Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...

Shortcuts

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

David Biddulph, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240

is Wikipedia considered as a social media?

Wikipedia is an inforation business,although Wikipedia is considered as social media by some sources,Wikipedia is actually about information sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.250.241.7 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the question. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. It is emphatically not a social media site. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Yunshui rightly points out that the aim of Wikipedia is not to be a social media, de facto it is a place where people with somewhat common interests discuss and share content, even though discussions should remain germane to the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Said otherwise, while you may make friends here, that is not the goal.

In the future, you should use the Teahouse (and the similar Help Desk) for questions relating to editing Wikipedia; questions about the outside perception of Wikipedia or other subjects should go to the suitable Reference Desk. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to the OP, you said that Wikipedia is an information business. Just want to be clear that isn't correct. It's not a business, its a non-profit institution similar to the open source movement in software development where people contribute things for the satisfaction of the work and the experience of working collaboratively with a great community, not for monetary gain. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTFACEBOOK. It is definitely not a social media. 62.109.16.184 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP:NOT is a little... misleading to say the least. Many things that "Wikipedia is not" it actually is. It is simply these things incidentally. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Claiming a redirect to create a new page

Hello I work for a registered charity in the UK (The Officers' Association) and have joined Wikipedia in order to create a wiki page to represent our organisation. When I search for "Officers' Association" there is a redirect in place that points to the Royal British Legion (RBL) - Another much larger UK charity who we work closely with. As you can see from their page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_British_Legion) it lists the Officers' Association as one of the merged organisations that formed the RBL - This is factually inaccurate.

Can you recommend the best course of action to create this page and remove this redirect? We have a good relationship with the RBL so I could approach them but would like advice on what I should be requesting first.

Many thanks

James

Officersassoc (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Officersassoc. Well first you should register a new account since your current one is a violation of our username policy since it appears to be promotional and implies shared use. Nearly anything will do just fine, including "James at OA" or just literally gibberish.

Second, you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest and take care to abide by them, since failure to do so can result in a lot of unwanted attention.

Finally, if you would like to attempt to write the article yourself, and you're pretty sure it meets our standards for notability, you should start it as a draft, which can be done by clicking here -> Draft:The Officers' Association. When you think you're nearly finished, you can submit it to our Articles for Creation project where a volunteer can review it and offer feedback.

You probably also want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. There's a pretty big learning curve in writing for an encyclopedia, and these can save a lot of trouble if get a feel for things first rather than jumping right in. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, Officersassoc, to add to what TimothyJosephWood says: No Wikipedia article "represents" an organisation, other than Wikipedia. If Wikipedia has an article about your organisation, it will not "represent" your organisation, it will not be owned by your organisation, and your organisation will not have control of its contents. It is basically not your job to write a Wikipedia article about your organisation, because you are likely to find it hard to judge what is and what isn't promotional. This is why editing with a conflict of interest is discouraged. My recommendation would be to drop the idea, and (if you want to contribute to Wikipedia) find other articles to work on. But if you choose to continue, follow TJW's advice. --ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a stub here, since the redirect is wrong. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Can I create this page?

I want to create a page of a celebrity dietician based in India. She is a consultant with NDTV health section, very popular with media - print and digital.

If I create this page will it be accepted?

Shilpa Arora (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shilpa Arora. This really depends on what types of sources are available and whether or not the subject meets our standards for notability, which is normally shown by demonstrating that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to create a Draft and then submit it via The article for creation process. There, an experienced editor can judge whether the page is fit for Wikipedia or not. They can then move it to the main space if its OK or suggest you ways for improving it if its not. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a profile picture for one magazine I work for, creating an entire page for another

Dear Wiki Users,

I am an editorial assistant working for The Magazine ANTIQUES (TMA) and MODERN Magazine (MM). I have two questions:

1. I noticed that TMA doesn't have a header image and I was going to add one. We have the rights to use whatever was on our covers, so I was going to upload our May-June cover. However, since it's the company and not I who specifically owns the copyright, is it ok for me to upload it using my user account?

2. MM has no page. Is it conflict of interest for me to create it, using just basic info (publisher, editor, owner, basic history)?

The magazines have been around for, respectively, 95 and 9 years. I've been working for them for a little over a year.

Thank you. Samg0DD^m (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Yes, since you work for them it is a conflict of interest not only to create the page but to work on it at all. See the guideance at WP:COI. (1) The image must be released under a free licence that allows for re-use. RudolfRed (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RudolfRed.

Samg0DD^m (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samg0DD^m you not only have a conflict of interest, you are a paid contributor. You must disclose this in accordance with the instructions at WP:PAID.

When RudolfRed says the image must be released under a free license, that is correct, but you cannot release it. The copyright holder must release it. Once it is released, anyone in the world will be able to display it, sell it, create modified versions of it, or muse it in pretty much any way at all, provided that the source is attributed. See the details at Donating copyrighted material. Oh your employer having the "rights to use" an image would not be sufficient, the actual copyright holder must consent to the release.

Once you disclose your connection, you could use the article wizard to create a draft, under the articles for creation project, which will need to be reviewed and approved by an experienced editor before it goes live. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DES. I've learned a lot. Will try to familiarize myself with the procedure before attempting anything else. Samg0DD^m (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

|The image could be uploaded under fair use exceptions,provided it meets Wikipedia's requirements see WP:FAIRUSE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

How do I change the cascade protection lock icon?

Note: For background, see this discussion.

Hi! Does someone here know how to change the color of the cascade protection lock icon? If so, please let me know. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noah Kastin I believe what you need to do is make the change at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content, and specifically:

<td class="mbox-image">[[Image:Padlock-goldturquoise.svg|40px]]</td>

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, Fuhghettaboutit!

Unfortunately, I can't make the proposed change, due to the fact that Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content is fully protected. Can you make the change for me?

I also noticed that both Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items and Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content seem to share the gold lock icon. I also noticed that, while Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content states that it has the WP:CASC shortcut, this redirects to Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, which also claims to have the WP:CASC shortcut. Does this affect where the lock icon should be updated?

In addition, should the turquoise lock be added to Wikipedia:Protection policy and updated at Wikipedia:Protection policy/Padlocks? Sub-post added at 03:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC) by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋).

Thanks for the help!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I should not make these changes, I will proceed to make all of these changes, except for the one to Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content, which I will ask an administrator to do, as the page is fully protected. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 23:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add signature

I forgot to add my signature to a saved edit. Can I go back and add it after the fact? Or is it important? LuKesi (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LuKesi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can, and while not vital, it is a good idea. If you don't, an automated script (or "bot") or another editor may provide the information for you. The use and importance of sigs is described in Wikipedia:Signatures. Briefly, in discussions sigs help identify who wrote what and when. Sigs provide a way of contacting an editor, also. Thank you for your contributions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LuKesi I think there is a misunderstanding here. Signatures should be added only to talk pages, help desks and the Teahouse. Do not sign edits to articles. The system keeps the record of who added what in the history. The edit summary is to explain why you made the edit. Dbfirs 20:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! LuKesi (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I am an employee of a small non-profit historical site. We would like the info about our site to be placed on Wikipedia and I was given the task. Is this a major conflict of interest that will result in our contribution being denied?Folle avoine (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Folle avoine, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is a significant conflict of interest, but it need not prevent the info being included, if it is apropriate, and things are done properly.

First, review our guideline on notability, our specific guideline on the notability of organizations. Consider whether your organization (or the site it runs) clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, Disclose your connection with the group in accordance with WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the organization in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop, an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital in this case. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anythign published by the organization itself or its affiliates. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the org in detail. But those significant sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in your case with the conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is rejected, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of bolding a very important part of DESiegel's comments. While paid editing of Wikipedia is allowed precisely because people like you are a net positive to the encyclopedia, it needs to be transparent. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA for Diamond Foundry

I would like to turn Diamond Foundry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into a Good Article. However, I have never used the process before and am totally unfamiliar with it. The article clears (IMO) 5 of the criteria (no images). But before I nominated it, could some experienced eyes take a look and see whether or not that would be good idea? Thanks. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC) edited d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

It's a very short article, L3X1, which in my view means it clearly fails the "broad in its coverage" requirement. I would suggest nominating for Wikipedia:Did you know, but it's not new or long enough to meet the criteria for that either. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Cordless Larry. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More can obviously be said about some topics than others, L3X1, but take a look at my most recent GA nomination, Tour DuPont, to give you an idea of what passes. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, L3X1. I agree with Cordless Larry that the article is not yet up to GA standards. I read the New York Times article which is fairly lengthy and detailed. It has a lot of information that can be summarized in the article. You do not mention investors by name, except Leonardo DiCaprio. That information is in the NYT. You say that the diamonds are manufactured in San Francisco which seemed odd to me, but the NYT says San Carlos. My hunch is that the offices are in San Francisco but the factory is in San Carlos. Look into that. I suggest that you remove the references which are brief and clearly promotional, and focus on summarizing what the best and most detailed sources say about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Google search verifies that the company is based in San Carlos, California. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen, I am now seeing a bunch of contradictory stuff as to what their location is. inc.com says San Francisco based, HQ in Santa Clara (Bay Area), and a design studio in downtown Los Angeles. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a rough guide, the (I believe) shortest GA I've ever encountered on Wikipedia is Automonopoli at 689 words of text, and the shortest FA is Tropical Depression Ten (2005) at 622 words, and those are on as niche topics as could be imagined where it's genuinely likely to be true that there's nothing further to say on the matter. As a very general rule of thumb, if an article is shorter than around 500-1000 words, it's usually an indication that the article is likely either to be incomplete or to be non-notable (if the sources don't exist to write at least that much, that's typically an indication that the sources don't exist to confer notability). ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find a list of all the contests?

I am a very keen participant in writing contests (not the photography ones). I was very active in the Africa Destubathon. However since then I have not chanced upon any contest - the fixed period ones, not the 10/50K challenges. Today I glanced upon https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/UNESCO_Challenge, though the date had ended by then. Where do I find a list of all the short term contests on different Wikimedia projects? Jupitus Smart 18:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jupitus Smart, Wondering if Contests page will help or inactive International writing contest page. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies part of the problem @JoeHebda:. The UNESCO Challenge I had mentioned above did not show up in either page. So it would have been futile to add either page to my watchlist. What I need is a more comprehensive list, or some other medium that mentions new events (including Contests). I don't think Signpost mentions such details, otherwise it would have been useful. Jupitus Smart 05:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Wikipedia:Contests page should be more widely advertised. A mention at WP:VP, perhaps? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Cleaning up article "Maryann Keller"

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to get help cleaning up this article. I was referred to the Tea House by the Wikimedia foundation as a place to get an issue resolved. I appreciate anyone's help with this...

Long story short... I work for the subject, and therefore I'm prohibited from making edits to the article, but I'm trying to get the issue resolved as it could be a problem for our firm if people view the Wikipedia page which discounts certain facts. We believe a third-party contractor for our firm(now terminated) created the page, and subsequently may have hired a paid Wiki-editor, and therefore caused this issue. Since the subject is notable, Wikipedia will not delete the article and instead shows a neutrality statement - a disappointment for all parties. So, while the article is factually accurate, it doesn't appear accurate, and this is problematic for us.

From what I learned from Wikimedia's legal team, I need to invite some editors to review the page and make edits, and I'm looking for guidance on how to do that. Should I contact Wiki-editors that have edited automotive industry articles(subject's industry)? Or should I contact Wiki-admins instead? Any simple help would be super appreciated. Thank you. wikilongislandguy (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Draft:Maryann Keller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this is about Draft:Maryann Keller? By using the articles fore creartion process, you are sub,mitting yoiur edits for review by experienced editors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, no, the draft was rejected and must stay rejected as I'm partial party and cannot submit articles or edits. My question applies to the live article which was created after. I explained the situation in detail on page the Talk Page of the live article. (Talk:Maryann Keller). Thank you for your help!wikicarsandtrucks (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought DES gave it already... :) CiaPan (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , i am looking for feedback on my article (currently a draft , waiting formal review )-for libby Birch

Hi , i am looking for feedback on my article (currently a draft , waiting formal review )-please for libby Birch

thank you Beerch (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Beerch. Your draft article is filled with extremely promotional language like "a natural and extremely hard working athlete with an elite mindset", stated in Wikipedia's voice. That violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Any evaluative language must be referenced to an independent reliable source. There are also violations of our Manual of Style, such as capitalizing section headers and referring to the person by her first name instead of her surname. I suggest you read Your first article and review our notability guideline for athletes. It is unlikely that this draft will be accepted in its current form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that Draft:Libby Birch has been submitted for review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The indication was in the line {{AFC submission|||ts=20170606043645|u=Beerch|ns=118}} at the foot of the draft. There was, however, an unterminated comment above it, so the submission was not effective. I have corrected the unterminated comment in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which left the comment unterminated (and thus removed the draft from the submission queue) was this one. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

could i have further feedback on the latest draft Libby birch please thankyou .

could i have further feedback on the latest draft Libby birch please Also is this draft libby Birch submitted in the waiting list for official review please

thankyou .Beerch (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above. You don't need to start a new section to continue the discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

draft article libby Birch has been modified according to your valued suggestions .please re review thanks

draft article libby Birch has been modified according to your valued suggestions .please re review and if possible provide further feedback on libby birch many thanks Beerch (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read what I said above? Please do NOT start a new section when you are continuing a discussion on the same topic. Your draft in now back is the queue for review (along with more than a thousand other drafts). While you are awaiting review, please take the time to read some of the links on your user talk page, and particularly WP:Your first article, WP:Autobiography, and WP:Notability (sports). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Libby Birch. The referencing is a mess, with no working links to the online sources. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

draft review and feedback Libby Birch thankyou

NewYorkActuary many thanks for your suggestions and feedback If anyone else has any further suggestions and recommendations for my draft article Libby Birch than i would be thrilled to receive them also is this draft libby birch in a que for official review thankyou Beerch (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Draft:Libby Birch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many more times do you need to be told? When you are continuing to discuss the same subject DO NOT start a new section. Yes, your draft is still in the review queue, as indicated by the big coloured box at the top of the draft. I have reverted (twice) your removal of the comments which you received. Comments and review feedback stay in the draft to help you and other reviewers; they will be removed if and when it is published as an article. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for any inconvenience i have caused and deeply apologise as i was not reading your comments as i had not found them re Libby Birch . Thankyou for your help David Biddulph it is greatly valued . Is there anything else i should do as i note my Beerch user name is still in red ?? again Thanks Beerch (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that your user name is in red is that you haven't yet created a user page. You don't need to do so, but information is at WP:User pages. Please read the advice at WP:Autobiography if you haven't done so already. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou again , i have red the section on autobiography and this is definalty not an autobiography as i am not the notable person in the article draft Libby Birch and have no bias as such . but thankyou Hi my name is Greg . Also just to check i have also read the section on user pages and dont fully understand the difference between what i thought was my user name Beerch and wha i have ...sorry ...but just to confirm i can still create articles with what i have yes ? again thanks for your help ..Greg Beerch (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)..Greg I think further reading has helped me understand that i have a user name but not page and that still allows me to contribute ? thanks Greg[reply]

Beerch (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , does anyone have any further feedback for the draft article .Libby Birch thanks Greg Beerch (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beerch, DESiegel, and David Biddulph: Considering that "Beerch" is very close to "Birch" — in most languages, the letter "i" is pronounced like English "ee"— I must ask, are you related to Libby Birch? Because if you are, you should not be writing this article, as it is a major conflict of interest. See WP:COI. --Thnidu (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thankyou for your query , when i was trying to create the wikipedia account as a beginner i made a mistake and used beerch for the first proposed articles name in stead of the family name "Kennedy" for myself . i tried to correct this and re enter the user name Kennedy on the same day but it was subsequently denied for some reason ?. As discussed in one of my thankyous i am merely a supporter of this sporting club and hoping to put up a draft article for all the women players(who dont have a wikipedia page on as some already do eg Katie Brennan ). now that i have got the draft with the help of others including yourselves for this first player on the notable womens players list(in alphabetical order beginning with rookie libby Birch) , i have begun to write in my sandbox other drafts for the other players in alphabetical order . If you have advice as to how i can change my user name to kennedy then that would be great to save any confusion .I have tried to follow all the guidelines as stipulated by Wikipedia and understand and respect the importance . thankyou Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerch (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC) oops i forgot to use the sign off sorry i am trying but make mistakes so if you have any help then please feel free to provide advise at any time thankyou Greg Beerch (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does a teahouse have a name ?

What is the name of this teahouse ?Wholecube (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In need of a quick review of the Draft I created after making Necessary changes.

Hi English Wikipedia help Channel. I have posted an article it's name is "Draft: Taal Inc." 2-3 weeks ago. I waiting someone to review it as it has already been reviewed before twice, necessary corrections have been made. I am looking forward for some to read it and help me before it gets deleted by Wikipedians. Is that possible? I request, not to delete the page. Tell me the necessary ramifications I'll make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddy sj (talk • contribs) 05:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the need to establish that the subject is notable? Draft: Taal Inc. cites over 50 sources, but none of the ones I have checked even mentions the subject. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finding stubs to edit

Hi all, I participated in a Wikipedia class editing project last year and really loved it, so I want to get into editing a little more. While I would love to start with correcting small issues in articles, it's difficult to find those. I was wondering if there's anywhere I could find a list of stubs/incomplete articles/articles with noted issues so I can target my efforts effectively. Thanks in advance! RDvor (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RDvor, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find articles in need of help here: Wikipedia:Community portal, including stubs. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hello @RDvor:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Lists of stub types per topic area, incl. links to these stub categories, are maintained at WP:Stubs. Other types of maintenance are also often covered by specific Wikipedia projects (f.e. copy-editing, disambiguation, categorization, anti-vandal and anti-spam activities, and lots more). Depending on your interests, I recommend to join such a Wiki project for additional ressources and advice from like-minded editors. A quick additional tip: if you are looking for information about a specific Wikipedia-related topic, you can type "WP:topic" in the search field. Usually such keywords are linked to an information or guideline in the "Wikipedia" namespace with additional details and links. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying in Wikipedia by Senior editor

Hello sir, i want to know how to get Help from the administrator or supereditors when someone get bullied by senior editor in wikipedia. Constantly removing & reverting the contribution(constructive hard-work) of new user in a targeted manner, and discourages the new users in wikipedia world. Thank you --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiBodhiVamsa and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't examined the disagreement in detail, but I see no bullying, only an insult by you, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. If you have a disagreement on content, please discuss it politely on the talk page of the article without making any accusations. I'm not an administrator or "supereditor", just an ordinary editor like you, and we are all equal here, but we all have to learn the rules of Wikipedia about use of sources. If a polite discussion does not result in an agreement, then you can ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Dbfirs 06:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again WikiBodhiVamsa I don't think accusing people of Communist bias is helpful to Wikipedia. Could I just clarify that a content dispute is best discussed on the talk page of the article (in this case Talk:Godhra_train_burning where another editor has already started a discussion). Repeatedly adding disputed content is considered disruptive and is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. Please follow procedure. You might find the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle helpful. Dbfirs 08:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dbfirs, i think you didn't read my reply correctly in Talk page. I said this is my personal opinion sir, and i ask this in very polite manner. i think i have rights & freedom to speak to other user like You. It was decent conversation. But why are you hackling me here.? is this your 2nd account(Tyler Durden) please let me know. Thank you. --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again WikiBodhiVamsa. I'm disappointed that you ignored my advice. I was trying to help you to avoid getting blocked but I see that you are determined to continue with your war against other editors and I wish to have no more to do with you. Please do not continue any correspondence with me. I have no interest in the article and I wish to avoid any more ridiculous accusations. I have withdrawn my comment above since you think I misunderstood. I get the impression that there is something more going on here, but I have no evidence so I will not comment further. Dbfirs 12:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir @Dbfirs, i am worried. i don't know what makes you think i am attacks other user. This is very polite and decent conversation. but instead i am sacred using Wikipedia. This is no longer Open source and Free space of knowledge. where other voice & opinion are being suppressed by other user. This is not jimmy wales dream. Sorry if i hurts you. Thank you WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not communicate with me any further. I suspect that all is not as it seems. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free space for anyone to write what they wish. There are many open sites where opinion can be expressed if this is what you are looking for. Dbfirs 13:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I ask a third party/volunteer to write an article for my company?

I read a lot of content on how to create a page and write an article for your company on wikipedia but all the content is very scary and tells me to not create a page myself, but to submit a request and let someone else write it. Because if I write content for my company myself then it may be biased and I will have a vested interest in it, so let a third person do it who is neutral to the company. How do I submit a request for a volunteer or writer to write an article for my company and where do I submit it?

180.151.8.130 (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. You can visit Requested Articles to post a request that others write about your company. You should be aware that since Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, it may not be done quickly. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what 331dot said: Requested Articles is indeed the proper place for such a request; but there is a very long backlog there, and no guarantee that anybody will pick it up. An alternative approach is to look through the List of WikiProjects and see if there is an active project relevant to your company. If so, asking for help on the Talk page of that project might be more productive. There is also some useful research you can do: please understand that a Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it: what the subject says or wants to say is of very little interest to Wikipedia. This means that anybody who does write an article about your company will need to find several independent, reliably published sources which talk at length about the company. Nothing published by the company will be relevant, and nor will anything based on an interview or press release from the company. Nor will mere listings in directories. If you can find several good sources and mention them in your request, it may make the request that much more attractive for an uninvolved editor to pick up. On the other hand, if you cannot find such sources, this is a good indication that your company is not at present notable (in the sense that Wikipedia used the word), and so it is not worth you or anybody else spending time on an article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do i make my travel company page?

I want to make wiki page for my company My Flight Trip ? How do i make it please guide me.Jasbirsrathore1984 (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jasbirsrathore1984, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should not, because you have a conflict of interest. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasbirsrathore1984: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome. It is highly advised that you should not directly create a page about your company. That is what is called a conflict of interest. It means that, no matter your intentions, you are probably too close to your company to write objectively about it.

What many users don't realize is that Wikipedia is a different kind of website from social media; it is not a place like Facebook for every company to get a page. Wikipedia is more selective about its content; it wants article subjects to be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources, that is, what other people who don't work for your company say about it.

If you do have independent reliable sources, there may be ways for you to indirectly create a page about it. You can make a request at Requested articles that someone else write about it, or you can visit Articles for Creation where you can write a draft and them submit it for review before it is posted- however if you don't have independent reliable sources and the page is written as an advertisement, it will be rejected quickly. Those are really the only two ways you can see a page created about your company. I hope this helps you. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that a Wikipedia page about your company isn't necessarily a good thing. It can be edited by anyone and no one, even you, gets to control what appears on the page. If negative information about your company is published in an independent reliable source, it can be added to the page about your company and you can't keep it off just because it is negative. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to Improve Credibility

Hi,

I hope some of you can help me.

I am an experienced writer/ editor but relatively new to Wikipedia. I have started making small edits but I would like to develop this to the point where I am helping other editors and possibly overseeing other edits.

Can any of you advise me on whether this is possible and if so, the best way to build my profile to get to that level?

Many thanks,

StephStephRJ (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StephRJ, welcome to Wikipedia. It's great that you want to help out new editors, and there are a number of ways you can do so, depending on your preferred areas of expertise. Ultimately, we judge people on the strength of their contributions, so if you keep making positive additions to the encyclopedia, you'll quickly become a trusted member of the community.

As a writer, you're presumably fairly proficient with language, so you may want to join up with the Guild of Copy Editors to provide assistance with language and grammar in other users' articles.

If you want to prevent vandalism, this will help you get started.

There are plenty of backlogs which are full of articles in need of attention.

You may also want to look through the community to-do list for ideas of areas that need some attention.

Hopefully this gives you a couple of ideas for moving forward. All the best, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the article I've been working on been deleted?

Having worked on this for 6 months, I can't believe RickinBaltimore deleted it. From what I can see he's based this on a query that had already been raised and resolved months ago - namely that he believes that it is infringing copyright. If he'd bothered to read the history he'd know this already. I am the owner of the original content, and as advised, I added the necessary attribution to the original blog, and the request to delete was revoked, now he comes along and deletes it anyway? How does this make any sense?

I've had some incredibly useful advice from DES amongst others, that I am planning to attend to this summer (I'm a teacher and these months of the year are too hectic to devote any time to this), now I cannot. MisterMcHugh (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mistermchugh, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree, it looks like the deletion was made in error. The license is clearly stated on the source website. I expect RickinBaltimore to return the page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Rick, the text of the licence is pretty hard to locate by eye - it took me a few minutes to find the licencing statement. I've restored the draft, as the text is clearly CC-BY-SA 3.0. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, this is a huge relief! Is there a way to avoid this all happening again, or am I subject to the next person who wants to drag all this up again? Is there no expectation that people review the history before deleting articles? The accusation of copyright infringement was right up there in plain sight.

MisterMcHugh (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything you could have done, Mistermchugh, since this mistake wasn't on you. None of us is perfect and even admins make mistakes sometimes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterMcHugh: I'm not an expert here, but possibly the {{CC-notice}} template might resolve the problem... --CiaPan (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As fas as I can see, the template can be placed in the first line of a References section (see e.g. Hector Thomas Wood or Raffaele Martelli). --CiaPan (talk)

Thanks for the advice, @CiaPan I've updated the References section as you've advised. Also @Yunshui I've reformatted the text on my original blog post http://doverdlc.blogspot.sg/2014/04/what-is-dlc-what-does-dlc-do.html to make the text easier to find. MisterMcHugh (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That will help - though for the record, the place we're most likely to look for a CC-BY-SA template is in the footer of the page, rather than at the end of a post. You can use the codes provided at [1] to create a CC-BY-SA icon in HTML, which also draws the eye. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Yunshui updated now. MisterMcHugh (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it, now @User:Legacypac wants to delete my draft (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Digital Literacy Coach)? What is it with these deletion happy Wikipedians, is there no respect for the work that has gone into articles like this? Am I to face a constant torrent of Wikipedians who are keen to eradicate my work? Is there no way to curtail this flagrant disregard for the work and time of others? MisterMcHugh (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working a long list of declined older Article for Creation submissions. You can see the speedy deletions I've already put through this month here User:Legacypac/CSD_log Until you work in the backrooms you have no idea the garbage that piles up to be deleted. I think we resolved your issue for now. I'd encourage editing some existing articles first. Creating acceptable pages from scratch is a hard job - like jumping into calculus before learning algebra. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting my new page again.

I want to make a page for The Harry R Horvitz Center. It's a palliaitve care center in a major Cleveland Ohio hospital. I started out by making a pge for the Harry R Horvitz Center in my sand box last year and moved my drafted Harry R Horvitz Center wikipage over to be a real article last May. It was promptly deleted because I had just copied some information from several published articles instead of using my own words. But since I had the exact references... I thought I could quote the published articles. So do I start completely over... or edit my own first attempt??? B. Hullihen (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, B. Hullihen. It sounds as if you started in a sensible way, but then took a short cut and moved the article over yourself rather than requesting a review. You're perfectly entitled to do this, but as you found, it is risky for a newish editor to do.

You can quote limited material from sources, but you must present them as explicit quotations, and they must be within reasonable limits of size: see WP:Quotations. The bulk of the article should be based on published sources, but summarised in new words. As for whether to work from your draft or start again, I can't tell you I'm afraid. Either is possible, depending on whether you think you can rescue your draft, or it would need to be rebuilt from scratch. --ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! As I have read in the wiki intro... I did move it over myslef which caused the article's early demissal. I want my articel to be just like the accepted ... St Christopher's Hospice... wiki page.

B. Hullihen (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing St Christopher's Hospice to our notice, B. Hullihen. I have just tagged it as written like an advert, and completely lacking references. Please do not treat it as a model. It is one of the millions of articles which are seriously below the standard we now require for new articles. If you want a model, find something comparable in Category:Good articles. --ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this article to an earlier version that I think is both preferable and acceptable.[2] Thincat (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google search of Wiki article

Hi,

I would like to know why this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parassala_B._Ponnammal is not showing in the google search. Please help.

Thanks

Sriram Venkitachalam 11:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Venkitachalam (talk • contribs)

Hello, Sriram Venkitachalam, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article needs to be patrolled by one of our new pages patrollers, or 90 days need to elapse. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finnusertop, thank you very for the clarification. Sriram Venkitachalam 16:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Venkitachalam (talk • contribs) [reply]

Yonatan Nir - missing article

Hi, I submitted an article for review last week, but it seems to have disappeared. Not sure if I can't view it because it is still in review, or because it was delete. Can anyone help? Thanks Omerh88 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Omerh88 your draft article is here Draft:Yonatan Nir I have declined the article. Large parts of the article appear to have been copied and pasted though, please re-write in your own words or it will be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong, can you elaborate on which part you are referring to? The biography was written by me, and the synopses were copied as it didn't seem right to write a synopsis in my own words. Thanks

Omerh88 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omerh88: I checked the first synopsis, and found it was copied verbatim from http://www.ruthfilms.com/dolphin-boy.html, and is therefore a copyright violation. Wikipedia is strict about obeying copyright law. I assume that the other synopses are also copyright violation, and ~~will~~ have deleted them. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of previous accounts I've forgotten the passwords to and didn't associate an e-mail address with.

Not an important question, but I have created user accounts on wikipedia before, and all three times forgot the password (so can't use them any more). Is it possible to merge them with my current account? It doesn't matter really, but if it was possible it would be useful for me to keep track of what I'd edited and written in the past. Also, if I make the same mistakes in different places it might be easier for someone to spot the pattern and tell me/fix it/them. The three usernames were: Thankyoubloke, Chessbloke, and Tabloke. You can see I used all three to create and then edit ChessGenius for example. Anyway, just thought I'd ask. Thanks very much. Imnikrist (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imnikrist, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to properly merge them. You can, of course, keep track of your edits under those usernames by accessing:

You can also turn your old user pages and user talk pages into redirects that point to your current user and talk page. That way people will know whom to contact regarding edits made from those accounts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finnusertop. That's very helpful. I'll try and do redirects. Is there are username redirect template or anything? Thanks again. Imnikrist (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is {{Former account}} and some others at Category:Alternative Wikipedia account templates, but they look a bit clumsy. I'd simply put a redirect on your old user pages and user talk pages, as you have done at User:Thankyoubloke. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username Change

Someone invited me to ask question here so I want to ask one question. Is is unable to change the username or what ? I searched in preference menu but couldn't find any option to change my username. Please answer soon.-KW Star 13:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames have to be changed by a renamer - you can kick the request off at WP:CHU. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui There is no option to request username change there. So I requested a renamer to change my username.--KW Star 02:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the page you need to read before making the request. The various venues for actually making the request are listed quite clearly in the last section of the page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help.KW Star 03:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic 1888 Firehouse lots of is community interest- flagged and deleted- Why?

Historic 1888 Firehouse with lots of articles -some books have related content but predate digital. Engine House is historically significant- put out of service in 1980 renovated in 2016 for use as gym and design studio. The renovation won design award. How can I get listing started? How can I avoid being flagged? The entire page in the sandbox was factual, historical. We posted in sandbox to get help not get deleted. Help please EngineHouse16 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience of readers, they are referring to User:EngineHouse16/sandbox --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EngineHouse16. It is unusual for a sandbox to get deleted, but the message on your user talk page indicates that in the opinion of TheSandDoctor the content was not only not suitable for a Wikipedia article, but could not be made into something suitable. I cannot see the deleted material, so I cannot comment on that; but your use of the word "listing" suggests that you are under the (very common) misapprehension that Wikipedia is some sort of directory or business guide. As you will find by reading some of the links on your user talk page, Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind, and it does not contain "profiles" or "listings", but articles which summarise what indepedent published sources have said about a subject.

I suggest you read your first article, and try again. Non-digital sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they have been published by a reputable publisher (vanity publishing less so). But the article should say only what the sources say (though not in the same words) not what you or I or the subject of the article know or think. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tagging me ColinFine. While I do not remember the exact content of the page, it was written in such a way that it read somewhat like an advertisement (G11) and appeared to be a not web host violation (U5), which it appears Athaenara agreed with me on (they deleted it with those as the explanation).

EngineHouse16 The advice that ColinFine gave above is good and is pretty much what I would have said as well. I do not recall exactly, but what was the name of the firehall? I debated about reporting the username (EngineHouse16) as a promotional username as (if I recall correctly) the firehouse had a similar name but ultimately decided against doing so as I did not see a strong enough connection to warrant not assuming good faith (AGF). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EngineHouse16, except for the opening paragraph, the sandbox consisted entirely of a copy of a newspaper article "A Lot of Use Is Left in an Old Firehouse in N. Point Breeze" from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette including the statement "(c)2016 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette". There were 1175 words of copied text. I would have deleted it as a copyright violation. Wikipedia articles must not include text copied from outside sources (except in very limited circumstances which do not apply here).

An article on this firehouse might possibly be created legitimately, provided that there is enough discussion in Independent published reliable sources to make it notable. But the article must not be a simple copy of an outside source, it must be written in original words. The article that has been copied might well be one cited source. Some non-local sources would be desirable, also.

I would also suggest a change of username, to one that does not appear to be for shared use by a group. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC) @TheSandDoctor: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Article

Can someone help me to create an article in wikipedia and get approved , I've tried so many times but all fail. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexhino Kovaci (talk • contribs)

Hello, Rexhino Kovaci You appear to have been trying to create an autobiography on your user page. The lesser error in this is that your User page is not an appropriate place for an article: it is for you to share as much information as you wish about you as a Wikipedia editor. The more serious problem is that autobiography is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. If you wish to help us improve Wikipedia by learning how to edit and create articles, you are most welcome. If your purpose is to publicise yourself, please find another place to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that you got a much fuller answer to the same question further up the page. --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deleted company page

I'm trying to submit a page for my company. I have indicated my conflict of interest and here is the content that I have posted. I'm not sure why it keeps getting rejected. I have reputable sources to back up each of these points. Entripy Custom Clothing is Canada’s first online provider of custom printed apparel [1]. The Canadian company screen prints and embroiders logos onto t-shirts, sweatshirts and other apparel items for businesses, schools, charities and special events across Canada. Entripy was founded in 1999 by Jas Brar. Today, Entripy employs over 100 people and operates out of a 50,000 square foot facility in Oakville, Ontario. Lisa.Evans (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lisa.Evans. The reason why it keeps getting rejected is stated clearly on your user talk page: because each time it has appeared to be unambiguous advertising. It is especially hard for people closely associated with a topic to see what is and what isn't neutral or (on the other hand) promotional; which is why editing with a conflict of interest is discouraged. The way I think of it is this: Wikipedia does not care much what a subject says about themselves, and it cares not at all what they want said about them. All that Wikipedia is interested in is what people with no connection to the subject have published about it. Especially for somebody with a conflict of interest, you need to identify the independent, reliably published sources which have said something about the company (note that this excludes anything published by the company, and also anything based on a press release or interview with the company), and then forget everything you know about the company and write an article based solely on what these independent sources have said (though in your own words). If that gives you a substantial article, then you can add some uncontroversial factual information like places and dates from the company's own publications. But if you can't find a published source for some information, it doesn't go in. And if you can find only non-independent sources, you consider very carefully whether the information is open to discussion, and if so, it doesn't go in. And any even slightly evaluative or judgmental words go in only if they are direct attributed quotes from an independent source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a reviewer to patrol the page I made?

The page is called "Elixir Press." It appears when searched, but I would like it to appear in Google search. Please help. Booksnob (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Booksnob. I am not a regular reviewer, but I have had a quick look at Elixir Press. In my view it has no hope of being accepted as it stands, because it has not a single reference in which somebody unconnected with Elixir Press has written substantial material about the company. Furthermore, it reads like an advert. The question is, what have independent people published about Elixir press? If there is material, it should be cited, and summarised in the article. If there is not, then the company fails notability, and there should not be an article.

I also wonder, from your eagerness for it to appear in Google (which to my mind is a complete irrelevance since Wikipedia has its own search facility, and Wikipedia may not be used for promotion) if you have a connection with Elixir Press? If you have, then you should be aware of the policy on conflict of interest, and possibly on paid editing. --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ColinFine, I am not a paid editor, just a newbie at Wikipedia who accesses many pages via Google. The page is quite similar to other small press pages I've seen in the number and quality of references but I will see what can be done. The tone of the page could use some adjustments. Thanks again. Booksnob (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are lots of poor-quality articles on Wikipedia, Booksnob. Most of them predate today's standards for inclusion, so it's best not to use them as a yardstick for what is acceptable. Hopefully, with time, these older articles will be improved or deleted, but it's a big task. In the meantime, we should strive to hold new articles to a high standard so that we don't further contribute to the problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Booksnob I hope you don't mind my asking, but if you are not a paid editor, why is it so important for your work to appear in a Google search? Google doesn't find much in the way of independent WP:Reliable sources for me, so I'm wondering whether Elixir Press is WP:Notable. Dbfirs 17:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page for Karen Dionne has been tagged as not meeting Notability requirements

I believe the page for Karen Dionne actually does meet Wiki's Notability standards (WP:CREATIVE) for the following reasons:

1. Dionne did win an international award, please see References section: "Previous Scribe Awards Winners: The Ninth Annual Scribe Awards". International Association of Media Tie-In Writers. May 2, 2017.

2. Dionne's work has been reviewed by multiple "independent, secondary sources" such as Publishers Weekly and RT Book Review. Again, see Reference section, specifically: - "Freezing Point: Karen Dionne, Author". Publishers Weekly. August 11, 2008. - "Boiling Point: K.L. Dionne, Author". Publishers Weekly. November 1, 2010. - "The Marsh King's Daughter: Karen Dionne, Author". Publishers Weekly. April 3, 2017. - "RT Book Review Award for Mystery Suspense & Thriller - 2008".

Please review article again with the above facts in mind and respond with specific details if you find that the article still does not meet notability requirements. Respectfully, FactsForYouFactsForYou (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FactsForYou. I'm not a reviewer, but I've had a look; and I don't see it. As I read the IAMTW listing, she was not a winner but short-listed (I didn't find an explanation, but in each category there are several works listed one (occasionally two) of which is bolded. I read that the the bold entry is the winner). And short reviews which say nothing about the author are really not to the point. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FactsForYou. See my detailed comments at Talk:Karen Dionne#Notability and sources. You may be on the way, but notability is some distance from being established here, in my view. The tag should stay for now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Any Similar Technology like signalr for Real time Communication?

Is Any Similar Technology like signalr for Real time Communication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayushjain772 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayushjain772: Welcome to Wikipedia. The Teahouse is for asking questions related to Wikipedia. Please ask your question at the Reference Desk. RudolfRed (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird question about RFC

Once an RFC is closed, is it acceptable for an involved editor to re-open the RFC, change the outcome, and then re-close it? For example, imagine an RFC was closed appropriately (after the requisite 30 days and comments from other editors) by an uninvolved administrator or volunteer with the comment RFC has been closed with a strong consensus to add xyz detail. Would it be acceptable for an editor involved in that RFC (one who had voted), to reopen the RFC, immediately change the result so it said RFC has been closed with a strong consensus to REMOVE xyz detail (with the edit summary comment "I disagree with this closure and am changing it") and then immediately re-close the RFC now with an entirely different result? I realize we are supposed to ignore all rules, but the wikipedia I remember has changed a great deal. Something like this I just don't think would have happened 5 or 10 years ago. Is the above simply an example of being bold, or I am correct in thinking this is pretty egregious behavior and should t least be brought to someones attention (whose I have no idea) 23.114.214.45 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP Editor. That would be, in my view, drastically inappropriate behavior, on several grounds. It might well be grounds for a block of the editor changing the close. This would be true even for an UNinvolved editor, and doubly so for an involved editor. If this is not a hypothetical case, could you please provide a link? Or send me one by email if you prefer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:DESiegel Here is the link to the reversion per your request. Here is the link to the editor changing the outcome. Just an FYI, the situation has been handled, I reverted it back. I was more curious if this was something that was appropriate or not. It was frustrating to me because I was also involved in the RFC, and I went through the proper channels when I had a question about the closure. Then to see someone unilaterally change the result of the RFC when they disagreed with it - well that didn't sit well with me. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:DESiegel Curious if you had a chance to look at the edits. I might be involved in another RFC and wanted to make sure that this was indeed something that is frowned upon, or at the very least discouraged. On the other hand, if the edit falls within the policies of Wikipedia I apologize for suggesting that something improper was done. Cheers. 2600:1012:B02B:5986:B88B:FC24:9E8C:BE42 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the edits. I was, in fact, tempted to take the matter to WP:ANI. But since the original close had been restored, and you indicated no desire to proceed further, i decided not to do so. This sort of change of a close by another editor is very unusual in my 10+ years of Wikipedia experience. I do not think it was appropriate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to the matter. To be frank I was willing to let the whole thing go (and to some extent still am) except for the fact that ArtW has essentially made me a target for his wrath, going so far as to harangue the volunteer who closed the RFC (see his user page). If the reverted closure is an offense that you personally feel should be reported to ANI please do so (I don't even know how). On the other hand if you think it better to let sleeping dogs lie, I'll defer to your judgement either way. Keep in mind this editor (ArtW) has a history of tenditious and aggressive editing, particular toward those who don't know the system as well as he does. Like I said Ieave the decision in your capable hands and won't pursue it any further if you feel that is best. 2600:1012:B02B:5986:B88B:FC24:9E8C:BE42 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Hello, user:DESiegel. As there is a discussion at ANI, I would really appreciate your assistance and input. 2600:1012:B02E:7AAA:7166:FA50:5B2E:2766 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:DESiegel I understand you are busy with the Teahouse and other responsibilities. All I am looking for is an admin to step in on this discussion and explain what really happened. Should I go elsewhere for assistance? Thank you for your help thus far. 2600:1012:B01B:6D00:DC4E:1497:F42E:EF8A (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct way to create an article about my company

Hi - I wish to create a page for my company. The purpose is present a history of the company (not an advert) we've been business since 1969 and are a record label... but I saw in the guidelines "do not make a page for your company" so I wonder, how do these pages get created and how do I do so within the rules. Much of the historic info would come from interviews with the owner/founder. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. MDMathews (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MDMathews - Don't. That would be the correct way. Interviews are seldom an acceptable source for an encyclopedia, which by definition is tertiary. In other words in an encyclopedia, we do not write about a given subject. Instead, we write about what is written about a given subject in reliable published sources. You may list your company at WP:Requested articles, but before you do be sure to properly disclose your conflict of interest exactly as instructed in WP:COI and WP:PAID. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation and new articles

Will you please translate these articles so the English wikipedia can have its own versions?

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E4%B8%96%E4%BB%A3%E3%83%AD%E3%83%9C%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E6%88%A6%E8%A8%98%E3%83%96%E3%83%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%96%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AC

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8B%87%E8%80%85%E8%81%96%E6%88%A6%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AC%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%96%E3%83%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%96%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AC2

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%96%E3%83%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%96%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AC_%E6%96%B0%E7%AB%A0_%E3%82%A2%E3%82%B9%E3%82%BF%E3%83%AA%E3%82%A2

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E4%B8%96%E7%B4%80%E5%8B%87%E8%80%85%E5%A4%A7%E6%88%A6

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%8F%E5%AD%90%E8%B7%B3%E8%BA%8D%E3%83%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%82%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtarvin (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jtarvin and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn how such translations can be requested or done. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, OP asked essentially the same question at OTRS. I have fielded some variety of this question dozens of times and typically give an answer almost exactly the same as that given by DES. In this particular case, the answer didn't sink in, after responding again and again and again (if you think I'm exaggerating the ticket has 15 back-and-forth emails). In frustration, I suggested that they try the teahouse. I have a lot of patience, but not this much. If anyone wants to try, more power to them but I'm done with this request.--S Philbrick (Talk) 11:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to add the photo of Joep Franssen wiki page - English?

You see a photo of the Dutch Composer Joep Franssens in all his Wiki pages in different languages. In the English page this picture is missing. There is no frame/template. How do I get this done? Or perhaps somebody can add this for me? This would be super!!! Kind Regards Ieke van der Huijzen - HollandIekevanderHuijzen 06:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IekevanderHuijzen (talk • contribs)

Hi IekevanderHuijzen. I added a photo of Franssens found on Commons to the article and also did some other minor cleanup. I just used a very basic image syntax. If you'd like to add an WP:INFOBOX to the article as well, then try asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. I believe there are specific infoboxes for composers such as Template:Infobox classical composer which may work well in an article like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of reference

Hello

I want to enquire about the technique and process of adding a reference (address of source material) in regard to any comment added by me/edited by me.

Kindly help !!

Warm Regards Satyaketu Mallik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyaketu Mallik (talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Satyaketu Mallik - Please see Help:Referencing for beginners - if, having read that, you have any questions, please come back here and ask. - Arjayay (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to reference every edit that I make?

When is a reference needed and what sort of sites can be used as references - e.g. can it be a news website? Edward1612 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Verifiability - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
In general anything that could be questioned, or may need to be checked, must be referenced. So, a claim that "X went to school Y" or "the population of Z was 12,345 in 2017" would definitely need a reference.

News sites can be used provided they are "reliable", but some tabloid papers and similar sites are generally not considered reliable sources. Scrolling news sites are particularly difficult to reference - as the news will have "moved on" and not be available to subsequent readers. Please note that as stated at Template cite news {{Cite news}} is normally used for offline (paper) sources as it includes issue= and volume= parameters, whereas {{Cite web}} is best for online sources, as it generates a missing URL error when no URL is provided. - Arjayay (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you show WP code in plain text?

For example, if I wanted to describe how to add a reference how would a prevent the text from becoming a normal reference but keep it as it would appear in the source? So in such a way that ^[1] does not appear as it appeared just now but for it to literally be < r e f > w w w . g o o g l e . c o m < / r e f > (without the spaces). Edward1612 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You use "nowiki" tags, like this: <ref>www.google.com</ref>. Maproom (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which, if you are using the "enhanced editing toolbar" is the "W with a red circle and strikethrough" button on the "advanced" tab - Arjayay (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ www.google.com

Thanks a lot Edward1612 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wiki and confused

I am a newbie to trying to use the Talk page, but seem to be doing it wrong. I submitted an article and did get a reply, to which I tried to reply, but I have not had an answer since, and I do not know if I did the Talk page correctly.

Could someone please give me a very short example of what the text on the Talk page should look like? How do I know it is going to the correct user? I cannot see anywhere what the talk page intro should be like.

My reply was to @JamesBWatson, but I do not know if he had received it or not.

Ilseolive (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see the message that you posted to JamesBWatson; I believe the only thing that needs to be changed is that the talkback template should be placed on his user talk page, not yours. Currently his talk page is protected from editing, but there is a link to an alternative that he placed at the top of the page. That said, since JamesBWatson posted on your page, he is likely following it in his watchlist and so you don't need to post a talkback on his page. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilseolive: You can also use {{ping|JamesBWatson}} to get his attention on any talk page. It will notify him when you use it, no matter which talk page it's used on. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an article on a famous personality.

Hello,

I am new to wikipedia articleship. I would want to know, how are we suppose to make a page or article for a famous personality.

Awaiting for your quick reply.

Thanks Donesh Protectmediaonline (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Protectmediaonline: Hello and welcome. I would first note that you use "we" above; please note that usernames must only be used by one person per the username policy, and that usernames cannot be that of a group or organization. If your name is that of an organization, you will need to change your username so that it indicates only one person is using it. "JohnDoe of Protectmedia" would be acceptable if that is the case(you don't need to use your real name). You can request to change your username by following the instructions on this page.

Regarding creating a page, it depends on what you mean by "famous personality". On Wikipedia, notability is used as a test for whether a subject merits an article. Not every subject does, and being notable is not the same thing as being famous. What notability means is that the subject must have been written about in independent reliable sources(sources that are not written by or associated with the subject in any way) that indicate why they merit inclusion in this encyclopedia. The best way for a new user to create a page would be to visit Articles for Creation and use the process there. Note that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia; it may be best for you to start small by just making changes to existing articles first to get an idea of how things work here. If you have further questions, please post them here. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello Protectmediaonline, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I would advise strongly against trying to create a new article until you have more experience making edits to existing articles. Creating a new article is difficult, and involves many different skills. But if you are determined to try to create a new article, your first two steps should be:

Check whether Wikipedia already has an article on that personality, maybe with a difference spelling. If not,
Find several reliable published independent sources that include significant discussion of the personality (reports of interviews with the personality won't do, they won't count as independent). You will need to cite such sources to establish that the personality is notable enough to warrant an article.

If you can't manage these, stop. Any more time you spend will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict): ello, Donesh. Reading your first article is a good place to start. However, judging from your user name, I would like to make some particular points to you:

Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind.
If you are thinking of creating articles about any of your clients, please don't. Editing with a conflict of interest, while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged; paid editing even more so.
If you do go ahead and create an article on a client, you must make the required declaration (see the link to "paid editing" above), and you are strongly advised to use the article wizard to create a draft and submit it for review. You need to understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article (or their associates) have said about them, and no interest at all in how they wish to be portrayed. An article in Wikipedia is not a "profile", does not belong to the subject, and may be edited by anybody at all in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. It should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them, not on what they or their associates think or say.
I'm afraid that your user name is not acceptable, per the Username policy: user names which imply that an editor is editing on behalf of an organisation are not permitted. Please either change it (via WP:CHU) or abandon the account and create a new one with a name which is personal to you (it does not have to be your real name: I use my real name, but many editors do not).

If I am wrong in my assumption, and you are here to create articles about subjects where you do not have a conflict of interest, please accept my apologies. But you still need to do something about your username. --09:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Upload article from draft

Hello!

I am a new user and I wrote my first article NEUSREL in Draft (Draft:Neusrel‎) and now I want to upload it.

On the help pages it says that there is a little arrow beside "View history" where the option to upload the article should be at. My Problem is, there is no arrow. It only says "Read, Edit source, View history, star"

I have searched alot but can´t find any resolution. Thank you very much, kind regards Crónk (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crónk, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you're misunderstanding something: there is nothing to "upload". Your draft is already in Wikipedia, but it is in the Draft: space and not in the main article space. You could just move it to main space (though as a new user, you will need to make at least four more edits, anywhere in Wikipedia, in order to have access to the "move" facility). But I would strongly advise you instead to submit the draft for review. This may take a while - there is a backlog - but if it passes review, the reviewing editor will move it to the right place, and if it doesn't they will give you feedback as to how it can be improved. You submit it by inserting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) anywhere in it - usually at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... whereas, if you move it to main space in its current state, it is likely to be deleted as promotional and lacking evidence that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. First thank you very much for your nice help!

Why would it be deleted while for example this article about this tool is online? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartPLS Crónk (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia has an article on SmartPLS, but it has not been reviewed. I will soon consider proposing it for deletion. It's certainly not a good model to follow if you want to create an acceptable article (I see you've copied the grammatical error in its first sentence). Maproom (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.. and the first two sources cited don't even mention "Neusrel", and therefore do nothing at all to establish that it's a notable subject. Maproom (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Denial Due to Promotion and COI

Hi Teahouse!I have been doing some extensive research on the sport betting industry/ gambling industry. I have identified many sport betting companies on Wikipedia that have helped me greatly with my research however, I noticed there was no page on Playtech BGT Sports. Therefor I have attempted to create my own article to help other researchers out. (It is the first timeI am doing this) Shortly after I wrote a simple overview of Playtech BGT Sports I received a message that it was promotional. Could you please assist me in finding out what information leads to such an assumption? I specifically used reliable sources and online articles that have not been written by the company itself. I think many people would benefit from this article. Here is the exact URL of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playtech_BGT_Sports — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thombinder (talk • contribs) 07:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC) I can also provide yopu with my email adress if you would rather discuss it there. Thombinder (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to hosts that as well as the now-deleted Playtech BGT Sports, we also have a draft article at Draft:Playtech BGT Sports, written by a paid editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thombinder, since Playtech BGT Sports has now been deleted a number of times, can I suggest that you work on the draft version instead. When you're happy with it, you can submit it for review. Drafts are usually much safer from deletion than live articles. I can't see the content of the deleted article as I am not an administrator, but I suggest reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for general advice on avoiding promotional language. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Thombinder (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How fast is speedy deletion?

I noticed an article on Brian Graden Media that was tagged for speedy deletion at 21:30 12 June and then deleted at 22.36, barely an hour later. (I hope I'm reading the times right!) Is this normal? I didn't think the original author, who was notified, had time to react. I have nothing to do with the article, but I was interested in the topic because of looking into Joseph Gordon Levitt, and became curious when I saw the article deleted. How fast is speedy deletion? I would have thought 1 hour is too fast, but I'm here to learn! Soniamaddox (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Soniamaddox: The time taken to delete a CSD tagged article can range from a couple of minutes to (probably) days - there's no set guideline on how long a CSD tag should remain before the article is deleted, but there are some for how quickly an article can be tagged with a CSD after creation. As with most things on Wikipedia, an article being deleted doesn't mean all the content has disappeared forever, as there is always places like Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, the frame in the lead titled This page in a nutshell.
It says:

'without waiting for any discussion.'

CiaPan (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is only for articles that are pretty much unredeemable. They are either legal problems (copyright, libel), so undeveloped no one can help the author improve them (A1, A7) or completely unsuitable (advert). So giving the original author time to respond isn't really a big deal. John from Idegon (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! So if I want to see the original article, I have to request an undeletion? I don't have a good reason except I'm curious as to why it wasn't marked for improvement, exactly. Or even proposed for delettion (rather than speedy deletion). It's a proper topic (I was looking for it) so as an editor I would have asked for improvement to the article. But I need to see it to understand the actual reason for deletion. Thanks. Soniamaddox (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was CSD A3: no meaningful content. It consisted of a link to the company's website, and nothing else. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your answers. I appreciate them (and I posted my previous reply before John of Idegon posted, sorry). So I understand it's not important to wait for an original author to react, even though they were notified of the intended speedy deletion. Soniamaddox (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Soniamaddox. I would disagree slightly with what John from Idego said above: Speedy deletion is only for articles that are pretty much unredeemable. In fact, articles tagged for A7 (No credible claim of significance) often can be improved, by finding and adding sources that make such a claim, and establish notability. It is more that experince has taught us that in practice, for particular kinds of articles, the creator often won't do this, and in many cases there are no sources to be found. So instead of taking a long time to look for sources, often to no avail, we delete and tell the creator to try again, explaining why the topic belongs here (or might belong at least). In many cases the creator does not try again. Similarly, many pages speedy deleted for being promotional are about subjects where a valid article could be written. But the page in front of us isn't that article, and won't contribute much to possible future valid article. And we don't want promotional pages to hang around, so we delete it. Besides, while many topics deleted as promotional could have a valid article, many more never will have: they just aren't notable.

If you simply want to see the content of a deleted page, ask here, or ask any admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, or ask at WP:REFUND. But Refund is mostly for those who actually want the page restored on a long-term basis. I am one of those in that category, by the way, so I am one of those who could be asked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a broken reference in one article, find and fix same broken reference in other articles?

Hi there, Sometimes I spend some time fixing references on a specific article. Then I realize the same references are used on other articles, and I feel like it would be great to propagate that change across other articles.

Are there any tools for doing this? Is there any goal to centralize citations on wikidata or similar?

Thanks

Cdiesh (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cdiesh. If an edit is exceedingly simple, like Take all instances of this hyperlink and replace it with this one, and involves usually something on the order of hundreds or thousands of instances, often a bot can be made to do it. Requests can be made at Wikipedia:Bot requests. But most of the time, if it involves several, or a few dozen pages, often it's easier to fix it manually. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cdiesh it is a bit unusual that the exact same citation will be present in more than two or three articles, althoguh it does happen. AWB can be used in the dozen article cases. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I can't remember exactly what it was, but I do remember a pretty big shake up that happened I believe last year at WikiProject MilHist, where an entire I think it was a navy related site was going down completely, and something like tens of thousands of instances had to be archived and then have their links updated in a short amount of time. Good stuff. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was kind of the use case I saw also where certain entire URL domains will go down, so if I ever see a URL from domain X then I know it will need archiving. It might be interesting to try to write bots for this type of case. I have some programming chops, kind of just wondering whether I should use some existing tools or try and tackle making bots myself! Thanks for the pointers though, I may try and register for autowikibot to see how it goes Cdiesh (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Order for career in a BLP

In Qian Tang which I recently approved through the AfC process, the author of the article originally listed the subject's career in reverse chronological order, with the most recent position first. In my cleanup before approval I changed the order to be chronological. The author has since changed it back. I would like to direct them to the relevant guideline, but I can't find the relevant reference in MOS. Can someone point me in the right direction? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Curb Safe Charmer. Wikipedia:Narrative flow says Readers expect biographical details of a subject's life to be laid out in roughly chronological order.. However that is an essay, not a guideline. I cna't find anything in the MOS about this, although it is the almost invariable format. Perhaps a question at the Biography project would help? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Curb Safe Charmer. I believe DES is correct, and although this does not appear to have been officially codified in our policies or guidelines, it is clear or near universal practice to follow roughly a chronological order without a compelling editorial reason for doing otherwise, such as a section with an otherwise prescribed position according to MOS:LAYOUT. In fact, it is so universal that if you wanted to open a discussion on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, I expect you wouldn't have difficulty finding strong consensus on the issue. TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, that's helpful. I have explained the convention on the editor's talk page and will restore the article to using chronological order. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer, while I agree with others that chronological order should be preferred in general as well as in your example, there are some exceptions. For instance, in {{infobox politician}} the convention is to list the positions in reverse chronological order, because the reader presumably wants to know the current position of the politician before its previous career. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Headers?

I have been trying to use a header for my talk page to make it seem less boring. When I try to add one, nothing changes, any suggestions or help?

DolotheDolphin (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello McStyx anfd welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know what kind of header you have in mind. I don't see any edit in which you added any sort of header to User talk:McStyx. Could you explain a bit more what saort of header you wanted to add, and how you attempted to add it? Perhaps then I or someone here could be of more help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a talk page header, at User:DESiegel/TPHdr. I am not sure if that is the sort of thing you have in mind, however. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@McStyx: If you mean {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} in [3] then it's a broken attempt to request a bot to archive the page. It isn't meant to display anything, even if it was formatted correctly. See {{User Talk Pages}} for some of the possibilities to display a header. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter, I was looking at Headers and Archive Bots, but more for headers. I don't believe I need an archiver yet. Thank you!

McStyx 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by McStyx (talk • contribs)

The creation of an article

Hi, I'm new here and i would like to know if The creation of an article doesn't need an account ?? 21:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)21:25

Hi IP user. You must have an account to create an article straight into mainspace, but anybody can create a draft. It can then be moved to mainspace by a registered user if it's suitable for inclusion. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. I would advise you to use the article wizard to create a draft, under the Articles for Creation project. Done that way, an account is not required. However, having an account has some benefits, and few costs (no financial costs). See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for further information about the benefits of using an account. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My page proposed to deletion

Hello, my page is proposed to deletion. The problem was in references. But I got extralinks with information from science journals about this person. please help meBairakimov (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyusembaev Anuar is not currently proposed or nominated for deletion, but it has some significant problems. The only sources now cited are two papers written by Anuar himself. A Wikipedia article needs sources that are independent of the subject, have been published, and are reliable. Please read Your First Article and Wikipedia's Golden Rule.

The article needs to better explain what it is that Anuar is known for; what he has done that makes him more than an ordinary professor of mathematics. It needs to show that other people have written about him. It needs to establish his notability. If this is not done, the article will probably be deleted sooner or later. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bairakimov, I think that page is still at risk of deletion. I'm afraid that the rather low level of citation of his published work will probably be enough to demonstrate that he doesn't meet our notability requirements for academics. Would you like it to be moved to draft space, where you could develop it further without that risk? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When to use the "small" parameter for templates

This is just a minor style question. The Unreferenced section template includes a parameter "small" for when the template applies to something "smaller than a section." Does this include subsections? What about sub-sub-sections? Thanks! GreatBigDot (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreatBigDot, welcome to the Teahouse. It includes all sections. Subsections, sub-sub-sections and so on are still sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I shouldn't use the "small" parameter then? GreatBigDot (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GreatBigDot, The small parameter is for use when the template applies to something within a section, but not all of the section. In particular, when a table or graphic has no cited sources, and should have. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks a ton! GreatBigDot (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feature to replace the word "section" was removed 19 January and I have removed it from the documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to publish sandbox article live

I have created an article in sandbox, how to make it live ?

Mark95036 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark95036. I have marked User:Mark95036/sandbox as a draft, which added a blue submit button to the upper area of the page. However, if you were to submit it now, it would surely be rejected. You would first need to find and add Independent, published, reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject (In the special sense in which Wikipedia uses that term). Currently no sources are cited in the draft at all.

Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Your First Article, and our guideline on the notability of organizations. If you then decide to go ahead, please also read Referencing for Beginners.

If you have further questions, feel free to ask them here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save lost.

After a lot of hard work and changes the page Shah Jalal got back to it's previous form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Jalal how can I restore my changes? Please help. SpeakTruth! (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpeakTruth!. If you look at the history of Shah Jalal, you will see that User:Kashmiri reverted your edits, with the edit summary "Please do not use honorifics. Please do not add unconfirmed/unsourced information." The information you added is still there in the history, and could easily be recovered. However, for you to add the information again would be edit warring, which is regarded as disruptive. What you should do is open a discussion with Kashmiri and any other interested users on the talk page Talk:Shah Jalal. But please bear in mind the principle that everything in Wikipedia should be verifiable - you removed information which contained references, and replaced it with different information without references. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpeakTruth!: same reasons as in my earlier revert of your edits to Lal Shahbaz Qalandar – see my edit summary: [4]. — kashmiri ^TALK 07:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpeakTruth: If by chance you did not understand what the above posters meant by "page history", "edit summary" etc., reading Help:Page history could help. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what to do if consistant speedy deletion on my user page?

what to do if consistant speedy deletion on my user page?(Supriyapejavar (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Supriyapejavar: You have a greater problem, namely that you are misusing multiple accounts to evade your block and copying others' userpages without the required attribution. You have got to realize that Wikipedia is not for promoting you or your app.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: User:Kailash29792 is not a blocked or banned user, is a copyright problem. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SA 13 Bro: Kailash29792 is not, but Supriyapejavar (talk · contribs) is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of N R Pavan Kumar (talk · contribs). There's a pending SPI.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the tag at the userpage. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

creating articles

This is umptheen time trying to ask this. Should I create an English article by translating a German article. Is Wikipedia considered a reliable source? User-duck (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, User-duck. You can translate articles from other language Wikipedias into English, but they must comply with our policies and guidelines. One Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for use in another Wikipedia article. Please read WP:TRANSLATE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User-duck. What Cullen says is correct. To spell it out, you are welcome to make such translations, but the final article requires citations to reliable sources just as if it had been created here from a blank start. The fact that it came from the de wikipedia (or any other) in no way changes the required sources. Different Wikipedia editions have different policies and customs, and what is fully acceptable in one may not be in another. If the source article did not contain needed sources (by the standards of the en-Wikipedia), they must be added here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I realize I need to include citations and I consider the ones in the German article reliable.

Thank you, I realize I need to include citations and I consider the ones in the German article reliable.User-duck (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, User-duc. In the past, a number of translated articles came with very few citations. The most recent and extreme case in point is Villa Di Poggio a Caiano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Take a look at the history if you care to. Do read WP:TRANSLATE if you haven't already, as suggested above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent example of why we should discourage machine translation, DESiegel, if nothing else. I think there may be a copyright problem there too – I've posted on the talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PW reset without email

I appear to have forgotten my password, or at least I'm afraid of trying to guess it again for fear of being locked out. Unfortunately, I'm now realizing that the email address I had for this account was my Verizon one. As you may or may not know, Verizon has recently shut down its email service, so that email address no longer exists. And I'm unable to change my account email address without verifying my password. Thus, I'm locked in a loop where I can reset neither my email address nor my password. Suggestions? Tfocker4 (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tfocker4, and welcome to ther Teahouse. Start a new account, and redirect the user page of your previous account to the new one. Save the new PW in a password manager or some other secure location, to avoid the problem in future. I am afraid that without access to the email saved with the account, there is no way to do a password reset. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how many times I can try my password before I get locked out? Tfocker4 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tfocker4. You are logged in properly now, so I am not sure what the problem is. Just do whatever you did to log in. You must have used the right password. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it still applies but it appears from https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/email/migrations.htm that Verizon customers can keep their email address at AOL. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search

Why some of the articles dont appear in google search even when we enter their exact name ?—Big Hero 03:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason is explained at #Google search of Wiki article above, and at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your answer.—Big Hero 04:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande manchester.

Vinnylospo (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Hi, I tried to add a link to the manchester bombing article to the Ariana Grande template. However, when I came back, it wasn't there. Is there a problem with it? If not, then why am I not allowed to add it? I mean I know it's a sad event, but she is part of the bombing story.Vinnylospo (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please give us a link to the relevant template and to the relevant edit? I see nothing relevant at Special:Contributions/Vinnylospo, so perhaps you didn't save your edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vinnylospo. If you look at the discussions on the talk page for the template, Template talk:Ariana Grande, you'll see that the consensus is not to include the bombing article in the template. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve an article prior to submission (Wear it Purple Day)

Hello,

I'm drafting this article, and I'd like to know of any suggestions prior to submitting it for possible approval. I think I'll need to remove the category for the other "Wear it Purple Days" at the very end, and make that into a separate article.

But I'm not sure how much more to add, or what would be of most benefit! (please be gentle!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wear_it_Purple_Day

Thank you for your time.

SunnyBoi (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should start by making it clear what it's about. This draft lists, near the end, eight other "Wear it Purple Day"s; but it's about an annual event in Australia. So "Australia" should be specified in the first sentence. Maproom (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the "Institute Ranking" info box.

How does one update the "Institute Ranking" info box to reflect the current rankings of a business school. For example, this business schools page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Management_Studies_(Delhi).Metalpriest (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metalpriest, welcome to the Teahouse. The source when you edit says {{Infobox India university ranking .... This means that Template:Infobox India university ranking is used. See the documentation there. Come back with a more specific question if you still have problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the "Rankings" section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Management_Studies_(Delhi) to reflect the latest rankings. However, I wanted to add these rankings to the "Institute rankings" info-box displayed beside it. I came across this page earlier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_India_university_ranking, but couldn't understand how I could add the new rankings through that infobox.Metalpriest (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Metalpriest: Your recent edit [5] added a Times of India ranking. A template call can only use existing template parameters. Template:Infobox India university ranking does not currently have a parameter for Times of India. I don't know the importance of Indian rankings but you could suggest it at Template talk:Infobox India university ranking. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cluebot is hampering my edits , what can I do?

Please visit my talkpage.I edited the topic Bangladesh with good faith. But a cluebot took it as vandalism.It also threatens to block me . I need help. The bot is not intelligent enough to understand that my edit was good. help please. Wholecube (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wholecube. I agree that your edit was not vandalism, but on the other hand, you did not provide a reference for your claim that "bhat" is rice in Bengali. I believe you, but our policy on Verifiability indicates that you should provide a reference. Please take a look at the references in our articles Panta bhat, about a Bengali rice dish. Perhaps one of those references can also be used in Bangladesh, if it verifies the meaning of the word. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wholecube: This dictionary doesn't seem to use "bhat" as "rice". I can find "bhāta" (ভাত), but that's as close as I can get. This text seems to indicate "bhat" is a prepared food, but it never says what it is very clearly. Here is a search to find all instances of "bhat" in the text. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh thanks. I provided the information on my personal experience as I am Bangladeshi.I knew that Bhat is the correct Bangla word for [white rice]] in Bangladesh.Now should I edit it with reference ? I am scared if the bot blocks my accountWholecube (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wholecube. The issue is that personal knowledge is never acceptable in Wikipedia, unless it is supported by published sources: not yours, not mine, not Jimmy Wales's. Please see Referencing for beginners, and Identifying reliable sources.

As for getting blocked: don't worry. A bot can't block you, it would take a (human) admin, who would look into the case before doing so. It's not clear why ClueBot thought your edit was vandalism, but I'm sure that not giving an edit summary was one factor. If you look at User:ClueBot NG, the maintainers of the bot ask people to report false positives - cases where the Bot wrongly marks an edit as vandalism - so that it will improve its algorithm : I have just made that report to them on your behalf. --ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very muchWholecube (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a reference ?

Each article has many references at bottom. What does these mean ?Wholecube (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wholecube. References give the sources of information in articles. See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksWholecube (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit a draft Wikipedia Page name

I want to rename my draft from "Draft:1902 Software Development Corporation" to "Draft:1902 Software Development". Note that this is only a draft. Please help. Thanks!Pam wiki2017 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though the name of a draft never really matters. If the draft is one day reviewed and accepted as an article, the reviewer will choose a name for the article. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I hope you can review my draft as well, before I publish it. I'm planning to add pictures, is that okay? Or is it better to keep it simple / don't have pictures, since it's only a short article? Looking forward to your advice^^ 00:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pam wiki2017 (talk • contribs)

Request: Review - World Café article

In my sandbox I've played around with a slightly amended version of the World Café article, mainly trying to explain what these entail. I also added that these events are used by a variety of organisations, although refrained from listing these, which was a criticism of a previous version of the World Café article. I wondered if you would mind casting your eye over this draft version to see if it would be acceptable in the main space? David Biddulph, ColinFine, DGG, Justlettersandnumbers Fbell74 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you have once again failed to declare your paid connection to that page when discussing it, Fbell74. For the third time, declaration is obligatory, not optional. This page is for new editors who have questions about how to edit Wikipedia. I suggest you post your request at WP:COIN. Your first sentence will be "I am paid by [person] to edit the article on World Café." Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fbell74: the contents of your sandbox are derived from World Café, which is the work of many editors, but does not give them due credit for their contributions. As it stands it ought to be deleted as a copyright violation. You could remedy this by putting a statement in the sandbox, stating that it is derived from World Café. Maproom (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers - When I wrote the post I had in mind the individuals who had contributed already, including yourself, who obviously would have been aware that I was a paid contributor. As this had been covered before I hadn’t included a declaration in the post. But, seeing Maproom’s message I realise that other editors might also contribute, who wouldn’t have seen the previous thread. That was my mistake.

Just to avoid any confusion, I am a paid contributor.

Maproom - absolutely. I was using the sandbox as a way of adding amendments to the actual article without actually making changes to the article itself. I thought it was better to make these changes in the sandbox rather than in the main space, and then ask people to have a look and see what they thought. I didn’t mean to give the impression that the content was created by myself. If the changes are okay then these can be added to the article proper, which contains the contributor history, Fbell74 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babel for dialects

Are there any babel userboxes for local/regional languages, e.g. asi language? JethRoad the FactBoy 13:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeth888: Not that I know of, but see Wikipedia:Userboxes for instructions on making your own. It's not that hard.

PS: Since seeing this question I've been working on Asi language. See Talk:Asi language.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is deleting an article I wrote

I gave the referenced website Wiki said I took the bio from the bio to use in the first place to put on their site. I am the original BIO writer and no wiki thinks I copywriter it to put on the page: Matthew Romeo

can someone please help me get this page up and running. Thank You!

Itsmatthewromeo (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The way to address your copyright violation problem is explained in the links from the warning on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that a talent agency is unlikely to be a good source for a Wikipedia article about one of their clients, regardless of copyright concerns. The bulk of any article should be based on what independent sources say about the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Itsmatthewromeo. I looked at the text of the deleted article Matthew Romeo. Even if there were no copyright issue, it is filled with promotional language and tone, and empty of any citations to Independent published reliable sources. The former text would need to be discarded, and a completely fresh start made, if there is to be an article about Matthew Romeo.

Also, this appears to be an autobiography. Those are strongly discouraged as you can see at the linked page. If you do proceed, please use the article wizard to generate a Draft under the Articles for Creation project. And please openly disclose your connection to the subject, and be very careful to follow all the suggestions at our conflict of interest guideline and the autobiography guideline linked above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh note that deletons are not automatic, nor made by "wiki" but by a specific volunteer admin. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I petition to move early or wait for auto-confirmation.

Created my first article, which was great until I noticed that I omitted the standard period following v in Blumenthal v Trump. Should I wait two more days to fix it or petition someone with more rights to rename the page? Dakleman (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI — it will be at least 60 days before any press-worthy deadlines in the case happen, so in one sense this is not urgent. Dakleman (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dakleman,

Done TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Thanked. Dakleman (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username Signature Questions

I have been trying to make myself a unique signature to sign my posts with for wikipedia. I have been trying to do t on my css page but it just won't work. Its always coming up with some sort of error, can anyone help? Looking forward to a reply McStyx 18:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note is that I have looked at the tutorial but I cant understand a thing

McStyx (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk. If you need more help I can give you a further walk through. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would love some info on this too. Could you maybe post the same info on my talk page? Thanks! RDvor (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RDvor. The posts are at User talk:McStyx#Your Teahouse question but some of it is specific to McStyx. There are links to the general pages: "You can read more about signatures at Wikipedia:Signatures and Wikipedia:Signature tutorial". PrimeHunter (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First time inserting citations etc. on first article (page name: Khaled Mahdi)

Hello @Shadowowl! I hope I'm doing this right, but I wanted to stop in and let you know that I've tried to make the appropriate corrections on my own re. citations/footnotes/references and have tried to resubmit my article again! I confess I am finding the whole process overwhelming (and I am still very confused by how to smoothly/correctly insert the right type of citations or footnotes, etc.), but I hope you'll find I did it alright!

If not, I would sincerely be grateful for any helpful pointers you have for a beginner, as I'd really like to get the page up and out there, and will do my best to do it right.

Thank you for taking the time to reach out and invite me to comment on here, I really hope I can start to make sense of how to use Wikipedia without it being too difficult or overwhelming. Lamia Bahy (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The feedaback which you received in the box at the head of the draft, and on your user talk page, said: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners". The words in blue within that text on both pages are wikilinks to further advice. It was not wise for you to resubmit your draft without having read those links and acted in accordance with the advice. Start off by reading Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys-Packers rivalry

Vinnylospo (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)How do you think my first article is coming along? Do you have any suggestions?Vinnylospo (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amiibo Pictures

Vinnylospo (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Hi. I tried to create a gallery of the images of the amiibo. However, after I made my second image and went to bed, the next day, I noticed how it was not there, and it stated how apparently it is not needed. I don't understand why. I mean this is a site where anyone can edit. All I wanted to do was show people all of the images of the amiibo. I believe this is necessary. Can you please help me out, and try to allow them to add the images on there, please. I would greatly appreciate it. :)Vinnylospo (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vinnylospo. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which can be a big difference from just being a generic "site" that anyone can edit. For example, Wikipedia is not a generic repository of images, and images here should be used to support encyclopedic content in an article. There is howeverWikimedia Commons which is a generic repository of images, and as long as your images are in the public domain, or licensed for public use, they're welcome there.

If you check out Commons:Category:Amiibo it looks like there's already a category set up for the company, and I've added a link at the bottom of the article. So readers who are interested in related images ought to go there, and that's where these images should be added, that is, if they're not copyrighted, which I would hasten to add out that images of characters like Mario are almost always going to be. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for K2-72 and TRAPPIST-1g

I've been trying to cite recent studies done on the K2-72 and TRAPPIST-1 systems to use for editing the articles of the stars and planets in each systems. However, I'm having difficulty doing so, especially with the article for K2-72, which seems to use an older citation list type. Is there anyone that can help?

P.S: For K2-72, I'm trying to cite its page on ExoFOP.ProtoJeb21 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoJeb21: I suspect that no-one has answered your question because no-one here knows the answer (or even what K2-72, TRAPPIST-1, and ExoFOP are). You might do better asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Maproom (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make text in an infobox turn into a link that leads to another Wikipedia page. Goaliepowers (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I was editing the Nike inc. infobox, and I wanted to add that their industry was also with sports equipment. Then I realized that the other industries were links, and they led to other articles (example: the apparel link led to the apparel page). How do I make the sports equipment one do that to???Goaliepowers (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just put square brackets round the words, like the others. In this case, it would result in a redirect, so it would be better to change it to Sports equipment. Try it out for yourself. Dbfirs 06:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone review my draft + Can someone give me advice on uploading images?

Hi. I'm quite new here, and I made a draft article named Draft:1902 Software Development. I hope someone can review it, before I publish it. Also, I'm planning to add images, is that okay? Or is it better to keep it simple / don't have pictures, since it's only a short article? Looking forward to your advicePam wiki2017 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pam wiki2017: (For reference, always link to the page you're asking about, in this case Draft:1902 Software Development). If you have freely licensed images, you can upload them. However, the article has a much more substantial flaw. None of the cited independent references even mention 1902 Software, let alone cover it in reasonable depth. It's not enough to just cite a bunch of references, they must directly and specifically cover the article subject to demonstrate notability. If reference material like that exists about the company, you should cite that instead, rather than just references that are just tangentially related to the same general concept. If reference material like that doesn't exist, the company is not an appropriate article subject. The draft in its current state would certainly be rejected. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thank you for your review and feedback. I've made some research and included references that mentioned 1902 Software. I also added links on affiliations showing that 1902 Software is an official member of those organization. I hope you can review my draft again. Pam wiki2017 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use for pictures of amiibo.

Vinnylospo (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)For my pictures, it says stuff with fair use. Can you please help me out?Vinnylospo (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already one nonfree image in that article (and one that looks nonfree but seems inappropriately marked as free, which I'll shortly nominate for deletion on Commons). One is enough to show what the art style looks like, and if you were thinking of replacing that one, I would say that having an image showing several figures is probably superior to only a single one. Since the image is unused, and there's probably no appropriate use for it, it will be deleted for that reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this category about?

In Johannes Goropius Becanus, I noticed a few categories listed whose names made no sense to me (I have "Show hidden categories" set):

Curious, I went to Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers, but there was nothing helpful there. I searched for articles with GND identifiers, and it led me to Wikipedia:Authority control#Linked catalogs, where I learned that GND is an authority file for the German National Library and partner institutions— at least, I think that's what

GND (German National Library and partner institutions)

means— and similarly for the others.

I started to add a brief sentence of explanation (basically copied from Wikipedia:Authority control#Linked catalogs and somewhat rearranged) to the GND category page, but realized I didn't know enough about these categories to be sure I wouldn't mess something up. Thus, this question: Would it be appropriate and useful to add such information to this and similar category pages?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan actor

Youtube by sarwan khan palijo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarwankhanpalijo18 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarwankhanpalijo18: What's your point? Do you want a page made about your posts on YouTube? Forget it, unless they're notable by the Wikipedia definition. Do you want to make a page about yourself? Forget that too: on Wikipedia, autobiography is a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged to say the least. --Thnidu (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aid for Infobox

Is there any method to add Infoboxes to articles by using some template or some other thing without copying and pasting from other articles? Thanks

Sinner (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - all infoboxes are a type of template. If you type "Template:Infobox" into the Search bar, you'll see a list of some of those available, or you can go to Category:Infobox templates for the full list. Each template contains a set of parameters, listed on the template page, that you can use to add information, and most also contain examples. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Import my Original content from my webpage to Wikipedia

On our webpage we have a lot of original content regarding small villages in Greece. We created a wikipedia page for one of them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zemeno) and we copy pasted the content and cited it to the source. After the review we have a warning that the content is copy pasted. It is, but the original content is ours as well.

What is the right way to go by with all this content we want to add to wikipedia?

Thank you in advance.YallouGreece (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YallouGreece. Because of the way it is licenced, Wikipedia can't use content from elsewhere unless that content is available under a similar free licence. You can allow Wikipedia to copy your content by following the steps outlined at donating copyrighted material, but be aware that in doing so, you will be making the content of your website freely available for anybody to use, for any purpose - not just Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contest a "speedy deletion" tag?

I have tried to create a fairly dry article on a contemporary female painter, Elizabeth Colomba, and it has been rejected twice. How do I contest a "speedy deletion"? When I click on the page, it reverts to a blank article. Thank you

!Moniquelong (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moniquelong: Hello and welcome. It appears that the article has already been deleted; only an administrator can view it once it is deleted. An article tagged for speedy deletion can be deleted without delay if the reviewing administrator feels the criteria has been met. To contest a speedy deletion, there is a large blue button in the tag which states "Contest this deletion"; if you click it, it will bring up a page to edit where you can post your reason for contesting, which once you save it will appear on the article talk page. Further replies should be posted directly to that page.

Regarding the page itself, it seems to have been deleted because it seemed to be promotional in nature. Since I cannot see it I can't tell you exactly what was promotional about it, but the deleting administrator must have felt it was. If you click on the link to your (now-deleted) article, a red box should appear where it tells you who deleted it; if you click the 'talk' next to their name you can ask them specifically what the issue was. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've created Draft:Elizabeth Colomba and submitted it for review, Moniquelong, so there's no reason to also be creating an article at Elizabeth Colomba. If and when the drafted is accepted, it will be moved there. Note that the draft will be declined in its current state, though, as the majority of its content is unsourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moniquelong, I just looked at the deleted version of the article. Text such as Elizabeth Colomba’s romantic, lyrical portraiture is inspired by history, mythology, and the feminine sacred in which she employs classical techniques in order to interrupt familiar historical narratives. By mixing traditional academic painting with inherently black signifiers including references to her own Caribbean heritage, she has developed a new visual language to include black subjectivity and its attendant histories into the canon. is quite promotional in my view, as well as being unsourced opinion. This would perhaps be appropriate for a signed review, but not for a Wikipedia article. The deletion was quite in accord with Wikipedia's policies and practices. However, with the draft, there is a chance to get the text into good shape without worrying so much about possible deletion along the way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moniquelong, I just looked at the draft. I see that the same promotional language is present there. Please remove it. Please use proper inline citations for facts supported by sources. See Referencing for Beginners and WP:CITE. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi, I was doing some anti-vandalism and by mistake reverted an edit on a "talk page" Talk:James_Comey (even though it does look like vandalism). However, I undid my revert, so could anybody say if I did it correctly? Thank You. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you wanted to reverse your original edit, that is OK. The edit which you had originally reverted could be regarded as unconstructive, as it isn't in coherent English, but the intent may not have been malicious so perhaps not proven to be vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the material you removed and then restored was machine-translated, maybe from Russian judging by its creator's name. Anyway, you restored it correctly. Maproom (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating wikipedia page for House of Hiranandani

I am not able to create wikipedia page for House of HiranandaniJayeshpanchal117 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayeshpanchal117: you have created an article titled "House of Hiranandani", five times. Each time it has been deleted, as promotional and unreferenced. There is now what appears to be an attempt to write an article at Talk:House of Hiranandani; as well as being in the wrong place, it is blatantly promotional "The brand enjoys high customer equity & loyalty, acclaimed éclat for its architectural legacy and always striving towards providing indulgent homes", and has no references. If that's the best you can do, at your sixth attempt, you really ought to give up. Maproom (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayeshpanchal117 Agreeing with all of the above, the fact that there has been a community discussion on inclusion of this topic, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Hiranandani means that any further attempt to include this topic will have to address the basis underlying the consensus to delete the article –lack of any evidence of notability, coupled with the promotional nature of the write-up. So, any article would have to be carefully neutrally written and demonstrate the topic's notability by citation to reliable, secondary, independent sources which write about the topic in substantive detail (which probably don't exist and so no suitable article is possible. Without meeting these standard, future attempts will be deleted under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as reposts. Oh, also, the content at the talk page, as quoted above, was a copyright violation and plagiarism of House of Hiranandani's LinkedIn page. Please don't do that again. Doing so is likely to quickly result in a block from editing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFL lists template

Hi. I am trying to put the link of my second article (which is still a work in progress) called 2016 NFL quarterbacks win–loss records and I am trying to update the current season on that template into the 2017 season. However, even though I updated it, and added the link to my new page, it doesnt seem to be showing up on anything outside of my qb page. Can you please help me out? Thanks.Vinnylospo (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinnylospo, and welcome to the Teahouse. {{NFL lists}} does now include a link to 2016 NFL quarterbacks win–loss records. To see it, you must "Show" the section labeled "Quarterbacks" -- the second section. By default this seems to be Collapsed, with only the section title displayed. Once the section is expanded, the link is in the bottom line of the section, at the far right. It may take time before other articles that use the template show the new version. This is done behind the scenes, by the job queue. The various articles that transclude the template should be up to date soon. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating page after rebrand

The company I work for rebranded at the end of the month and I was wondering if it was possible to have our Wikipedia updated as the website, logo and name are now out of date. The rebrand was not formally noted in press, instead recent articles published about the company have simply used the new name. This means that there is no verifiable evidence in the eyes of Wikipedia. However, the website link noted on Wikipedia now auto-redirects to the new website.

213.131.113.2 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should a category such as Category:Alkenes include any compound with an alkene functional group or should it only contain hydrocarbons?

I'm wondering if more inclusive definitions should be used, or if I should create new categories using more exclusive definitions. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrganoMetallurgy take a look at what articles are currently in the category and follow suit. If it's not clear enough the best place to discuss the issue is WT:WikiProject Chemistry as that's where the topic specialist can be found. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant more generally as well. I suspect such category ambiguity exists elsewhere as well and was wondering if there was any standard way of dealing with it. I was also wondering if there are any reasons why I shouldn't split such categories up into more specific categories.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article declined?

My article was declined. Why??? Cacox (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The note left on your user talk page states "This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you." - I think that's a good start. From clicking on the Draft, here, there only appears to be a broken image link and a heading - certainly not a fully fledged encyclopedia article. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, after sitting here for a second, I think you might also be facing a few issues - posting an autobiography is strongly discouraged, especially since it also crosses the Conflict of Interest line. It appears (*from your talk page*) that you've been trying this for quite awhile now... :D - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article for the school I work in. Is this appropriate? There is no article yet as it is small.

I am thinking of trying to construct an article about the school I work at. I am a teacher and I am getting the children to write the content (that shall be edited!). I will endevour to source it. I see there are not many articles about Primary (5 years to 11 years) schools in Oxford, England. Is there anything i need to bear in mind?StuJee1 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StuJee1, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several issues here. First of all, you have a Conflict of interest, and must therefore be particularly careful to be as objective as possible, and to stick closely to what the sources say. Secondly it is really better to find the sources first, and then write the article based on what they say. Thirdly, there are few articles about primary schools, in any location, because such schools are only rarely Notable. The school you work for may be an exception, of course. Please read our guideline on the notability of organizations before deciding to proceed with this project. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources that provide information which is misleading or contains half-truths or is incorrect

I recognize that the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy has some strengths. However sometimes this policy poses an issue when a source which is generally considered "reliable" will contain information with varying degrees of truth. At best, the source could contain information that is misleading, and at worse, it could contain information that is simply incorrect.

What is the best course of action when an editor insists that their contribution to an article is valid because of its use of a "reliable" source with "verified" information, even when other secondary sources contradict that information, and especially when primary sources contradict that information? Gfcvoice (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recommended course of action is to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article (Yahoo! and Oath Inc., I assume) until a consensus is reached. Maproom (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom you are correct that my post was prompted by those articles, however, the issue of misleading/incorrect "reliable" sources is one that I've seen quite a lot. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom are there any steps an editor can take if discussion on the talk page leaves the disagreement unresolved? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But you haven't even started the discussion yet. Maproom (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Gfcvoice and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, when apparently reliable sources differ on the facts, we present all versions, indicating what source supports what version. If many reliable sources have one version and one is an outlier, less space will be given to the outlying version, or it may be left out. See WP:DUE for more details on this. Note that we generally give secondary sources higher weight than primary sources. But much depends on the reputation of a particular source among the experts in a field.

An editor can post on the Reliable source noticeboard to get an opinion on whether a particular source is reliable for a particular statement in a particular article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom is of course correct that discussion is the first step when editors disagree about sourcing or content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DES I'm a bit confused by the idea that "we generally give secondary sources higher weight than primary sources." Using the Yahoo! example (which is not the only instance of this type of situation happening), we have a situation where a company issued a press release stating that X, Y and Z happened. However some secondary sources have stated that K happened, which is a misleading/incorrect way of rephrasing the information in the press release. I would have thought that the press release should be given higher weight than secondary sources which interpret the press release incorrectly. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, and independent sources are strongly preferred to partial sources such as press releases. Whatever, you ought to be discussing this on the relevant talk pages. Maproom (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gfcvoice, our general presumption is that a quality secondary source will review multiple existing primary sources, weigh them against each other, and interpret each in the light of the others, thereby producing reliable accounts and interpretations of what happened. Of course this doesn't always go as smoothly as we would like. But then company press releases are often slanted and spun to put the face on the events that the company would prefer, and sometimes are far from accurate. Other primary sources may reflect bias conscious and unconscious, or may be too close to an event to get a proper perspective on it. In any specific case, what sources to use and how to use them should be debated on the talk page of the article in question, not here at the Teahouse. But here we can describe the general principles and process. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Datone Jones to B class

I'm a UCLA Bruins fan in Anaheim, CA who edits articles about anything related to UCLA (former and current players), as well as other California articles but is there any thing I can do to help get the article Datone Jones to B class? That article is one of the articles I would like to get to good article status one day, but for now I am focused on improving it, and getting it to B class. I've seen the criteria about it, but is there anything that needs to be done to get it to B class. Or does the article needs copyediting? Thanks! --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey UCLAgirl623. The short answer is that the only classes that really matter as far as a measure of good quality goes are WP:GA and WP:FA. These have clear and generally respected evaluation procedures and standards that are consistently adhered to by the community. Start through B class really don't, and they're pretty arbitrary in the way they're used overall. Shoot for GA, and don't worry about anything in between. Articles often go directly from start or C class to GA just because most editors kindof "get" that the interim is not really that meaningful in practice. Whether something is a B class is often more dependent on who reviews it, and how they're feeling that day, rather than the objective state of the article. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UCLAgirl623. Note that this was drafted in response to your follow-up, which you removed from above in the interim. Some first look thoughts for improvement. (Feel free to copy this to the article's talk page, if you'd like.):

The article does not have a sufficient lead section, which would certainly be noted at any GA review. It should, usually in two to four paragraphs, depending on the breadth of the body: "summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
The following are unsourced: The text under "College career"; the last sentence under Senior season; the last sentence under "Green Bay Packers"; the entirety of the sections under "2013 season", "2014 season" and "2015 season".
The section under Minnesota Vikings is a single short sentence; feels like an orphan; surely two sourced sentences can be sustained?
All three statistics tables are cited using an external link embedded in the text, without full attribution details.
For that matter, the form of many of the references need work (I have not looked at them to see that they verify what they purport to verify, or judged their reliability) but they need full attribution, where a few are just links. For example:

<ref>[http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/defensive-end-datone-jones-in-a-rush-to-be-good-5n9md13-204413231.html Defensive end Datone Jones in a rush to be good]</ref>

Would be better as:

<ref>{{cite news|url=http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/defensive-end-datone-jones-in-a-rush-to-be-good-5n9md13-204413231.html|last=Dunne|first=Tyler|newspaper=The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel|title=Defensive end Datone Jones in a rush to be good|date=April 23, 2013|accessdate=June 15, 2017}}</ref>

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: I just added the reference you told me about. I can copy the first 5 sentences before the citation part into the talk page, correct? --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 22:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though please copy it all (including my signature) or none at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I copied all the bullets and your signature @Fuhghettaboutit:. --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 23:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A citing question

Is it allowed to use another wiki about a specific thing as a source for a new article? Thank you!2602:306:8317:88B0:9C66:902F:BA15:997D (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Hello there! I saw that the Costco article is written like an advertisment, please explain to me how to flag this article.

[1] www.google.com

[1]