Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xcuref1endx (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 2 August 2017 (→‎When to include accolations and awards?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
Shortcuts
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

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


Neutral point of view is difficult at some points

Neutral point of view is difficult at some points though it is one of basic principles of Wikipedia. As everyone can edit every article. So you can edit an article to which you are opponent. For example

  • Christian view of Bible and Quran
    • Bible: Christians believe Bible is a revealed book and a True word and Order of God.
    • Quran: Some Christian testaments declared Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is a false prophet so Quran is a man-written book (May God save me from this!)
  • Islamic view of Bible and Quran
    • Bible: Muslims believe Bible is a revealed book but it was changed from its original form so present Bible is not a True word and Order of God.
    • Quran: Muslims believe Quran is the final, true and unchangeable word and Order of God.

When here are so much trenchs in views, neutrality of view is perhaps very difficult. Sinner (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sinner . Not to be rude, but... I'm not totally sure if there's a question in there. NPOV can very often be difficult, so much so that we have the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard for times when situations arise that need wider community discussion. In general, with regard to religion, we simply record what people believe as what they believe without really "taking a side". Determining the nature of absolute immutable epistemic Truth is more of a place for philosophers and theologians, and not really for an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word rude while referring me shows answerer does not agree with above content (even I ensure it is a truth). That is we can't agree on everything, so can't become so neutral as required by wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nazim Hussain Pak. He was not saying you were rude, he was hoping he would not be considered rude for saying what he said. Everyday English can be harder to understand than formal written English. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not central point of question, neutrality is difficult at points where you do not agree with basic idea of a subject when you are opposite to it. Sinner (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty simple, really. If you find you are looking at a subject about which you cannot be neutral, it is recommended that you simply do not edit it. There is no requirement, no expectation, that you edit on every topic, but there is an expectation and requirement that, when you do edit something, you approach it with a neutral point of view. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even subjects like bible and quran can have other points of view than christian and islamic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And (which I hope is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, really), the bullet points above are not universally representative or "true" regarding the points of view of Christian and Muslim people, either. For instance, most Christians in my part of the world do not believe that the Bible as a whole is a "revealed" book - it is commonly accepted that it was written by human hands, and interpreting the texts and contexts of the times when the Bible was written, in order to make it relevant for people today, is a major issue for theologians and Bible translators. But that's not the only point of view or belief, and it would be equally wrong to say that it is universally representative for Christians. --bonadea contributions talk 22:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, "If you find you are looking at a subject about which you cannot be neutral, it is recommended that you simply do not edit it." C. S. Lewis said much the same thing about reviewing books to which one has a personal antipathy.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sinner -- Look at the bright side. Where there are differences between Christianity and Islam, they can be laid out in bullet points, as you have. Where there are differences between creationism and science, the two sides argue without even a common vocabulary. I am quite sure you will be able to edit Wikipedia successfully using the tact and wisdom you demonstrated in your post. Knowing your interlocutor and his views does not require that you agree with them. As salamu aleiykum. (Peace be upon you) Rhadow (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sinner! We're all the children of the Almighty Creator. This we have in common. As for Atheists and Idolators, they ideologically refuse to accept this commonality - yet even then they would have to agree that we're all human beings. Ultimately, beyond any differences, the fact is, we are all people, we all have ideas, we all have feelings. That's not blasphemy - it's just reality. Whatever goes beyond that is simply, up to us as a generation of folks, who are preparing this planet for who goes beyond this time in history. Hopefully that will be our descendants. Following in our footsteps.
To remain neutral, to many of us in Wikipedia, will mean ignoring what seems to be blasphemy. That's definitely a problem. It is absolutely forbidden (to ignore blasphemy). The biggest problem is within, though. We all are imperfect beings, doomed from the time we're born to make errors. That's how we can learn. From our errors.
So would we rather make the errors by choice, so we can bring enlightenment - or rather by blunder, not even recognizing we've made an error? To build ideological bridges is a positive thing. To further communication is a positive thing. To bring light to the future of humanity is a positive thing. Which means we have to wrestle with neutrality. Life is not a party. It's a wrestling match. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:2422889236x We are creatures, we are not children of God, I believe. Sinner (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The word "children" isn't meant literally, it's a colloquialism. It's a metaphor for "creature." Of course the Creator of all things created us, and we are only his humble creatures. Also I note that your original reply ... much more extensive and verbose, was accidentally reverted:

I agree with most of your opinion but everyone has his own beliefs and according to my belief, I am ardent opponent to your phrase, We are all children of Almighty Creator (ﻧﻌﻮﺫ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﮧ) . For me, sayings of Quran are precious than my life, Allah says:

Say Allah is One, He doesn't need anyone, He neither bore anyone, neither He was born by anyone, He has no spouse. (Quran:112)

He hasn't born anyone so He has no children, we are His creatures. For me, neutrality at this point is completely impossible. Sinner (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you accidentally deleted a block of entries when you replied, and this is what got reverted. Your reply was reverted along with everything else. B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On serious matters when your mind forces you to remove matter that offends you, you may forget rules and you can take a step that is surely harmful for wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We're all fallible. Our minds "force" us to forget rules. We make mistakes. If anything, the fact that we forget rules and make mistakes is what makes it so important for us to have other people around us. Good people. People who can remind us what those rules are. I guess, that's why we have this Teahouse!. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the information by reliable sources is not true. For example, In a clash between Pakistan and Afghanistan:
  • 50 Afghan troops killed (Pakistani claim)
  • Only 4 troops are killed (Afghani claim).

Both countries are hiding something. Pakistani claim may be too large and Afghan claim may be too small. What to do when sources aren't neutral like this. Sinner (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This question has not been answered. What to do when two conflicting sources provide different information? Sinner (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The answer will usually be to cite both if the sources are both reliable and the topic notable. Dbfirs 07:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Nazim Hussain Pak, that's a considerably different question than you started out with.
If you have two different sources of comparable reliability, it's acceptable to report what both have to say. If there's a discrepancy between the two reports, that discrepancy may be left unresolved by the Wikipedia article. It's not our job to declare the truth, just to write things that can be verified. That notion of "comparable reliability" is where our neutrality is put to the test. We have a policy that fringe and extreme points of view should not be given undue weight. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even we should cite if both sources are not neutral? i,e. If both sources support their side? Sinner (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our articles must neutrally report the positions and arguments of all significant sides of an issue, while giving each side it's due weight such that minority or fringe opinions are not overstated nor majorities over-represented. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has gone on long enough. There is no expectation that sources are neutral. We, as Wikipedia editors, have a duty to write from a WP:NPOV, but that may mean juxtaposing the opposing views of biased sources. For the writing to be neutral, it cannot attempt to resolve the discrepancy between opposing viewpoints. Where neutral and reliable sources can be found, we prefer to use them, but that is not always possible. From your example: official statements from governments are not presumed to be reliable as to the facts in matters where that government may have an interest in misrepresentation; all we can do is establish that a source reliably represents what that government is claiming. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does wikipedia object when a user follows all the rules of wikipedia but something in his text shows his group, i.e. A user who writes Muhammad (peace be upon him) is surely a Muslim. Allowing it seems to be best. If you want to gather people from all groups around one desk, you should respect views of every group without taking a side. I'm addressing to wikipedia, Sinner (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does, a little. We don´t write holy bible/quran/book etc, see for example WP:PBUH and MOS:HONORIFIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some users and specially I am in favour of using such titles. As title of this discussion, I'm not neutral at such points. Muhammad cursed those who do not say peace be upon him following his name. Because His Excellency was written before name of Nawaz Sharif, PBUH can be written following name of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Sinner (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nazim Hussain Pak Wikipedia should not, and will not, endorse or oppose any religious belief in its articles. The use of "PBUH" or similar honorifics would be an endorsement of a particular religious view. It is not acceptable, and will be reverted when noticed. Repeated insertion of such honorifics would be considered Disruptive editing and is subject to sanctions. The same is true for rendering "God" as "G-d" as some christian sects prefer, or referring to the christian scripture as "The Holy Bible", this is not a policy aimed only at Islam. It is also not negotiable. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do that on talkpages, feel free. Not in articles. Here [1] is an extensive discussion on the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles mostly state evolutionary history of biological species, they do not mention religious view over creation of species except human. Wikipedia should favour neither religion nor science. Is this not a discrimination between religion and science? Sinner (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP does mention these things: Creationism,Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism,Islamic views on evolution,American Indian creationism,Objections to evolution,Teleological argument and quite a few others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio of articles about evolution is very high. Every article about species discusses history of their creation according to unacceptable evolution without discussing their origin In mythology. Sinner (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you try to edit WP from the POV that evolution is unacceptable there will probably be problems at some point. If you can find good sources and make more articles like Raven in mythology I see no problem with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The best I found I should not disturb Wikipedia because I do not agree with something. I should do my best to improve this Project. I can never become neutral in some fields, I shall not disturb those fields. Wikipedia needs a lot of improvement. Give me some useful advice about this. These are last words of Sinner in this thread. Sinner (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an automated solution? Hundreds of vandal edits by IP

I have just uncovered a [IP vandal]who has been altering charts of data in articles about international airports since April (hundreds of edits). The edits are done consecutively, removing information from the charts, and I find it is too much work to chase them all down, let alone correct them. The person was warned and blocked in early June. Is there an automated way to get rid of all this person's edits? And I hope it is an admin, rather than the unfortunate editor who tried to undo some of the damage, who accomplishes this.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copyright permission

I want to quote some material from books that are still copyrighted. Is it possible to get permission to do this? And how? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777. You can use relatively short quotation of non-free copyrighted material under fair use, so long as you clearly indicate you are quoting by use of quote marks (or more rarely, set off, such as in a blockquotes) and you cite the source of the quote immediately following it using an inline citation. Permission is irrelevant; having it would not help. Unlike other sites, where a one-time license like that allows use of copyrighted material just there, while the non-free copyright is retained, outside of quotations, text content here must be released to the world irrevocably, into the public domain or under certain suitably free copyright licenses. If you provide the particulars we may be able to provide more tailored advice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding so quickly. I am so grateful you guys are here to help. I have no large quotes and have attempted to paraphrase everything as much as possible, but there are a couple of phrases that nothing but the original wording will do. I am attempting a total rewrite of the article on the Bible and violence--which should be renamed and how do I suggest that? In my rewrite, for example, I quoted Evan Fales a well known philosopher from one of his essays in a book--both of which I fully reference with page numbers--saying the crucifixion is "psychologically pernicious" and "morally indefensible"--there just isn't a way to sufficiently paraphrase that and get the full impact of it. There are a couple more direct quotes of the same type--nothing that's even a full sentence long--but I want to be sure everything is properly credited and accurate and proper. Under the sociology section I quote Nurs Masalha calling the Old Testament "racist, xenophobic and militaristic" -- their choices of words are so pointed I want to include them just as they are. Even with the small quotes, I am careful I am conveying what the authors actually meant and not taking anything out of context. Will this be alright? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Jenhawk777. Yes, so long as you follow what I wrote above. Say you're quoting Shakespeare, and his writing was still in copyright: 1) place the quotation in quotes; 2) transparently cite the source of the copying; 3) using an inline citation:

"Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; no more; and by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, ‘tis a consummation devoutly to be wish’d."[1]

References

  1. ^ Shakespeare, William (1604). The tragedy of Hamlet, prince of Denmark: Act III, Scene I. Stratford-upon-Avon: Second Quarto Publishing. OCLC 252806.
See also WP:INTEXT. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again!Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposed for deletion

Hello again. I would like to create artickle of football player named Sredojević Stefan, and Wikipedia, somehow, won't let my to create it. This is a real football player, and this is the best source that I can find:

http://www.ffsrb.rs/sr/klub/2016-2017_4/prvi-tim_4/druga-liga-(kragujevac)_8/zastava_38/

Stelea17 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stelea17, and welcome back. You have created Средојевић Стефан and it has not been nominated or proposed for deletion in any way. It has been tagged as needing additional source references, and as possibly not being about a Notabale person. See our guideline about the notability of athletes, for the criteria. Neither of those indicates any impending deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should this not be moved to the English spelling on the English Wikipedia? Dbfirs 07:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the title must be transliterated, see WP:TRANSLITERATE. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite still considered a Promo

I provided the following feedback to the reviewer on my second attempt, but guess I should request your collective assistance in getting the submission to meet expectations.

I am not a relative nor do I have any financial or ulterior reason for persisting with this task. I am interested in the history of this person who has a terminal illness. Hence it is certainly not an advertisement. That said, I definitely 'get' what you are saying. Third party references to verify her life and contributions are used frequently and a few more have been added She was very active from her 20's as a woman leading from the 'front' in international protests - not very popular with many governments of course. Now we realise in the South Pacific that the residuals of nuclear testing still remain. Rainbow Warriors are considered quite heroic here. I'm not sure how to re-write this because it is so interwoven with the politics and social fabric of the 1970's Should I remove all of the material under Life and Career? Many thanks for what must be a very difficult and time-consuming task as a volunteer. As a consolation, Susi certainly stepped-up in her prime too. I'm very grateful to both of you. Don

The revision is under Waihekedon and in my sandbox. Is that sufficient information to access it?

Thanks, D

Waihekedon (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This User:Waihekedon/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) link will make it easier for other editors to look at the item in question. MarnetteD|Talk 02:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot that could be done to improve the sandbox contents, including adding a wikilink to Rainbow Warrior, and removing unreferenced promotional statements such as "There are so many talented people, from around the world, who live there". Maproom (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Waihekedon. I looked at your draft last night, but I fell asleep before I could reply. My first suggestion would be to look at some other biographical articles on Wikipedia. It doesn't appear you have done that. Why do I say that? Because you will not find one single bio here amongst all 5 million plus articles that begins with the subject's name, followed by a colon and a sentence fragment. Why is this important? Other than the style issue, which is easily fixed, because what frequently does begin that way is a press release, the most blatently promotional type of writing that exists. Then the very next words are "movement builder", one of those terms that you only find on someone's resume. I doubt anyone would consider a "man on the street poll" to ask people to name famous "movement builders", right? I know it is not your intention to be promotional, but right off the bat in the very first line, your draft appears blatently promotional. Secondly, you have some book references. Those should contain the specific page numbers that reference the fact you are citing. Third, you have some references to Wikipedia. That is never allowed for anything. Fourth, you have numerous references to social media. Again, with a few very narrow exceptions, you cannot source things to social media.
What will decide if your article makes it to the encyclopedia is notability. Notability is shown by having multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject, that discuss the subject in detail. While the book listed as reference #1 is an excellent source, totally reliable, it can only be used to verify facts. Since it is published by Greenpeace, it is not independent and does nothing to show notability. The rest of your sources (with the exception of the other book) are either not reliable (websites with no indication of editorial vetting, the aforementioned social media and Wikipedia) or do not discuss her in detail. Being mentioned multiple times in passing does nothing to show notability. Virtually all of the article below the first section is inappropriate if I am understanding what you are trying to communicate with your writings there. This information should be in the article, referencing some fact or another. Writing about her being mentioned in the media is not appropriate content. Listing her social media is not appropriate content. This draft needs a ton of work. I am guessing that somewhere, there is enough to show that she is notable. But notability is not conveyed by real world accomplishments. Notability is conveyed by someone totally unconnected with her writing in detail about her real world accomplishments. That is what you have to show. Your writing also has issues with maintaining a neutral point of view, which is why we discourage people who have a connection of any kind with the subject of the article from writing about them. Your posting here at Teahouse reveals that you have deep feelings about this woman, and that makes it very difficult to write with detachment. John from Idegon (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGE; Cores

Hey! Could we not change the names of the cores in Lommel from the current names to the Dutch names, cause Lommel Workshops sounds weird, cause its Lommel Werkplaatsen. If a tourist comes to Lommel and says: "Where is Lommel Workshops?", then they don't know what they mean. Bobbyjohn10 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobbyjohn10 and welcome back to the Teahouse.
The first and best place to request a change in an article's content is on the talk page of the article. Or, you could probably make the change yourself.
But I simply removed that whole section of the article. It seemed mis-named and none of the items it pointed to had articles, so it was just a sea of red links. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Mbaka draft

Can someone help review the article Draft:Camillus Anthony Ejikemeuwa Mbaka and possibly De-orphan it?Nwachinazo (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nwachinazo and welcome to the Teahouse.
You should have an idea of what other articles on Wikipedia would benefit from a link to your article, but those links cannot be added while it is still in Draft: space.
The review process is backlogged. I consider it somewhat impolite to ask here at the Teahouse to jump the queue. If you have specific questions about how to edit your draft, this is the right place. You can continue to improve your article while you are waiting for the review. I can tell you that a few of the most common reasons for a draft being declined are: 1) promotional or non-neutral language in describing the subject, 2) failure to provide sufficient independent, reliably sources that establish the notability (as Wikipedia defines is) of the subject, and 3) failing to provide sources for substantive statements made about the subject. You should aim to have at least one citation per paragraph (outside the lead, which can simply summarize material from the body). If you find you have written anything that cannot be tied to a source, it's best to leave it out. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
jmcgnh wrote "The review process is backlogged. I consider it somewhat impolite to ask here at the Teahouse to jump the queue." Nwachinazo has been editing for only about two months here and may not have known about the backlog till they read your reply. Remember, please don't bite the newbies and assume good faith.
--Thnidu (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nwachinazo (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC) ' You should aim to have at least one citation per paragraph'[reply]

Which Wikipedia policies and guidelines state?While I accept all other statements above, the above I quoted is a matter of opinion rather than policy/guideline I know of. Anyway, you can educate me more!

Any attention that could be directed to this talk page?

I just wondered if anyone had an answer to my question on the Spy Kids talk page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C.Syde65 and welcome to the Teahouse.
If you wish to challenge the identification of "those things" as "Thumb-thumbs" in the article, you could put a {{citation needed}} template there. Use the reason= parameter to explain what fact you think is missing. Strictly speaking, the way you currently have asked the question, it seems more an attempt to use the talk page as a forum rather than as a place to discuss improvements to the article.
Wikipedia does operate a WP:Reference desk which is open to answering many sorts of questions, but I don't know how well they'd do at this one. You might be able to get a faster answer at IMDB or at a fan site like Wikia. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably lucky because I use Wikia regularly, although I'm not sure of any fan sites on Wikia that are active, at least socially. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided I'm pretty sure the information is correct, as the information also exists on at least one other site, and looking at the strange people in black suits, they are thumb shaped - I always noticed they were sort of thumb shaped, but it wasn't until recently that I learned that they were actually thumb-thumbs underneath those suits - I was just very surprised, so I questioned the information for reassurances sake, so I guess I'm reassured now. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

could someone help write an article on my short film production house?

i badly need someone to help me write an article on my short film production house. i tried creating one myself but wiki discarded saying that it did not meet their standards.? (Akhilr944 (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akhilr944: Hello and welcome. The page you created hasn't been deleted yet, but likely will be because it does not indicate with independent reliable sources how your company is notable; that is, why it merits inclusion in this encyclopedia. The sources you include seem to be from Facebook which isn't usually considered a reliable source. Reliable sources are things like news stories, independent reviews, or anything not written by someone associated with your company. Not every company merits a page here.
As you state that it is your company, you should review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies before you edit further. If you have independent reliable sources, you can visit Articles for Creation to draft an article and submit it for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This will get you get feedback on it to improve it. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Akhilr944. Further on to the above, the correct way to write an article is to gather together first the types of sources that demonstrate notability—that is
i) published;
ii) reliable
iii) secondary sources, that are
iv) entirely independent of the topic (written by unrelated people who have no stake in it at all); and that
v) Cover the subject in substantive detail (not just mere mentions of it)—
and then only write if those sources exist. If they don't, no article is possible. If they do, write the article by digesting those sources, and then writing only what they verify, citing them transparently as you go as verifying the information you are writing, without copying their words. You may judiciously supplement with facts that are verified through non-independent sources, including primary sources, though these do nothing to demonstrate notability, and such sources can only be used for straightforward statements of fact (they cannot be used for evaluative content, analysis, synthesis, or self-serving matters).

If you want to ask someone else to write the article, the only way that has any chance of success I know of is to gather those sources, if they exist, and then ask, presenting them as the basis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akhilr944. I don't wish to be unkind; but Wikipedia does not care at all, not even a little bit, whether you "badly need" an article. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind, not even getting your name out in the world. If we have an article on your company, it will not be your article, you will have no control over its contents, and if it happens that there are indepedent sources that say unwelcome things about your company, they should be featured just as much as sources welcome to you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's the name of the film production house? Plus I thought Wikipedia editors like you and I could edit any article created by anyone as well as others edit ours, but that doesn't mean you can't still create it, Right?Iodeaux (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iodeaux the article First born films was created by Akhilr944. It was speedy deleted for WP:CSD#A7 (No assertion of significance) and more importantly for WP:CSD#G11 (Blatant promotion). It was sourced largely to the facebook page of its founder, who seems to be Akhilr944, and to the facebook pages of a few of the performers it has featured. Oh, and also to the founder's twitter feed. It is possible that the firm is actually notable, although i tend to doubt it, but any valid article would have to toss everything but the name, and start from independent reliable sources. So there would be no point in restoring the deleted text, even as a draft. Creating this without proper sources will just mean it will be deleted again, and perhaps "salted", that is protected so it could not be created in the future. Sources are the key here, as ColinFine says just above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a finished list of books in my sandbox ...

which I would like to promote to a regular entry. How do you do that? Albretch Mueller (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albretch Mueller. The list in your sandbox does not currently resemble an encyclopedia article (and I'm not sure it ever can), and so does not warrant a move to the article mainspace, at least at this time. We do have specialized types of articles that are stand-alone lists, but such entries are not just a simple list of entries but contain prose, including a lead section providing encyclopedic, context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the scope of the list and criteria for selection. All articles must be verified by citations to reliable source, and the list you've composed has none. If an encyclopedic stand-alone list article is possible for this list topic, then, in addition to reading the page I linked to our stand-alone list guideline, you might look at Wikipedia:Featured lists, to emulate. However, the reason I said above that I'm not sure a suitable article is even possible, is because lists cannot be on indiscriminate topics, and I'm not sure that books "targeting persecution" (as your edit summary there indicated it is), is a suitable topic, and not too broad for a list article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If at some point this is ready for a move to the mainspace, it would have to be carried out by an administrator, since your sandbox page history has unrelated revisions that would need to be scrubbed from the move. If this becomes ripe for a move, a request could be made at the technical section of requested moves, noting the page history issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be simpler just to copy the text from the current sandbox to WP:Draft space when no other editor is involved in the creation of the text? (I'm not recommending that this be done with the current content.) Dbfirs 15:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dbfirs: If and only if a draft remains edited by a single user, and if and only if that user (not someone else for them) copied the content to a mainspace page, would it be acceptable from a copyright standpoint to perform a copy and paste move. However, even then, retaining the edit history of the draft is a much cleaner process, and many users would want it retained. Any copy and paste move by another person would result in an untenable situation. First, the person would have to comply with our licenses by stating what they were doing in the edit summary, and provide a hyperlink to the source of copying (see WP:COPYWITHIN), and then the sandbox would have to be retained forever so that the edit history providing the list of authors who own the copyright to the content remains available for credit. Ensuring that is a very dicey proposition indeed, and just very messy, even if there was a way to guarantee it; it attenuates the attribution to another page's history for no real purpose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. The "prose" and the other technical aspects you mentioned relating to that list I can fix in minutes. That list would be part of other pages. What I can't understand is why you consider "targeted persecution" paid for, trained and coordinated by the government an "indiscriminate topic"? Wikipedia does have pages about MKUltra, COINTELPRO, Project SUNSHINE ... even about Directed-energy_weapons which could be seen by some as barely disguised advertising. What is the problem then talking about the victims of such weapons? Albretch Mueller (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Albretch Mueller: Where does that list end? How many books are there, throughout history, in all languages, that fit within the ambit of "targeted persecution" as a topical scope for a list, and wouldnt that be an exercise in applying highly subjective standards, that would be difficult to winnow using unambiguous criteria? Maybe the following will better clarify what is meant by an "indiscriminate list". Once again, I am questioning the issue, and am not sure it is not a valid list topic, but it certainly is not, at first blush, obvious that its scope is not too broad:
By the way, no matter your familiarity with the topic, no one in the world in a matter of "minutes" could do a decent job of writing prose providing historical context, background, topical scope, criteria, while properly citing suitable reliable secondary and independent sources using transparent inline citations (and that is most important part of such a list). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "in a matter of minutes" I meant I have been working on bringing some certainty to such huge and devilish topic apparently no one wants to talk about and our rulers have an invested interest in having no talk about any of it: https://ipsoscustodes.wordpress.com/2017/ {06/15/main-individual-targeting-us/, 07/27/social-what-how-why-of-targeted-individuals-political_persecution_us/, 07/27/technical-what-how-why-of-targeted-individuals-political_persecution_us/, 06/15/well-known-targeted-individual-us/} Albretch Mueller (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Albretch Mueller, I haven't looked at the draft, but judging from what you have written above, it seems to me that you are here at Wikipedia to argue a case. If that is so, please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to do this. No Wikipedia article should ever present an argument or a conclusion, except when it is summarising the argument or conclusion of a single reliable source that it cites. And Wikipedia is not a place for righting great wrongs. --ColinFine (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did know about wikipedia: {<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advocacy">Advocacy</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs">Righting_Great_Wrongs</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view">Neutral_point_of_view</a>} policies, which, for the most part, especially the first two I find reasonable and I reread in the context of your comment. I could also see how they could be "technically" used to get at writers, especially in connection with "controversial", complex topics. I also understand that people with a verbal grasp on things talk about and understand reality in their own ways. Of course there will always be argumentative and conclusive aspects to every statement anyone could possibly make, as "encyclopedic" as they may sound, including your very own "single reliable source that it cites" one! Some people may find quite hilarious and tellingly brain effed that wikipedia considers the New York Times to be an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect#Satellites_used_for_covert_harassment">independent third-party and reliable source</a>. As I mentioned before and neither wikipedia nor you seem to have a problem with, even while pointing out issues relating to its "'encyclopedic' tone" and "verifications" since March 2013, wikipedia allows for manufacturers of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon">Directed-energy_weapons</a> advertise their technical details as an "'encyclopedic' entry" (which, let me be clear, I am not exactly complaining about and, even if questionably I find within the framework of what an encyclopedia is). Wikipedia has long entries with quite elaborate item lists and categorizations about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO">UFOs</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati">Illuminati</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism">Satanism</a>. Aaronia AG (one of the most advanced DEW manufacturers) CEO, Thorsten Chmielus, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmVKyOt2oVc&t=2m50s">cracking jokes</a> and compulsively laughing about definitely more than their DEWs tells us: "[our programmable DEW you can also use ] ... as a jammer, but I didn't say that, of course, because I think it is not allowed anywhere, but we call it 'field strength generator' and then 'it sounds more familiar' and you can use it". Anyone with a technical sense of reality would find preposterous the "discreet", "no-touch" aspect that the government claims as one of the "advantages" of DEWs. I wonder what would happen is people beam Thorsten and his family with the EM waves caused with the very DEWs made by his company as the government does to so many victims, even babies. He should no problem with it as long as they use 'field strength generator', right? Why is it that the victims of such abuses have no voice or place not even in an encyclopedia and find no venue anywhere? As I profusely pointed out <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect#.22Conspiracy_theories.22"> even here at wikipedia</a> they totally misrepresent "targeted individuals" as being conspiracy theorists and/or mentally ill, even though the technology enabling every single one of what they have been talking about for more than two decades is now being openly advertised and <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/nypd-surveillance-post-act-lies-misinformation-transparency/">the government keeps trying to hide</a> at the same time (<a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/post-act-hearing-round-0">illegally</a> since they are using tax payers moneys). Albretch Mueller (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Periods in College Degrees? (BA) vs. (B.A.)

I'm working on improving politicians' infoboxes and am wondering what is the correct standard to use in the parameter "education"? JocularJellyfish (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, JocularJellyfish, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia specifically says BA (or AB) without periods or spaces. It also says: "The Manual of Style on abbreviations, above, eschews the use of periods with acronyms (M.D., Ph.D.)." (note that the red text indicates an example of what not to do.) This seems pretty clear to me. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. JocularJellyfish (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paging @Safiel: JocularJellyfish (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel and JocularJellyfish: Referring again to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Full_stops_and_spaces The MoS indicates that STOPS should be used in American English style articles. Yes, that MoS article appears to contradict itself farther down. However, I have been on Wikipedia for a good eight years, during which time, the common usage in American English articles was full stops, (B.A.) I am well aware that on British English and Australian English articles, STOPS are not used. In my own personal experience in school and at work, I have always used STOPS and was taught to use STOPS. And I know STOPS are still the predominant usage outside of Wikipedia in the United States. I think it might be necessary to clarify the MoS as to the common United States usage versus the common British and Australian usages. Safiel (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Safiel You are correct that usage outside of Wikipedia permits "B.A." as well as "BA", although I think the trend is in favor of the latter. While the MOS does favor periods after abbreviations for US/North American usage, it also indicates that abbreviation that are also acronyms should not use periods. Specifically, MOS:POINTS says Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening (although there are many exceptions) but no full point with an acronym. This is true for all varieties of English. In any case, I think the more specific guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia takes precedence over any more general direction. But an RfC could always be created to clarify this. @JocularJellyfish: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JocularJellyfish, I might add that we generally do not use postnominals, such as "Joe Smith, PhD" and in prose, it is probably more appropriate to write out the degree's name, such as "Joe Smith has a doctorate in philosophy." John from Idegon (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, I was aware of that. My question is relating to the infobox. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 14:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth individual universities and colleges differ in their recommended styling too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that ce = copyedit and rv/rvt = revert, but what does hms mean?

I'm already aware that HMS stands for His/Her Majesty's Ship. In this case, it's the "Hms" that I see on some of the edit summaries over at the revision history log for H. M. Jyothi. I've been wondering what HMS stands for but I couldn't find any clues, so I decided to ask here instead. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, MrHumanPersonGuy. In eight years of editing, I do not recall seeing that abbreviation in an edit summary. You can find all the common abbreviations at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. I suggest that you ask the editor who used that abbreviation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MrHumanPersonGuy. What was the context? Here's my guess: hours minutes seconds. The more common abbreviation is hhmmss or hh:mm:ss Rhadow (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rhadow See the edit history of H. M. Jyothi, a series of edits on 28 July all have the same edit summary "Hms". No "hours:minutes:seconds" involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is an article about a rumnner, so it could possibly refer to hours, minutes, seconds, but not obviously. I have asked Sritata what it means on his or her user talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite of existing article

Posted at the top of the article I was going to edit is "This article may need a total rewrite." I decided I agreed. I felt it wasn't just the absence of proper citations, but the organization itself that needed reworking. The information was good, so I subsumed the entire article within the rewrite--with new citations and reorganization and clarification and editing.

I need to know two things: is there a special approach for offering up a rewrite? And two, I think the title should be altered--how do I suggest that? On the talk page?

Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Jenhawk777. Strictly speaking, a rewrite is just another edit. But with any extensive edit, dn particularly a total rewrite, it is a good idea for the user making the edit to open an article talk page discussion, explaining what s/he had in mind, and why the major edit was made. Without this, other editors are more likely to revert without thinking as much as they might.
As to changing an article title, that is done with the move function. Requested Moves describes the process. If the move is obvious and uncontroversial, any editor may boldly make it. But if a significant number of editors are likely to object, or if there is a question of the proper target of the move, it is much better Not to get into a back&forth move war. Instead start a move discussion on the article talk page, using {{Requested move}}. Consensus for or against the move should develop. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! And thank you again! Do you get tired of hearing that?! I make the edit and open talk and explain about it at the same time? Explain first then edit? Do I not click on the submit your article at the top of sandbox at all? I go in and just erase the whole thing and substitute mine?!? YIKES!! Talk about being bold!!! Am I likely to get lynched?? I have really really good reasons--do I just hope people actually read them?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to review the content of User:Jenhawk777/sandbox, Jenhawk777, and it's not a topic I know much about, but I would say that there is some work to do on presentation before the text is ready for the mainspace. You seem to be using bullet points for paragraphs of prose, and there is are issue with spaces before and between inline citations and with punctuation inside quotes. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and specifically MOS:REFSPACE and MOS:LQ. There may be other issues that I haven't spotted from a quick scan. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I am relatively new here. Christianity is the only topic I write on. It's my area of expertise. I used the bullet points just because I liked the look of them--I figured they might have to go so I will do that. I didn't know about the spacing--thank you I will fix that. And it is prose--I don't know how to write anything other than prose. I have read any number of articles here and the best ones all seem to have decent prose--is that wrong? What else is there? Could you explain? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with prose, Jenhawk777. What I meant was that bullet points shouldn't used for prose (only for lists). Cordless Larry (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Larry--they looked pretty... :-) I took them out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one rule, Jenhawk777, but in this case i would advise posting on the article talk page before making any major edit to the article, particularly since you are a comparatively inexperienced editor, and many of the other contributors will not know you. You could include a link to your sandbox. You might want to clean up some of the issues that Cordless Larry mentions above first. Also, your sandbox is on the long side for a Wikipedia article, it would probably need to be trimmed significantly or else split into multiple pages, if it were to be put into mainspace. And since, unlike some sandboxes, others have edited it, it should probably be moved and history merged rather than simply copied in. That would require an admin, and most admins would want to see some consensus first. (This is because unlike a simple edit, a history merge is a royal pain to undo.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to do some clean up as per Cordless Larry's advice. There are a couple of other editors here who helped out with some edits on another page so I will ask them to read it when it is actually done. I am not completely finished and I know it needs shortening--I discuss too much--I will attempt to clean that up as well. One of the dangers of writing in your area of expertise--I want to say everything. What is a history merge? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture being the first and last flight

Inappropriate content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is this information on "RAPTURE" (the sudden uptake of people of God on a specified date from the earth)...well the rapture is the Christian belief of hoping or getting ready of 'The Second Coming of Christ', I would to ask if you have given your life to Christ and would like to listen to your response cause there's more?Iodeaux (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iodeaux: Hello, this forum is to ask about using Wikipedia, and not religious beliefs, which is a personal matter. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Iodeaux, this page is for answering questions about how to edit Wikipedia, not for polling people about their religious views. In fact, No page on Wikipedia should be used for that purpose. That might be appropriate for a general forum on religious beliefs. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an Archive index?

To begin with, I've already looked at the helpful guide, but I have a question. If you go to my talk page, you can see at the top of the code that I've attempted to create the index. The monthly pages have already been created with success, but I'm having difficulties with establishing the index. Could someone help me out? Thanks. JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 22:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be working properly, JocularJellyfish. What is the problem that you see? You may need to refresh the page or purge the cache. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the index. Am I not understanding its function properly? JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 22:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JocularJellyfish, Notice that "Apr" "May" and "Jun" are links. The link to the archive pages for those months. What did you expect? Personally i prefer an older-style, manual, index, as you will see on my talk page, but that is a matter of style. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the link to the currently empty User talk:JocularJellyfish/Archive index then see User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn#Schedule. Come back if it's still empty after a couple of days. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I meant. Thank you! JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears none of the user talk indexes have been updated since 20 June 2017. Legobot is still doing other work but this task seems broken or inactive at the moment. Your |mask=/Archives/<year>/<month> for unnumbered archives may also be unsupported even if the task starts again. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

someone else set up a stub for me. I need to learn what I can and can't do.

The stub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Decuir The bottom of the page describes this as a stub. It is possible to turn it into a real page, but I don't understand the process yet. I am the subject of the article. My wife found it a few days ago. I believe it was created a few months ago by someone at the IEEE. (www.ieee.org) Not knowing any better, I added a few engineering related facts: why I became a Fellow, other contributions to public engineering standards. (All these edits are provably true.) She then added a couple other facts, mostly family. I then got another message from Uncle Milty. It pointed to the conflicts of interest page, etc. Please advise how to proceed? JoeDecuir (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JoeDecuir -- Your problem is not that the article is a stub. The problem is that the article appears to be written by its subject, which a conflict of interest WP:COI. Lemme work on it and see what happens. Don't you touch it, OK? Rhadow (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JoeDecuir -- First, have a look at the page about you. Second, find some nifty web references to you that prove your achievements. It is okay if they are behind an IEEE paywall. Third, put them on your talk page. Fourth, tell the truth that you don't know me or care to know me. The rest will happen magically. Signed, your magician, Rhadow (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is best for you not to edit the page, JoeDecuir. Wikipedia:Simple COI request explains how you can request changes to it if there are inaccuracies or you want material to be added. In its present state, the article is likely to be deleted because it does not cite enough sources and therefore does not establish the notability of you as an encyclopedia subject, so if you know of any published sources about you, please do suggest them. See WP:42 for a brief explanation of how notability is judged here. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - as explained in the Wikipedia:Simple COI request link I gave above, Tigraan. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions are re-added

Hello, my username was meant to be Tell The Truth, but fast fat fingers didn't correct it in time. Sorry for that typo. Lawyers for a character that a filmmaker chose to dramatically change and center a movie around to increase sales threatened stall of premieres of this movie if the actual name was used. 1) Is still living, 2) Did not give permission to be used in said movie, 3) Was acquitted of charges. A user put his name in and it was subsequently removed. However, the user was asked to remove his edit and has not done so. Also, the movie is not based on a true story as the poster in Wikipedia states. The poster is not found anywhere else on the internet except for Wikipedia. The poster was removed but then reinserted by another user who felt it was important. Again, violation of the book and also principal character. I read that if harm comes to a person written in Wikipedia, well, Wikipedia could find themselves in serious trouble if I'm not mistaken. I respect users viewpoints and there have been some eager users writing away inserting every possible link; however, I wish to caution that they will be held liable per Wikipedia's privacy policy if harm comes to the living person and his family especially since Wikipedia is being directly quoted on Facebook in an effort to stir retribution. Thank you, look forward to neutral polite assistance with this. Telltheteuth (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Telltheteuth. I am assuming that this is concerning Detroit (film), a dramatized film about the killings at the Algiers Motel during the 1967 Detroit riots 50 years ago. I was born in Detroit and was 15 years old at that time and remember those terrible days well. A Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. Any concerns that you have about the accuracy of the article should be expressed at Talk: Detroit (film). I need to caution you that making any sort of legal threat is contrary to policy and incompatible with editing Wikipedia. You have the right to take legal action, but you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is pending. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening email recieved from a writer

I recieved a very threatening email from someone named Zach from "wikipediawriters.com", saying that if I don't pay them money they will attack me via writing false articles about me etc... how can I protect myself from such people. Please advise. It's regarding a newly writen article: D-Erania Dstampley (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dstampley. I am sorry that you have been contacted by some vile con artists. Please report this immediately to WP:ANI where someone experienced with this type of scam will assist you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rejection of the page created

Shivtarkas93 (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jakes_Bejoy#Discography

This particular page has been rejected. Initially citations were missing. I had added them and now they say present it in form of footnotes. I am yet to understand what needs to be done.Kindly help me out so that page could get published Shivtarkas93 (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shivtarkas93. You have a list of references at the end of your article, but they should be placed within the body of the article, immediately after the content they support. Also, most of your references are bare URLs and instead they should be formatted to present bibiolgraphic information such as title, author, publication, date, page number, ISBN number for books, and so on. Please read Referencing for beginners and Your first article. You will have a much better understanding of what is needed to write an acceptable article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shivtarkas93 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Can you please send me appropriate way of doing things. Well I have links for references.. And the 'references for beginners' looks so complex and uneasy. Can you just send me steps please ? Shivtarkas93 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that it is complex to write an acceptable encyclopedia article, Shivtarkas93. Complex but not impossible. Focus on studying Help:Referencing for beginners#Manual referencing and reformat the bare URLs. Include bibliographic information as described above. If you have a specific question about the process, feel free to ask it here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Input on maternal mortality in the USA

Hi, I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and was wondering if I could get input on the page I created for maternal mortality in the USA. Currently, I am still trying to figure out how to correct this:

"This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (July 2017)"

Here is a link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_the_USA

Yellowbluebus90 (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yellowbluebus90. Congratulations on writing an article. Please read Wikipedia:Orphan to understand the concept. You want to make it possible for readers to find this article by adding links from other closely related areas of the encyclopedia. One obvious choice for a link to your article is Maternal death. Other possibilities might be articles about maternal health, complications of pregnancy, and so on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and response! I'll take another look at that. Yellowbluebus90 (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

on 'History of religions' page a few paragraphs don't seem to be neutral

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

Surviving early copies.... "Scholars were anxious.... The Bible's oldest historical... these additions are vague and contain no references, can they be deleted as they do not add to the accuracy of the page? Vgerdj (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vgerdj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, they can. You can remove unreferenced content and it can't be restored without references. You can also remove referenced content if it's inaccurate, or violates neutral point of view. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRL account owner confirmation

What was the template, that stated, that the owner of the account is confirmed by another editor on a Wikipedia meetup? Thank you. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 12:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new WP page. Would someone be able to check my references?

Hi there! I'm in the process of writing my first article, and it's quite daunting, so kudos to all the Wikipedians out there that have written or contributed to articles!

It was declined the first time around citing lack of notability. Would anyone be kind enough to check whether the references I have now are good enough? If not, any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers! Daishii (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daishii. Many of them appear to be ok, but I'm not sure about Capterra, whatever that is (It may be reliable and may not; I didn't click on any of its reflinks). The Canadian news and education websites appear to be fine though. You don't have the publisher listed on all the refs, which is not a huge issue but could be fixed. I think you have sufficient refs now to prove notability. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daishii -- As a general matter, especially for new companies, less is more. Dump all but the top three officers. Dump the product features. Explain why e-learning is important. Mention the competitors. Three really good references are better than 23 trade rags. Fully qualify the references (dates, author, etc). If people want to know about the product, they go to the company's website. If they want to know about the company, they go to WP. Best Rhadow (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the feedback! I'll make the changes, resubmit it, and hope for the best! Daishii (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page not accepted

Hey guys! I am really perplexed about something. I submitted a page for review and came out as not accepted. I did my research and read wikipedia's rules, reviewed the changes an editor suggested and I thought I was in the right path. The reason I got was lack of notability and the suggestion was: "What would've best convinced is museum collections or at least major reviews". My article is about Ken Light, he is a photojournalist and among other references I used The New York Times or the SFMOMA. I don't understand what notability is if those don't count as relevant sources. Sorry about showing my frustration but I really spent a lot of time doing research and making sure I was respecting Wikipedia's rules.

I thank you in advance for any suggestions.

Best, Saravazq (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saravazq. From what I can see, the NYT article wasn't completely about him but about his work; however, you have enough other sources that are clearly about him that I'd be inclined to think he's notable. One problem I saw in the draft was that your refs are below external links instead of above them, but that's an easy fix. You can try again and might ask WP:WikiProject Arts or WP:WikiProject Photography if they have any suggestions. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saravazq -- Less is more, especially for a new article. I think Ken Light is notable. Instead of lists of books and shows, you want to say about him:

  • He's good enough that Berkeley made him a full professor in an endowed chair
  • Huffington Post says he the greatest since Bourke-White
  • He won the Pulitzer in photojournalism, or something

If people want the list of books, they go to Amazon. If the want the list of shows, they go to his website. WP tells about him, the stuff he might not say about himself. Just my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadow White Arabian Filly :Thank you so much guys for your feedback! I changed the order of the External Links, added collection museums, a quote from an art critic that talks about his work, specified a little more about his work at Berkeley and mentioned that he received 2 National Endowment for the Arts. I am going to resubmit it now and see what you guys think. Thank you again.

Best, Saravazq (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The National Endowment for the Arts is an organisation, Saravazq, so it doesn't make sense to state that Ken Light received two of them. Do you mean two National Endowment for the Arts fellowships? If so, the source cited doesn't mention that he received two. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cordless Larry Yes, I meant the fellowship, sorry. The source cited mentions that he received fellowships but doesn't say how many. I should have used this source: https://www.lensculture.com/ken-light. I resubmitted it already, I guess it is too late to change it now?
I didn't receive a notification of your ping, Saravazq, because you did not sign the above post. To answer your question, you can continue to edit the draft while it is in the review queue. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critical Hits (talk • contribs) 23:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Critical Hits and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you have been experimenting with editing Wikipedia. If you are ready to contibute to building the encyclopedia, please feel free to ask questions here. --Pine✉ 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous edit

Hi there, just want to ask how to stop anonymous editing on wikipedia? I've noticed on the page of "kantar media philippines" one user is removing the facts of that page and replacing it with fake information. Is there anythind we can do? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makki2017 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Makki2017: Welcome to the Teahouse . You can issue a warning to the user. If it's still happening after your warning, you can either request for the page to be protected or report to vandalism noticeboard. Alex ShihTalk 04:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@alexshih im new in wikipedia, can you teach how to request for a protection on the said document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makki2017 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Makki2017: Click Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and just follow the instructions there. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Is Sandbox for practicing writing the article or will saving changes actually submit the article? Bcreichs123! (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcreichs123!: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Please see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. By the way, if you are planning to write about yourself, make sure to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Notability beforehand. Regards and happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 04:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


copying an archived AfD discussion

I'm trying to copy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Mahmoud Abd Al-Wahhab to a user subpage User:Thnidu/Egoboo, but all I'm getting is the header boilerplate "This is a closed discussion..." and DESiegel's decision. How can I copy the discussion itself?
Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: Hello there! I am not sure what happened. But the easiest way would be to put {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Mahmoud Abd Al-Wahhab}} (I have done it for you). Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: 谢谢 -- Thank you! I knew about that "templatizing" truth with the curly brackets to transclude a page, once upon a time, but I'd plumb forgotten it. --Thnidu (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is biography movie a notable reference

is biography movie a notable referenceRearm21 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rearm21: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest a quick look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Video links. As a rule of thumb, video links are fine to reference, but they do not assert notability usually. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a guideline stating that video sources do not usually establish notability, Alex Shih? I've not heard that one before. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. But when it comes to asserting notability, the essay describes that in general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. Video sources often do not have such editorial oversight, and when they do, there is also the copyright issues to deal with. Alex ShihTalk 07:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to link to copyright violations on YouTube, etc. to cite, say, a documentary, though. I would have thought that something like a BBC or CNN documentary would be considered a reliable source for most things. That said, I'm taking this away from the question, which is about a movie - which suggests a different type of video source. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rearm21: I think you're confusing notability and reliability. The subject of an article has to be notable, in the special sense in which we use the word here, in order for there to be an article at all. And all the information in the article has to be referenced to reliable sources.
If there is a biographical movie about someone, there is a fair chance that that person is notable, but that doesn't make the movie a reliable source. Biopics often omit or simplify facts, combine multiple people in the subject's life into a single character, and so on. See here, and continue into the next paragraph. --Thnidu (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rearm21, Cordless Larry, Thnidu, and Alex Shih: As so often with sources, it depends. A biopic might well not be reliable. For example, the fairly recent movie The Imitation Game conflated some incidents, and simply changed others to increase drama. For example, it showed Alan Turing being instructed by Stewart Menzies in security issues, while the biography on which the movie was in theory based says they never so much as met. It shows Turing deciding on his own to suppress intelligence so as not to reveal that codes had been broken -- in fact this was a decision made several levels above Turing, into which Turing had little or no input. It shows Turing's post-war computer work as located in his private house -- in fact it was a project of the University of Manchester, and was located in one of their labs, and was not Turing's solo project. I could go on. In short the movie is not a reliable source for Turing's life -- or anyone else's. But its mere existence would help demonstrate Turing's notability, if that were not already amply clear.
On the other hand a true documentary will generally have some sort of editorial control. Productions such as Eyes on the Prize or Ken Burns's The Civil War are probably reliable sources, although not always the best sources . The term "movie" suggests a biopic or docudrama, but might be used for a full-length documentary. In any particular case, one could try to determine what sort of sources the film used, and how much care it took to present events with accuracy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel, Rearm21, Cordless Larry, and Alex Shih: Reviews of a biopic from reliable sources may say something about how accurate it is. --Thnidu (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article has been deleted?

I have created my arcticle and it has good citations and it has been deleted several times. what should i do and please expalin me clearly point to point. My article name is Janrise.Shivakrishnakokkula (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivakrishnakokkula: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately your article was promotional, non-notable, did not have any reliable sources, in addition to your conflict of interest. I am afraid there is nothing you can do. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 10:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get a bursary

I am currently upgrading Mathematics and need to find a bursary NFSAS is my last option I want to study Administrative management at TUT Any suggestions or bursaries inbox me at facebook Mpho Kayla Nkoshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by KayLAR (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KayLAR. This is a page for helping people to edit Wikipedia: it is not an appropriate site for your question. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it recommended to cite article rather than referencing the URL?

Hi,

I was wondering if it were more impactful to reference publications with URL's or by inserting the citation.

Thanks!!

Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniechartrand1 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anniechartrand1: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Definitely use cite, since unformatted URLs are usually frowned upon. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 12:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Good question, Ann. Citations are the foundation of what makes Wikipedia valuable: without them, content is in a sense worthless, because you can never be sure if the information was reliable in the first place, or if it has been vandalised since. To that end, a full bibilographic reference (author, title, publisher, date etc) if greatly preferred, partly so that the reader can get an idea without going to look for it how reliable it is likely to be. If the reference is available on line, a URL is helpful, but this is an optional extra, not the meat of the citation. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ann -- The most important thing is clear, expository text in the article. Make your point and put the footnote at the end of the sentence, immediately after the punctuation, like this.[1] The interested reader can hover over the [1] to see what it is, click once to get the details, and click again to get to the original work. That's easier than making the user manipulate the URL. Only in extraordinary circumstances should you pull a quote from the source material to go in the article. Most of the time, it's just too much detail. Using the [1] allows you to support particular sentences and to reuse the reference My two cents. Rhadow (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Strunsky, Steve (February 2, 2015). "Port of N.Y. and N.J. handled record cargo volume in 2014". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
@Anniechartrand1 and Rhadow: I want to disagree with one part of the above, while agreeing with all the rest. When Rhadow says Only in extraordinary circumstances should you pull a quote from the source material to go in the article. Most of the time, it's just too much detail. I tend to disagree. For example, in articles about an artist, or a creative work, it is common to have a "Critical response" section, citing several reviews of the work(s). In such a case, i think a short quote from each review cited is almost required, and surely a good practice. For example: Mahler on the Couch#Critical reception (an article which appeared on the main page, via the Did You Know? project). There are a number of other sorts of article in which direct quotes should be routinely used. I also favor the use of the |quote= parameter in citation templates, by which a quote can be put into the footnote rather than the article text. In any case there is no one-sizes-fits-all rule for the use of quotes, beyond that they must be cited inline and attributed in the article text. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However i do agree with the above that proper bibliographic data is essential, and a URL is an addition, except for web-only sources. There a URL is vital, but as much additional bibliographic data as is available should also be provided. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DES -- Thank you, thank you. I learn every day. Today has been a great day. We pulled an article from the incinerator pile. A group is working on it. I think it'll be rehabilitated soon, better than new. Regards Rhadow (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First article

Hi I need help with writing a page that is on the verge of deleting. I want to know how i can write it within the guidelines User:Apmsia page

Apmsia (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find advice at WP:Your first article. Further advice is linked from the welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy:

The Teahouse has a link to 'Articles to Improve' and 'Suggestions'. So I joined {{WikiProject Comedy}}, in which one of the ways to participate is to place a project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project. I wanted to get involved in this project, and added my name to the participants' list. I've updated over 50 pages so far.

I seem to be quite confused. Apparently, I am under the impression that the very first item on the task list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comedy#Things_you_can_do implies that every talk page in Wikipedia that has anything to do with the topic of "comedy" are to be tagged. This is obviously wrong. I was told that I need to be more careful. I need to be careful not to edit "too many pages."

How do we tell which talk pages may be tagged, and which to avoid?? Here is the first task: Place the {{WikiProject Comedy}} project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project. What are the limitations of the "scope of the project?" I didn't know I was tagging too many articles! Sorry! B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2422889236x: Sorry, I wasn't clear previously. You are not doing anything wrong. I was merely saying be careful of tagging indiscriminately. It's better to choose a narrow topic first, and work your way down based on my experience with WikiProjects. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 15:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side Bar with Picture Inclusion

Hi there, Can someone point me to the details I need to use, markup or code, to include a side bar with picture on a page I created and is live?Agapeom (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Agapeom. See Template:Infobox person. You can also find another article that uses that template, then copy the code over and make the necessary changes before saving. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Hello there!

I need an advice regarding the fair use on small resolution images. I'm improving some contemporary artist's entries and some of them could really use an image. Obviously, I couldn't find any copyright free images so I am wondering is using rationale, fair use images would apply. I have several contemporary art books in my library, I could also scan an image and make it small enough in Photoshop.

The article I'm working on right now is Albert Oehlen.

A few days ago I created a new entry for a Korean American contemporary artist (learned about her during my CA courses) and had plenty of refs to create an entry: Draft:Won_Ju_Lim. Also some other pages link to it. The same image issue applies to this draft as well. I tried to dig info regarding this issue and since I couldn't find any copyright free image a low resolution fair use image might be the best way (According to section 107 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976: The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.).

Oh, and another question regarding the draft. I saw that the AfC project is a bit burdened, what's more recommended? In the feature to move my drafts (if I consider them adequate and if the entry meets all WP quality guidelines) to the mainspace myself or to send them to AfC?

Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robertgombos. A few things to unpack here:
  1. Fair use images are almost never (if ever) applicable to pictures of living persons. They pretty much automatically fail WP:NFCC #1, because no one image of a living person is "special" and since they're alive, theoretically another image could at any point be made and licensed for free use.
  2. Fair use images are never allowed on pages outside of article space, including drafts and user pages. So even if a fair use image could be found for a subject, you would need to wait until the article is published in order to add it.
  3. No one is absolutely required to use AfC as a venue for creating articles. They can always be created directly into article space. Rather, AfC is a place where people who are unfamiliar with our standards can have their work pre-vetted for likelihood of deletion, and hopefully improved so that they don't lose their work by publishing an exceptionally poor article (see also WP:CSD) or one on a patently non-notable subject. If you feel that you are familiar with our standards for notability, especially as it concerns biographies of living persons, then there is nothing stopping you from publishing your article yourself. It might be a good idea to start with one, and make sure it gets reviewed and not nominated for deletion, and then go from there, but if Draft:Won Ju Lim is indicative of the types of articles you are creating, then I don't think you'll have much problem. TimothyJosephWood 16:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, Timothyjosephwood. The information you provided on the correct usage of images saved my day. During my research I stumbled upon Sarah Lucas, and I thought that it's a "how to do it" example, but apparently violates WP:NFCC #1 (Image) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgombos (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and I have nominated that image for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more question, Timothyjosephwood. I searched and added all the authority control tags I could find. In preview mode I get this message "Warning: Page using Template:Authority control with "ORCID", please move this to Wikidata if possible (this message is shown only in preview)". How to move those entries to Wikidata? Robertgombos (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Robertgombos. It should be fixed now. In a nutshell, Wikidata is the "under the hood" stuff that connects every article on a topic in every language together, as well as with the databases that use these unique identifiers. So you can add the IDs to Wikidata, and just put in {{Authority control}}, and the IDs will automatically populate. But this also means that they will automatically populate whenever anyone makes an article about the same person in a different language, so long as they get connected in Wikidata also. If you want to see what this looks like, go to the article and click on "Wikidata Item" in the options on the left hand side. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in infoboxes

(I've only started actively editing recently, so please let me know if this isn't the place to ask this sort of question.)
I was somewhat surprised to find out that one of the articles I created recently (Gordon Vette) was listed by AlexNewArtBot as potentially eligible for Did You Know, so I'm trying to get it prettied up before the 7 day window passes. I had included some information in the article's infobox ("spouse," "relatives," and "education") that I haven't cited yet because I wasn't sure how to do that. I've never seen a citation in a infobox before, so I don't know what the procedure for that is.
Probably also worth mentioning is that the information comes from some slightly unorthodox sources. The subject of the article has done some really amazing things in aviation which have been well covered, but biographical sources are scarce. He's recently deceased, so what information I have been able to find on his family members (listed in the "spouse" and "relatives" section) and his education are from his funeral program and his Facebook page, respectively. I have no doubt that this information is correct based on oblique references to it in more traditional sources, but I'm not sure how it would look to cite these things on the page... SaAnKe 16:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SaAnKe, welcome to the Teahouse. I think one thing you should be aware of if you aren't already is Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy ("BLP"). In summary, Wikipedia is such a widely read source that publishing full names of otherwise low-profile, living individuals could have the unintended consequence of invading their privacy. Per the "Privacy of names" section of BLP, it is preferable to omit the names of family members of article subjects unless they have high-quality coverage in reliable sources. I don't think Facebook or Vette's funeral program are good sources for this, so I would be inclined to omit the names of Vette's children in the article, or simply mention how many children he has.
As for citing the information, you can add a citation to information in an infobox the same way you added a citation to information in the article's body, using <ref>...</ref> tags, refToolbar, or the "add citation" function of VisualEditor (see Help:Referencing for beginners). However, as a matter of personal editorial preference, I do not believe it is necessary to duplicate a citation in an infobox if the information is already cited and mentioned in the article's body, unless it is something contentious. I hope this information is helpful; if you are confused or have any further questions, please feel free to ask here. Mz7 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7: Thanks for answering so quickly! I wasn't sure if that part of BLP applied since he died in 2015, but it's probably better to err on the side of protecting privacy. Follow-up question: it's OK to just name his son, who has his own TV show, right? I think that interview with him would qualify as high-quality coverage in a reliable source. SaAnKe 19:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SaAnKe: BLP applies to information about any living person, not just the subject of the article, so it's more about the privacy of the children themselves, who are presumably still living, rather than the deceased. Now, on the other hand, since his son has his own TV show, it's probably fine to mention him, citing that source. Mz7 (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I really appreciate the advice. SaAnKe 19:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SaAnKe: You're welcome! If you have any other questions, this is a great place to ask. Mz7 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I doubt it would apply in that particular instance, notice that BLP is relevant to recently deceased persons as well. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you watchlist a page without watchlisting the talk page?

I'm wondering if it's possible to watch edits made to a page without having edits on the talk also come up in my watchlist. Is there a technical ability to do this? If there is a way I can't seem to find it. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eventhorizon51: Much as many of us would like that ability (or vice versa) it's not possible. Nthep (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep: Wow, that's disappointing. I really thought there'd be a way to do that. It seems like something that'd be really easy to implement. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eventhorizon51: I expect it would be easy to implement, and that it's not implemented for a good reason. If someone thinks something in an article needs changing, but suspects their proposed changes may be controversial, they should describe their intentions on the talk page first, inviting other editors' views. After a week or two, if no-one disagrees, they can reasonably go ahead and make the changes. If they then get opposition from editors who follow the article but can't be bothered to read its talk page, it'll be annoying. Maproom (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as a problem, Maproom - if some people fail to take notice of the TP post in time because they chose to watchlist the article but not the TP, too bad.
IMO the ability would not very useful on articles, but it would be on internal pages - I would very much like to watchlist Wikipedia talk:Teahouse but not Wikipedia:Teahouse, for instance. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a possible error

I was reading the "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" article and noticed a possible mathematical error. How do I have someone authoritative check on that and, if there is indeed an error, how does it get corrected in the article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnarson11 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ragnarson11: Hello and welcome. One way to do what you wish would be to post a comment on the article talk page to explain your concern; others that follow the page can check it for you(if you are unsure) and fix it if needed. Click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article to access the associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ragnarson11: I see you edited the article. I have reverted your changes. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere says about CO2:
"Each part per million by volume represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon in the atmosphere as a whole.[1]"
The small number in square brackets is a link to an inline reference for the statement, in this case http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html which says: "1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C". So the reference agrees with the article and disagrees with your change [2]. The presence of an inline reference means that the article claims the reference supports the statement, so your change effectively meant the article started lying about the content of the reference. Articles should never do that. If you think 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon should be 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide then post to the talk page with a more reliable source or sources than currently used, or some other convining argument for why the source is wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Conversion Tables". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 26 September 2012. Retrieved 12 February 2016.

It is unclear (at least to me) whether or not my User page exists

Hi. When I log onto Wikipedia, I am taken automatically to what I have always believed to be my one and only Ian.fraser1 page on Wikipedia, i.e. the UserTalk page that is named User Talk:Ian.fraser1. However, once I am logged onto Wikipedia and click on the Ian.fraser1 link that appears in the top navigation bar, I am taken to a page that states the following: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Ian.fraser1. If in doubt, please verify that "Ian.fraser1" exists.

I find this message confusing. Should I simply ignore it, or do I need to create a User:Ian.fraser1 page?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.fraser1: Hello and welcome. Once you post content to it, your user page will be created. The text you saw is there simply because you have not posted any content to the page. FYI you may wish to see the Userpage guidelines. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to 331dot's reply, you don't have to have a userpage if you don't want to. Some users never create one; others create one as a redirect to their talk page. It's up to you. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's optional to create a user page. Your user page User:Ian.fraser1 has not been created. A red link indicates the page does not exist. User talk:Ian.fraser1 is called your talk page and not your user page. See Wikipedia:User pages for what you can place on your user page if you choose to create it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much 331dot, White Arabian Filly and PrimeHunter. Love your names. I should have been less literal and more creative when creating mine! Thanks to all three of you, I now understand what's what and will stop worrying. Cheers!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, let me add a little "color" to the excellent advice you've received already. Altho a userpage is not required, and there are many very long term editors that do not have one, I'd suggest creating one. The purpose of the userpage is so you can tell the Wikipedia community a little about yourself and your interests on Wikipedia. Many editors use their userpage as a kind of "homepage" here, placing useful links and the like there. My userpage has all sorts of junk on it. When I first started editing, I had quite a bit of time on my hands and creating my userpage gave me a place to hone my skills with the layout mark-up and using templates, a place where no one would care at all if I really bollocks thing up. Kinda like why Microsoft bundled Solitare into the early editions of Windows. It gave you a place to hone your mouse skills without fear of screwing up that important spreadsheet. The other reason is a bit of other editor's behavior here. I am sure you have come to realize that there are editors that patrol recent changes here. Having a "red letter" username kinda makes you stand out and most likely, your edits will get scrutinized a bit closer. That may actually be a good thing, depending on your receptiveness to criticism and your skill levels. So, I would suggest creating a userpage, even if the only thing you do with it is redirect it to your talk page. Just my 2¢. John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your 2¢, John. Much appreciated. I do plan to create a userpage in due course, as soon as I can find the time! Cheers!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a data table

Does anyone know the command for the data table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname639 (talk • contribs)

Hi Noname639, welcome to the Teahouse. It depends what type of data table you have in mind. If it's about one of the information boxes at the top right of many articles then it's called an infobox. See Help:Infobox for general help. We can say more if you say what the page is about. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tags for unreliable references

Please send me to the essay or policy where I can find tags for the following:

  • Video used as a primary source
  • PAC used as a source
  • Organization's own website used as a source
  • Dodgy periodical or e-zine used as a source
  • An oped from a reputable periodical used as a source of fact

Many thanks Rhadow (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with most of those, Rhadow, and they should not be tagged. A video is fine provided that it was created in a way that makes it a reliable source. An official copy of a news program, for example. An organization's own web site is fine for its views, such as its mission statement. It is also fine for uncontroversial factual statements, such as its size, date of founding, and current officers. See WP:SPS. If by PAC you mean political action committee, this may or may not be OK, depending on the nature of the statement being sourced. "Dodgy" is a judgement call. An oped may or may not be reliable for a factual statement, it depends on the reputation of the author and the publication, and the exact nature of the statement. If a tag is wanted, {{unreliable sources}} would do for most of these, but look at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for many other possibilities. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DES -- Ok, I'll be more specific.

  • An amateur video of an apparently drunk politician ina hallway supporting an article's claim in text that the subject was drunk in a House session.
  • An article on a PAC website quoted as fact (small and rabid)
  • An article from Breitbart quoted as fact; not confirmed by another source
  • Self-reported size of portfolio under management when it is not otherwise publicly available from Bloomberg or Forbes, say.

Look over my shoulder if you want. The judgement part doesn't scare me. I just want to use the tags people recognize. Thanks for {{unreliable sources}} and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Many thanks Rhadow (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadow, your first example of the amateur video of an allegedly drunk politician is an obvious violation of our policy on biographies of living people, and should be removed immediately. It could be a lookalike, or the person could be sick or having a bad reaction to a prescription medication or fooling around. Links to that amateur video and any accusations of drunkenness based on that video should be removed immediately, with talk page warnings against restoring it. Report any attempts to restore that content to the noticeboard WP:BLPN as soon as you see it. When in doubt about the reliability of a source, the proper noticeboard is WP:RSN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow, I agree with Cullen328 above, links to the video should be removed, and the accusation of drunkenness should also be removed, unless it is separately supported by reliable sources. Unless tere are multiple RSs certifing that the video is what it purports to be, and that would be unlikley.
Pretty much the only thing a "small and rabid" PACs site can be cited for its its own views, or the statements of its own members. I would remove the cite, and tag the statement of fact with {{cn}} if I thought it plausible that a source would be forthcoming, or simply remove it as having no reliable source if not, or if it is a negative or controversial statement in a BLP. I would triet Brietbart in exactly the same way.
However, i would treat the self-reported portfolio size as a valid use of an SPS, unless there was some specific reason to thiunk the source likely to engage in distortion, or a history of dishonesty from the source. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel -- The guy was drunk. On camera he described his address and admitted to drinking. The amateur video was taken by a baiting student journalist. It's just ugly. There is one copy on YouTube and another embedded in a Blaze article. I blanked the section. I wish someone would PROD the whole article, as the editor's two other articles have been. Rhadow (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopediac style of writing

What are characteristics of encyclopediac style of writing? Sinner (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Sinner. It's a bit subjective, and you'll get different answers from different users here. I think of encyclopedic writing as being clear, concise, and dispassionate. It imparts what is known about a given subject, and also summarizes major published opinions about the subject, always impartially and without giving excessive attention to any one opinion or appearing to either promote or deprecate the subject. That's not a comprehensive answer, but it's a start. A good way to see what the Wikipedia community at large thinks constitutes encyclopedic writing is to read some of Wikipedia's featured articles, which have all undergone considerable scrutiny by experienced editors and are often considered to epitomize encyclopedic writing at its best. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a bit more! What should be done exactly? Sinner (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done about what? You need to be specific in your questions if you want specific answers. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source of Publishing company

Hello, I am very beginner. Thank you for your support.

I tried to upload new article, but wasn't approved due to the reliable source. I thought this URL of the publishing company will work for that. Isn't it enough to authorize? There is no other official link from others in English yet. (There are many in Japanese page, and there is the Wiki Japanese page already.) http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9425

It would be great if you can provide advice on this.

Regards, Pinablue JPN Pinablue JPN (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pinablue JPN. Consider whether the subject of your article is notable, as Wikipedia defines it. The basic criterion is this: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". (See WP:PEOPLE for the full guideline.) Is that the case with the subject you've been writing about? I looked over your draft article, and I'm not persuaded. To me, it frankly looks more like a CV or LinkedIn page than an encyclopedia article. Please note that each Wikipedia has its own guidelines, so the existence of an article on jp.wp doesn't help establish notability here at en.wp. On the other hand, Japanese sources are hardly verboten, as long as they meet the same requirements for reliability and independence from each other and the subject. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pinablue JPN. We require coverage in independent reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic of a Wikipedia article. In this case, your only reference is to a book publisher's page describing an author of a book that they issued. That is not adequate to show notability. I recommend that you read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding a part of a page

In User:forceradical/Altuserpage I have tried to transclude the deletion discussion on to the 'Wikipedia in other lang section' but it seems one collapsible section is not working.Please HelpRADICAL SODA(FORCE) 07:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification:The IP which edits there is me logged out since I do not want my contributions to be swamped by a lot of edits in userspace.RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 07:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Forceradical: Hello! I tried to fix it for you, have a look. The problem was these dashboard sections doesn't transclude well under another template, probably something to do with {{collapse bottom}}. Alex ShihTalk 09:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listed Buildings Notability

I have a problem, basically i don't know what the consensus is for Listed Buildings, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suydam House, where apparantly NRLP buildings may be notable simply for having a listing. This would allow approximately 400,000 new articles plus as similar lists are not currently included. see this external link: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/listed-buildings/ which states there are 500k historic buildings listed in the UK. (i predict some will already have articles or be duplicates.) I have no idea how to get a decision on this so a policy or something that covers it would be great. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey A Guy into Books. I'm not aware of a specific written policy or guideline on the issue, but that's not always necessary to establish consensus. The most basic form of consensus is a sort of "consensus in practice", where if, for example, basically all articles on theses subjects survive AfD because they are listed, then this becomes a kind of precedent. Although this has to be founded in the end on some solid reasoning, and not purely circular (these usually survive AfD, therefore this should survive AfD, therefore these usually survive AfD).
At the end of the day however, our general notability guideline is ultimately the arbiter of whether articles should be kept, and whether more specific notability guidelines are themselves valid, and if no more specific guideline exists, the standard defaults to GNG.
As to the sheer number of articles, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and we're not the least bit pressed for space. The project can (and likely will eventually) easily accommodate several million more articles than we have today. So the establishment or interpretation of a policy shouldn't be grounded mainly or mostly on the sheer number of articles that would be created, but rather on whether there are sufficient reliable sources available to be able to write those article to an encyclopedic level of quality. TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, A Guy into Books. I cannot speak to the practice anywhere else, but getting a structure listed on the NRHP requires very extensive documentation. The requirement of this extensive documentation, which is either available online or by request to the Department of Interior (getting the entire database online is a work in progress), creates the presumption of sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Having worked on one, I can tell you from experience, there is more than enough sourcing available in the application documentation to pass GNG easily. John from Idegon (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aguyintobooks: another thing to consider is that the AFD discussion you have linked to is about the US National Register of Historic Places and it's standard of information required before a property is listed is pretty different from the England's National Heritage List for England (and its Welsh, Irish and Scottish equivalents) so being on NHLE may not have a similar level of evidence on it. In those situations as Timothyjosephwood says the WP:general notability guidelines need to be your guide and you should base any article on the sources you can find. I'd hate to try and defend an article on any of the 3,415 milestones on NHLE solely on the basis that being listed makes them notable. Nthep (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can someone give me the proper reference code i really dont know the proper

[1]Rearm21 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rearm21, welcome to the Teahouse. You can use Template:Cite web and see the documentation there. Your example parameters would be [2] (view source to see the code). See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Philippine National Police key officers (July 31,2017) www.pnp.gov.ph/images/transparency_seal/keyofficers/2017/KEYPOST-FOR-WEBSITE-July-31-2017.pdfRetrieved 2017-08-01.
  2. ^ "Philippine National Police key officers" (PDF). July 31, 2017. Retrieved 2017-08-01.

Cannot delete the text with the size of the picture on top of an illustration

Hey there, Cannot delete the text with the size of the picture on top of an illustration Any clue ? Ilona1203 (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)ilona1203[reply]

Hi Ilona1203. This is a help page for the English Wikipedia. After examining the wikis you have edited at Special:CentralAuth/Ilona1203, I guess your question is about the French Wikipedia. Please say which page a question is about in the future. fr:Carl Emery uses fr:Modèle:Infobox Sportif. The documentation shows the image parameter only expects the file name and not code for a formatted image. The template then adds its own image code. This is often but not always the case for infoboxes, also at the English Wikipedia. I have fixed it.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Oh woaw, thank you PrimeHunter. Just learned something new. Ilona1203 (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)ilona1203[reply]

Close connection

Hi, I created a new page: Robert Ray (artist) and am being advised that: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.

All of the material in the article has been sourced and quotes attributed. When you have a moment, may I please ask for your take as to how this should be revised?

Many thanks! RRay Estate (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RRay Estate: Hello and welcome. That tag is an indicator to other editors that the article should be reviewed because it seems to have been created by someone associated with the subject. I haven't examined the page in detail to know specifically what should be changed yet, but from your name I gather that you represent Robert Ray's estate. You may need to change your username as a username cannot be that of a group or organization, or otherwise be shared(such as with a colleague or successor to your position). To change your name please visit this page for instructions. If it is true that you represent Mr. Ray's estate, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy before you edit further; generally editors should not directly edit in areas where they have a conflict of interest(though there are indirect ways to do so). If you are employed by the Estate or otherwise paid by them to edit here, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to review and comply with the paid editing policy as well. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review Draft

Please review my draft Draft:Jane Chun and give me some feedback on what to amend. Yuritan0308 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yuritan0308. Looking at the source in the draft:
  1. Doesn't seem to be functioning,
  2. Doesn't appear to mention the subject of the article
  3. Doesn't appear to mention the subject of the article
  4. Doesn't seem to be functioning.
In order to establish that the subject meets our standards for notability, you need to show that she has received in depth coverage in reliable sources. This means sources about her specifically, and not sources about the band she was a part of, but which do not mention her as an individual at all. TimothyJosephWood 16:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reference even indicated for her signing by a label. Further, searching the label, I find (from the US) no evidence that it even exists. It is very doubtful you have the makings of an article with this subject. John from Idegon (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It exists, but you're probably going to need to read Korean in order to tell much about it. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When to include accolations and awards?

This is an issue I have come across a few times and wondering what are the specific policies and guidelines are that are attached to this. Especially if its a BLP page.

Are there requirements to include or not include regarding the listing and or mentioning of accolades and/or rewards? Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=793603867"