do both accounts have to be autoconfirmed in order to get permission on the Wikipedia:Request for Permissions/Confirmed page for this issue? User:13aunihert (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi 13aunihert, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no process to get registered as a legitimate alternative account. You just have to follow the rules at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Request for permissions/Confirmed is about something else. Were you by any chance confused by the last sentence in Wikipedia:FAQ#How do I change the name of an article? That only applies if you want to rename a page on your own. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I was. I will have a read of the rules at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry now. Thank you. User:13aunihert (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Game pages, company pages, and me

Hi! In the already existing page Terraforming in Popular Culture, there is a list of games covering the topic of terraforming. All these games have links to wikipedia pages about the games. My company will release a game called Terraforming Mars in August, which will be the most recent game covering the topic, and I think it should be mentioned in the list. But it feels strange to just add it without a reference to a wikipedia article about it. So I though I might create that page first. However, as I created my account on Wikipedia, I was informed that I should not create articles about me or my company (or anything I am closely connected to). What should I do? Lord Aethan (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lord Aethan. You are right, as a connected person, you should not try to create an article about the game. Moreover, no-one should try to create an article about it until it is notable, which within the context of Wikipedia means there is significant discussion of it in reliable independent published sources. This is most unlikely to happen until after it has been released. Maproom (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

But I would still be able to add the game as an entry in the original list as a game in which Terraforming is covered, without any link to an own article? It seems to me that the list in the article "Terraforming in Popular Culture" would be improved by adding the game, even without a page of its own. Lord Aethan (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Lists should be lists of existing articles. You can submit a draft about the game via Articles for Creation, which will be reviewed, but you must provide the conflict of interest disclosure and probably the paid editing disclosure. However, it is very unlikely that the draft will be accepted before the game is released. Also, an unreleased game can hardly be said to be part of "Terraforming in Popular Culture". Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answers. I understand better now. However, the current list holds one item that is not an existing article ("Terraform") and one that was never released at all ("SimMars"). Both these contradict your answer. But I will not pursue this until the game is released.Lord Aethan (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)THIS IS BIG!!!!!!!!!!!!

149.254.56.74 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)neeeds many eyes,,,,this article has existed as a propaganda piece using wikipedia bots and defintion to manipualte itd public perception,,,and its full of errors , out of date information,,,and needs everyone on the plnate to take a very good look at it,,, it needs to be concise,,,clear and free of the double speak this political organisation uses,,, my bias is clear,,but as soon as yu know the facts? i suspect yurs might be too,,, but the facts of the matter not behavu=iouural modification and nlp... which are the fact of the matter,,,wikipedia has defined them as a charity, this migth change under law, they have ebvn changed "common purpose" law to define themsleves,,,it used to mean criminal conspiracy in the uk...dont believe me check wikipedia....# 149.254.56.74 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC) the artcile in question is on the politcal party masquerading as a charity behind a wikipedia definiton,149.254.56.74 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

and if yu dont know whom im talking about... i suggest yu find out http:// commonpurpose.org /alumni/massive-online-innovation-community-moic/

https://moic. commonpurpose.org /hubbub/noaccess

http://www.cpexposed.com/about-common-purpose 149.254.56.74 (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) had to break the links as they are already blacklisted and banned,,,,these are the political manipulators of wikipedia,,,idenitfying themsleves,,,trace the history of this article,,,trace a lot of politicised vandals and benders of the truth,

If you have concerns about Common Purpose UK, please raise them on the article's talk page. If you are in disagreement with other editors, attempt to resolve your disagreements by discussion there; if you cannot do so, follow the procedure for dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

i wouldnt know how and dont really use this site as an editor,,, i found out more information from their own website,,,,and its all been removed,,,, history of vanadlism has also all been removed from the talk page....its wikipedia eating itself,,,, i pooosted here? and the page shrank again,,,emoving allreferences to MOIC....wikipedia is a political machine absorbing and covering up pertinent information.... i want nothing to do with the place,,,,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.74 (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's OK with us, but if you ever decide to return, please remember that Wikipedia is not interested in your own opinion or viewpoint. We just report what we find in WP:Reliable sources. Do you have any connection with Plymouth & Devonport? Dbfirs 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

that was not a new article,rather a correction to an existing one?

i did not submit a new article, only corrected an existing articleKbmnj (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In this edit you submitted your User sandbox to the Article for creation procedure, which is a process for new articles, not for updates to existing articles. Your submission was, however, blank, so contained neither a new article nor a suitable change to any existing article. I have added a few useful links in a welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Proof-reading

As a teacher of English who often peruses Wikipedia for ideas on topics for (class) discussion, I would like to recommend my students and have them feel they are reading proper English while doing so. I often come across articles with mistakes and ambiguity, and so I'd want to make quick changes, listing these as "minor" errors, to improve readers' experience of both the language content and the standard of English while pointing out to creators of a given page any possible "blind spots".

What is the easiest and quickest way to go about this (without the author misunderstanding my sincere intentions)?

Stjohn1970 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find Wikipedia's definition of a minor edit at Help:Minor edit. Remember also to give an appropriate edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Be Bold. Don't worry too much about pointing out errors to authors. Many won't care, some will appreciate your help, a few will object. At that point you can engage with them if you wish. But make sure you add an edit summary, describing why you've made the change. Rojomoke (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

But Stjohn1970, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on National varieties of English. People sometimes "correct" what they perceive to be errors, without realising that the text in question is written in a variety of English that they are less familiar with. --ColinFine (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stjohn1970, you might be interested in the Guild of copyeditors, a project by a group of language specialists aimed at improving the quality of language in articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, Stjohn1970, please recognize that it's not always easy to tell which previous editor made a particular edit without going through an entire page history. I am as much of a prescriptive grammarian as I suspect you are, and, as such, I would be quite miffed to receive a "nastygram" talk-page message dunning me for a grammar error on a page that I might have, in the distant past, created, but to which the grammar error was added many, many edits down the road. The nature of Wikipedia is such that not all editors keep a watch on articles they create, for a variety of legitimate reasons. I am sympathetic with your desire to teach your students the importance of proofreading, but to the extent you believe your mandate requires sending dunning messages to Wikipedia editors about grammar errors, I urge you to recognize that this is an enterprise that is likely to lead to a lot of people getting really upset and negating your positive contributions to the project.

Wikipedia does encourage people for whom English isn't a first language to make contributions (regarding, among other subjects, their own cultures that might not be well-documented in English-language sources). Much of the community appreciates that those of us who ARE native, non-dyslexic, detail-oriented English speakers will find ourselves doing some copyediting cleanup for, let's say, native Serbian and Guarani and !Kung speakers who provide valuable content, with some syntax and capitalization issues as an acknowledged and tolerated aspect of the bargain. Calling those non-native-English-speaking folks out on grammar mistakes in anything other than the most collegial, we're-all-in-this-together manner ("Your English is really quite good! Just so you know, though, native English speakers use either an indefinite or definite article before nouns in sentences like:...") is really going to be to the detriment of the project in the long run and I strongly suggest thinking twice about this idea. I know, it's frustrating to see errors, and it would be lovely if everyone here wrote perfect major-publisher-level English here. The world is a big multilingual place, though, and there are always going to be proofreaders. We clean up after the folks who are at least able to let us know about, say, stylistic nuances of Central Asian ceramics at all, when we might never have had that benefit if we mandated perfect English grammar and chased away those who can't quite get there. It's an ongoing school of diplomacy, but it has not only made me a better writer but a better professional in my own undisclosed field, because I have learned so many useful notions about why native speakers of other languages end up with particular misconceptions in English-speaking societies.

In any event, thanks for gritting your teeth and proofreading! Take care. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Updates and corrections to FDR and Polio List in general

I am not sure if this is where to discuss this or not, But, I'm sure you can point me in the right direction. I did some updates because of the new information reaffirming that FDR did have Polio. And, I see that some people are missing from the Polio Survivors List, and need to be added. I hope to be able to do that. Thanks for any help in this matter! OB93 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, OB93. The general principle is to be bold, and go ahead and improve the encyclopedia, in accordance with our polices and guidelines. You do not need to ask for permission. If anyone objects to your additions, discuss the matter on the list's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Need Your Advice for Draft "CityU MFA"

My first attempt to have my draft titled "CityU MFA" approved is I believe on hold and I wonder whether I am on the right track moving forward.

Originally, I planned to submit partial content of CityU MFA to Wikipedia for approval, and generate more content along the waiting, and once the initial content is approved and the page is published, I could just "edit" and add new content to the page. But this approach appears not a good idea. According to editor Robert's comment (Thank you, Robert for your time reviewing the content.), the amount of content in the draft is too small to become a stand alone article and I should either add the content to an existing page or consult in Teahouse for further inquiries.

So here I am, seeking your advice: Should I come back with the full length draft of CityU MFA? What other options do I have in order to make "CityU MFA" a stand alone page?

Thanks a lot!

Knoxtennessee (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Knoxtennessee. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to have a freestanding article about a university degree program. Instead, degree programs should be listed in the main article about the university. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:CityU MFA. As the author noted, there isn't enough content for an article, and, as User:Cullen328 noted, a degree program really doesn't merit a stand-alone article anyway. I don't see the need for a "full length draft" about the degree program. Edit the article on City University of Hong Kong. More information about the controversy about the program and its termination would be useful, but still probably belongs in the parent article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the original poster may, like some other new editors, think that it is important for new editors to create a new article in Wikipedia. While creating new articles, when appropriate, is a very useful contribution to Wikipedia, it is hardly the only way that a new editor can contribute. It is the hardest task for any Wikipedia editor, whether new or experienced, and there are many other ways that new and experienced editors can contribute to Wikipedia. In this case, I would suggest expanding the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cullen and Robert, I hear you and I can understand your points of view on 1. a degree program should belong to its university's page 2. a new editor has other ways to contribute than creating a new page. I also would like to point out that when a degree program impacts the global scholar communities in ways that no other programs have experienced, it is worth to be encyclopedia-ed for future references. One example is Article: Iowa's Writers' Workshop. The page is not only allowed to be a stand alone page but also to be with ambiguously written content. Why was this article allowed to be a freestanding page, instead of being listed on the university's page? I am asking because CityU MFA is in many ways as notable as this Iowa Writers' Workshop but different in ways which are/will be (when I finish the draft) backed up by independent sources such as CNN, the Guardian and other major media links on the program as well as prizes and awards won by graduates and faculty. I ask you to reconsider your opinion on my proposal to come back with a fully written draft and allow room for discussion to help it become a stand alone page. Thanks. Knoxtennessee (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

First, the Iowa Writers’ Workshop article establishes specific ways that the workshop is notable, that it is not just a degree-granting program of a university, although it is that, but that it makes significant contributions to culture. Second, however, the argument that a particular article exists, known as Other Stuff Exists, has never been considered a solid argument for creating or accepting an article or for keeping an article that has been nominated for deletion. Third, you complain that the Iowa Writers’ Workshop article is allowed "with ambiguously written content". If you think that the article has ambiguously written content, discuss that on the article talk page. That isn’t relevant to whether another article should be accepted. Fourth, you state that "when a degree program impacts the global scholar communities in ways that no other programs have experienced, it is worth to be encyclopedia-ed for future references." You haven’t made a case that the program in question impacts the global scholar communities. In fact, you said that the university cancelled the program for unsubstantiated reasons. If you have evidence that this had a global impact, you haven’t included it in your draft. If you have a long discussion in mind, then maybe you should have committed some of those thoughts to writing before submitting a two-sentence draft to be reviewed and declined. Fifth, you don’t need our permission to "come back with a fully written draft and allow room for discussion to help it become a stand alone page." In fact, it seems that you have your mind made up that you will do that, and it is your privilege to come back with a longer draft. You don’t need our permission. As I said, it isn’t clear why you submitted a very short stub draft if you think that you can develop a longer draft. A longer draft might or might not warrant acceptance as a stand-alone article. If you know what you are planning to do, just do it rather than asking our permission when you don’t need permission.

Every general rule has the occasional exception, Knoxtennessee, and the Iowa Writer's Workshop is a perfect example. It has operated for 80 years and 17 of its alumni have won Pulitzer Prizes. Six US Poet Laureates are also alumni. It is the only university degree program to have won the National Humanities Medal. It is the subject of significant coverage in a wide variety of reliable sources for many decades. So, if you can prove comparable notability for this discontinued program in Hong Kong, please go ahead. I am always happy to change my mind when presented with solid evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Permission to edit Jamaica article

Hello,

I teach composition at a community college in New York State, and one of my students wrote an excellent article on LGBT history in Jamaica. I'm wondering where to place it since I don't have permission to post it to the Jamaica article and that specific subject seems thoroughly covered in another article. Any guidance or permission to post would be helpful. Thank you.

Sarahmander Sarahmander (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahmander: You might start by creating it as a draft (Go to Draft:Article name, replacing your article's name after the colon), and from there submitting it for AfC. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 16:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sarahmander. I am sorry, but you cannot add article content written by someone else to Wikipedia. You can only add what you have written yourself. If your student wants to contribute to Wikipedia, then they should consider registering an account and editing themselves. As for the specific content you mention, Jamaica is semi-protected because of problems with vandalism. As you mention, we already have an article LGBT rights in Jamaica, and your student may wish to edit that existing article in compliance with our policies and guidelines, cooperating with other editors interested in that article. We do not create new articles which are redundant and cover the topics of existing articles. Instead, we improve those existing articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The original poster says that she doesn't have permission to edit the Jamaica article. The original poster is an autoconfirmed editor of long standing. The Jamaica article is semi-protected forever (which is a long time, and it should perhaps be considered for unprotection), but that should not stop her from editing it. If she tried to edit it and was unable to do so, she might have been logged out by accident. (General advice to registered editors: If you surprisingly are unable to edit an article, check whether you may be logged out. If so, the semi-protection was good because it prevented the logged out edit and permits a registered edit.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

More generally, as noted above, you should not add article content written by someone else, because they should and may create their own account. In the case of your student, she will need the ten edits and four days to be autoconfirmed, unless the article is unprotected. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jujutsuan - One should only submit a draft to Articles for Creation if there is not already an existing article. AFC is not for the review of improvement to existing articles. Some editors, in good faith, submit rewritten articles to AFC, but they have to be declined. Please don't advise someone to use AFC for improvements to an existing article. It causes confusion. It is for new articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I must have understood the OP differently from you, thinking "LGBT history in Jamaica" was sufficiently different from "LGBT rights in Jamaica" to possibly get its own article (and not aware of the stub already at that name), in which case AfC would have been appropriate. (I admit I skipped right over the part about it not being the OP's own content; that should have been a red flag.) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 17:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:TPConnects ‎

Hi, I have been twice asked by Raju Dubai on my talk page for a review of Draft:TPConnects submitted 8 June 2016‎. I believe it's probably notable enough, but not sure enough and hate to accept an article just to have it AfDed or PRODed... so just thought I'd post up and see if anyone else had an opinion. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Seek the assistance of any members if they have any opinion or can help me to tidy the references to be consistent to complete the process. You may also refer to this url http://www.thebeat.travel/post/2016/06/03/No-GDSs-Or-TMCs-Are-NDC-Capable-Yet-Based-On-IATA-Certification.aspx. Thanks in advance for any help Raju Dubai (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Raju Dubai - There is a common belief among new editors that it is very important for a new editor to create a new article as their contribution to Wikipedia. While creating new articles about notable subjects is very important, it is not the only way that new editors can help, and it is the hardest task for new or experienced editors. In this case, you, a new editor, are pushing quite hard to get your draft article reviewed. The Articles for Creation review process is backlogged. However, you have gotten two comments, one that the company does appear to be notable, and the other, from me, that the references need to be made consistent. You haven't made the references consistent, and, if you are asking for help in making the references consistent, that isn't obvious. If you need help with the references, this is a good place to ask for help with the references, but ask clearly for help; don't just ask to have your draft reviewed again. When you ask so persistently to have a draft reviewed, it causes some of the reviewers to think that you have a conflict of interest. You have said, in response to my question, that you do not have a conflict of interest. So be patient. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. We are all volunteers. Please do not annoy us by asking too aggressively for another review. Thank you for understanding that you need to be patient (a little more patient than you have been). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The company seems notable enough. I did a few minor copyedits on the draft. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Have done the changes on the references to be consistent Raju Dubai (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Deletion Policy Removed Mathematical Proof and Violate Deductive Argument.

Why a Mathematical proof requires Secondary source at Wikipedia!? I think for a Mathematical proof (in math or physics) Primary source is even more than enough!, Because it is base on deductive argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Neophysics, there are a lot of 'proofs' put out by people/groups (i.e. a Primary source) that others disagree with or find fault with. So a good Secondary source would be need to validate the claim. If no Secondary source exists for a 'proof' then maybe its not valid. Ask any professor of mathematics how many poofs they get sent - I've seen multiple on YouTube (such as on numberphile) that have joked about the number of emails/letters they get claiming to have proven conjectures. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

please note: When something is base on deductive argument, It could NOT be wrong, In any way for example 2 + 2 = 4 {\displaystyle 2+2=4} 2+2=4 could not be wrong because of deductive argument. Neophysics

• Your question was for a "Mathematical proof", 2 + 2 = 4 is not a proof, it is a statement/declaration/definition. If your question is on things that "It could NOT be wrong" then your talking about definitions not something that has a "Mathematical proof". KylieTastic (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I partly agree and partly disagree with User:KylieTastic as to 2+2 = 4. Although for most people, that is simply a memorized fact, it can be proved using the Peano postulates. However, Wikipedia does not publish new mathematical proofs, which are original research. It is true that a mathematical proof "cannot be wrong" if it is correct. However, as noted, many proposed mathematical proofs, especially by amateurs of unsolved conjectures, but even by professional mathematicians, contain subtle (or not-so-subtle) errors, and Wikipedia does not have a peer review process. For a history of how difficult it may be to prove something (which cannot be wrong once proved), see Fermat’s last theorem. Fermat was almost certainly wrong in thinking that he had a proof that would not fit in the margin, but even the first proof by Andrew Wiles contained a subtle error that had to be fixed on the second proof. Wikipedia cannot accept unpublished mathematical proofs because they have not had the formal peer review process of published mathematical proofs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Deletion policy Bypass

Most of Wikipedia's Physical & Mathematical Articles with Secondary Sources are Completely Wrong because of Deletion Policy's Bypass:

A large number of scientific articles (even with Secondary source) on wikipedia are completely wrong, They bypass Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Wikipedia's scientific articles need to be reviewed by professional scientists, Wikipedia's Secondary source policy was useless in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Linking a page

Recently I edited a page and I wanted to link other pages in the edit. I added the URL but it didn't come up as the page but the link. How do I fix this ?? Thanks, STHTHEYCHEHE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sththeychehe (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sththeychehe and welcome to the Teahouse. To link to another Wikipedia article, you put the name of the article in between square brackets ( [[ & ]], for example, [[Wikipedia]] links to our page about Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

First-time Edit: Expanding "Situations and Names of Winds"

I just went through the Wikipedia Adventure tutorial, and I'm excited to start contributing to Wikipedia, as I've benefitted from the site for years. The article I wish to expand is called Situations and Names of Winds which describes an excerpt from Aristotle's treatise of Meteorological Signs. The article is a stub. I first came across the article during my own research, trying to find the complete text. I did eventually source the full text, available online at the Loeb Classical Library website.

My question is this: for the sake of others like me, is it proper for me to copy the full text into the article (with citation, of course)? Since it is available for free, and (I assume) in the public domain, would this violate Wikipedia's guidelines? Should I simply include a link to the external website instead?

Thank you for your help — I'm new to this, and in my attempts to be helpful I want to make sure I'm doing things right! Jared Evans (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Since anything written by Aristotle would undoubtedly be in the public domain, I don't think it's inappropriate to include it. To me, including the original work (only if it's free, of course) just saves people from having to track it down somewhere else. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! I'll find another article that includes a work's full text as reference for my formatting, and then get to work. Jared Evans (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with White Arabian Filly, Jared. Hosting the text of works is not what Wikipedia is for (if the translation is out of copyright, it could be hosted at Wikisource). A Wikipedia article on the work should summarise what reliable published sources have said about the work. It might quote from it, but the bulk of the article should be about the work, not reproducing the work. --ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ColinFine. The work is pd, which means you won't have to tread carefully in terms of length of quotes, but the article should be a discussion about what secondary sources say about the work, not the work per se. Such a discussion is likely to use quotes, possibly extensive, but it is not likely that the entire work should be included in the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to clarify that I've never read the work being discussed, and my comment about including the full work was aimed more at short things like songs or poems. Obviously, it's impossible and impractical to include a 10,000 word work in an article. However, I do think it's fine to include the full work, if it's free, in articles like The Star-Spangled Banner. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination ready to go—now what?

This is my first time being involved with a DYK. It looks like it's ready to go. What's the next step? Who has to do it? Thanks. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jujutsuan and welcome to the Teahouse. As highlighted by me at that nomination, it needs an independent reviewer to say that it's good to go. After that, and admin will add it to the prep/queue area (not sure how long that will take, it sometimes takes 2 hours and sometimes a few days), where an admin typically checks it again (although it's almost always fine), and then it'll be run when that queue is selected by the bot. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Thanks! Is there any possibility of it being left too long for review and breaking some time limit rule? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Once it's nominated, it won't break any kind of limit, no matter how long the review takes. If you nominated within 7 days, as you did, you don't have to worry about time. Nominations don't expire, and it often takes a while for somebody to get to them. However, I got to it. 😊 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Thanks. FWIW, I was a creator, not a nominator, but same difference in this case I guess. (?) Anyway, thanks for reviewing the nom. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider jacket cover blurbs published material?

My article about poet Bruce Isaacson has been rejected twice. Quotes about him from Allen Ginsberg and Jack Hirshman were published on the back of an Isaacson book, published by Zeitgeist Books, in which Isaacson is a partner, in a publication of 2,000 copies. Would you consider those quotes to be published quotes?Argotmerchant (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Judging from what you say, they are published, but they are not independent, and so cannot be used to establish that Isaacson is notable. Maproom (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Argotmerchant. Relevant to this discussion is the following sentence from our notability guideline for books: "This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". What you call "jacket cover blubs" is the same as "flap copy". To me, it seems clear that material which cannot be used to establish the notability of a book also cannot be used to establish the notability of the book's author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

At one point I read the rule about "flap copy," but forgot it. Thanks. Argotmerchant (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)