Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peterye2005 (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 3 March 2018 (→‎Where should I put inline citations). 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.

David Biddulph, 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.


Could u see my article and edit it?

I create my first article .. would u help me and see it .. may be it will need some edits.. my article name : Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi/sandbox Really thx

Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi: the question above is the only contribution you have made to Wikipedia, and there is nothing in your sandbox. Were you logged in when you created a sandbox? Maproom (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom thx ... some one deleted my sand box article

Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your user talk page it seems that the page you created was about yourself. This is highly discouraged, though not forbidden, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. It is important for articles to be neutral. Please review the autobiography policy at WP:AUTO. I would suggest that if you meet the notability guidelines at WP:BIO that you visit Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your needs would be better served on LinkedIn? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article help

Hello. I have started "Air Operations in the Korean War", but I am feeling kind of overwhelmed by this project. I was wondering if you could possibly help me in any way.American474 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a very active group of editors interested in Military History; they are organized through a Wikiproject, which you can find at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. If you leave a request on their discussion page, you are likely to generate some interest. --Jayron32 17:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, thanks. American474 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My draft - rejected

Hello! My draft was recently declined. Why was it that? At the link below you will see that Jan Lexell should have shown notability since he has received an honorary doctorate and is also a full professor at Lund University. Why was my draft rejected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jan_Lexell Nimbo.lo (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the nine criteria do you feel he passes here Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)? Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the honorary doctorate he has he should pass the #2. Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that an honorary doctorate is a highly prestigious academic award though! Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it isn't. Honarary degrees are awarded all the time to many people, notable or not. It in no way speaks to his academic notability. My alma mater once gave an honorary degree to Tim Allen (who is notable, but certainly not for academics). John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You would find very few people who'd agree that an honorary doctorate, routinely handed out like candy to graduation speakers, generous donors, local celebrities and the like, constituted a "highly prestigious academic award." Ravenswing 21:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)WP:NPROF explicitly says that it is (and seriously, an actual honorary doctorate is pretty much the highest honour you can get in academia. Honoris causa doctorates are possibly more important when they are given by some academic institutions than others, so a h.c. from Harvard would be more impressive than one from Podunk College, but Luleå tekniska universitet has status of university which in a Swedish context means that it is a highly reputable centre of learning.) Please note that in an American context the concept of honorary doctorate may have a different value, but this is not an American context. --bonadea contributions talk 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, where does NPROF say that? John from Idegon (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); [...] honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose. Specific criteria notes 1. --bonadea contributions talk 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ​Welll... It really does depend on the circumstances; some places dish them out like confetti to local celebrities, donors, and anyone they think will get them publicity. My alma mater at one point gave an honorary doctorate to Kermit the Frog. ‑ Iridescent 21:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Rather different context, so it's not really appropriate to try to use a foreign measuring stick for what a h.c. degree means here. --bonadea contributions talk 21:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nimbo.lo: - Kudos for your referencing, as it is vastly, vastly improved since your last query about this draft article at the Teahouse. Great work! Stormy clouds (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Stormy clouds: - Thank you!
I agree that an honorary doctorate isn't usually considered a prestigious academic award for WP:PROF purposes, but I still think we have an easy pass of C1 based on citation counts. He doesn't seem to have a Google Scholar profile, but a GS search for his name shows that he has written numerous papers that have each been cited >100 times (one was cited >1800 times and for many of these he was the first author). That's notable even in the highly cited field of clinical medicine. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EricEnfermero: - Hello! If the h.c. doesn't count in for the notability academic criteria and if I add to the submission that several of his work has been cited many times. What reference should I use. Is it enough to just link to the Google Scholar where I have searched Jan Lexell. Would that be a good reference? Nimbo.lo (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit not posted

Is there something wrong with my edit? I added information concerning two well documented cases and for some reason my changes were marked unhelpful.I've included the link to the edited page and my edit was listed 23:53, 26 February 2018‎ 72.224.253.113 (talk)‎ . . (22,432 bytes) (+1,861)‎ . . (To balance the claim that electromagnetic frequency is a delusion, I cited two well known cases of such harassment that have been reported on by reputable national news media outlets from two different countries: USA and Canada.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_harassment&oldid=827828508 72.224.253.113 (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon and welcome to the Teahouse.
Your edit did not include any citations to references that could be checked, so I agree with the editors who reverted your edits as unhelpful. When Wikipedia goes so far as to describe something as a conspiracy theory, the standard of evidence required rises to overcome the easy ability to find anecdotes at enthusiast sites. Ordinary, inconclusive, or incidental press reports may not be considered reliable sources without further backup, so unsourced or vaguely sourced anecdotes are also unacceptable. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP editor. I agree with jmcgnh. The two links you provided are not reliable sources and are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. We need sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cant able to edit my page

Why can't I able to publish my article?IOSRD.INDIA 04:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOSRD.INDIA (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IOSRD.INDIA. The draft article you submitted is located at User:IOSRD.INDIA/sandbox/International Organization of Scientific Research and Development. This draft is blank and contains no content. Why should we accept a blank article? Please read Your first article to learn about the things you need to do to write a proper draft article for review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Adventure broke

For some reason, in Mission 7, I was rejected from continuing and had to make an edit to the wiki summary of Earth. I typed in the correct wiki summary. I did the previous test correctly and even linked some extra words. Can someone tell me why I can't continue? SpinningTwig (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SpinningTwig-There are 7 missions in The Wikipedia Adventure.It means that you have completed the game. Congratulations and Welcome to Wikipedia — Frc Rdl 07:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SpinningTwig, welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Some users doing The Wikipedia Adventure on a tablet or mobile phone do encounter difficulties (see notice about this at the bottom of the Adventure's start page). I had to start it three times via a tablet to get it to the very end. There are actually 15 badges to collect in total, and you have still to collect the final three badges via Mission 7, so I'd suggest giving it another go. Note that some of the instructions pop up right at the bottom of the editing screen, so can be easily missed if you don't scroll right down. You'll probably also end up with duplicate automated messages or badges left - but you're free to delete any of these. It's good editing practice, too! I hope this is the start of a great Wikipedia adventure for you personally. I've left a welcome message on your talk page, containing a few useful links to start you off, plus a nice plate of biscuits. Don't eat them all at once! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move from Draft to Publish

Hi - I have created a page for my daughter on wiki... Its still in draft mode. How do i get to publish this article and link it with her name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kaitlyn_D%27mello Fddmello (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fddmello. it appears you are referring to Draft:Kaitlyn D'mello. Normally, I would advise you to submit your draft through Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but I think that would be a waste of time at this particular moment because I cannot see how any AfC reviewer would approve this as is. There are quite a lot of issues with the draft, some which probably can be fixed with a bit of effort, but the main problem appear to have to do with Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Too soon. You might also be mistaking Wikipedia's purpose as explaned Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Just for reference, there was a similar question asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse#new page for a person by another editor wanting to write an article about his daughter. You might want to refer to the answers given in that thread since they contain links to pages that you may find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fddmello I would add that you seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media for people to just post information about themselves(or their relatives). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that summarizes what third parties write about various subjects. If you just want to tell the world about your daughter and promote her career, you should use social media like Facebook. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Interlinking "my" article

Once upon a time, I created an article in Polish about Book of Demons game. I then translated it in my sandbox space to English. Today I've published English version and wanted to interlink it with its Polish version. Following the instructions on the page about interlinking does not seem to work. When I click on a greyed out "English" in Polish version, Wikipedia moves me to English article but not the otherwise. Clicking on "polski" in English article displays prompt that the page does not exist at all.

Could you help me interlink it? MJesio (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needed this edit to Wikidata. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David Biddulph! MJesio (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created an Article but won't appear in any searches outside of Wikipedia.

I created my first article (Stub) about a football club I am associated with as we are trying to increase our online presence.

I created and then "Moved" the Stub from "Draft" to "Article" but the page will only appear in a wikipedia.org search, it will not appear in Google etc. Am I missing something?

10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishwhale (talk • contribs)

Hello Irishwhale and welcome to the Teahouse.
Your article still needs to reviewed by a new page reviewer before it will be indexed by search engines. I don't expect that review to go well, since you have not included any references in your article. It's okay to have removed the proposed deletion template, but you need to address the issue of how this team meets WP's standards for notability. It's good that you made a declaration of your connection on your userpage, but you have to understand that Wikipedia is not able to help with your "online presence" if the club has not been written about by independent, reliable sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 10:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irishwhale I would second what jmcgnh says above. Your club's online presence is, frankly, of no concern whatsoever of Wikipedia. You cannot use Wikipedia to promote or advertise your club. In order to merit an article here, your club must be written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines for organizations listed at WP:ORG. As you have a COI, you really should not directly edit about your club and those in your situation are better off using Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review by an independent editor before it is made part of the encyclopedia(instead of afterwards, as you did, where it would be treated more critically). I have tagged the page with some issues to be addressed. If it will take you time to address them(and you can address them) I would suggest you consent to the page being moved to Draft space where you can work on it and then submit it for a review. As the page stands currently, I don't believe the page would survive a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed Draft Approval

Hello all,

I have attempted to work on a well know Malayalam movie producer who has been the person behind many successful hit movies of Indian Cinemas. Please help in getting the draft approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ousepachan_Vaalakuzhy Rajeshsingri (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajeshsingri: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are almost 2600 drafts awaiting review, and reviews are conducted by volunteers, so it does take some time to process them. Please be patient. Quickly glancing at your draft, I'm not sure the sources are sufficient. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft status

If an article is in draft status, does that mean it is in review as well?

AlisonICFAD (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AlisonICFAD, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not always. In particular, your draft Draft:International Council of Fine Arts Deans (ICFAD) has not been submitted for review. I've added a button on top of the article for you to press when you're ready to submit it. I'd advise you to further work on it though. It's currently only sourced to the organization's own website, whereas Wikipedia articles should primarily be interested in what independent sources have to say. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AlisonICFADI would add that as you have a COI, you need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on what independent reliable sources state. If your organization does not have coverage in independent sources, it will not be possible for there to be an article about your organization at this time. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell the world about your organization, it is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting problem in Category

Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historically_segregated_African-American_schools_in_the_United_States

As you will see, the alphabetical sorting is pretty far off. How is this corrected? deisenbe (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are sorted alphabetically by state. For example, Calhoun Colored School has [[Category:Historically segregated African-American schools in the United States|Alabama]], which sorts it by "Alabama". I'm not sure this is best - I want to say I've seen a category handle sorting like this in a clearer way. Chris857 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. after some looking, I may be mis-remembering about having custom category section headers instead of just the single letters. Chris857 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with uploading photos publishing a page

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

Good afternoon,


I am starting to get slightly frustrated trying to get photos and a page published. The page in question is for a Paralympic alpine ski guide Jennifer Kehoe who with her Visually Impaired athlete Menna Fitzpatrick are competing in the Pyeongchang 2018 winter games next week. All of the photos i have so far uploaded have been deleted, they have been taken either by myself or friends, they do not have a copyright or any licence infringements.

I really want this wiki to be live before the games, please help and advise. Regards, Daniel, MACCAWALES86 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MACCAWALES86 (Daniel) - welcome to the Teahouse. Bottom line first: Image issues are a matter to be dealt with by volunteers at Wikimedia Commons, not here. That said, let's see what I can advise (although my experience in this area is a relatively limited). Firstly, you appeared to have uploaded two images which (rightly or wrongly) at least one has been concluded to have come from this photo gallery in the Bournemouth Echo newspaper, and another from a commercial photographic website at https://lucpercival.photoshelter.com. If that's the case, you need to accept that you have absolutely no right to upload another person's image. If incorrect, and you supplied that image to the newspaper, or work for them, then you my need to demonstrate that fact. So, is this something you think you could easily do, if required? (work email/invoice for payment/receipt from the paper etc?) If so, I'll give you a link at Wikimedia Commons for you to appeal the deletion and to upload proof that the image is your own. If one or more images is a friend's, and not yours - they, not you, will need to create an account and upload the image as they are the ones releasing image rights, not you. Please don't think people here - or at Commons - are trying to be awkward. The reality is they're trying to protect the image rights of other people. So, if you've done wrong in uploading them, they did right to delete them if they were suspicious. If they are your images, just accept that they're trying to protect your image rights first of all, plus ensuring Wikimedia's reputation is that it only hosts images that are free for everyone to use, including commercial use.
I note that you appear to have uploaded this image which you've attributed to Mark Scorgie. It's an absolutely massive file, so it's quite probable that you do have hold of it legitimately. But if Mark is a mate of yours, you'll need to get him to send in a release form for the image because, once again, I can't see how you own the rights to that image to release it (unless the originating website had already released it in perpetuity under what we call a "Creative Commons" license). Do you need a link for that person to submit an image release declaration? If so, I or another host can dig that out for you shortly.
Oh, and something that definitely is a Wikipedia matter: please do not remove the 'submission declined' notice again from your draft - that information is there to help you, or for other editors to help you. Deleting it is, well, err, unhelpful. Regards for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MACCAWALES86. I know that this isn't what you are asking about, but I think it is important to explain something to you. Like many people, you seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles about notable subjects, based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them. It is not a medium for people to promote themselves or their associates, no matter how worthy. You have referenced it better than many first timers manage; but I'm not sure that any of the references you give is both independent and substantial. Also, the tone of the draft is often quite inappropriate. No Wikipedia article should ever use promotional languages like "made history ... by becoming the first ever ...", unless this is a direct quote from a source wholly unconnected with the subject. I note that the sentence I quoted from is cited to the Pyeongchang 2018, which says nothing about either being the first or being World Cup champion.
You say "I really want this wiki to be live before the games": please understand that in Wikipedia there is no deadline. Wikipedia cares very much about the quality and reliability of its articles: that they are well-referenced to reliable published sources, and provide a well structured and well written neutral summary of those sources. It absolutely does not care whether they get published before some event or other.
I'm not convinced that Kehoe yet meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which is not about being famous, or important, or popular, or worthy, but simply about whether independent people have published about her. If she is, you need to find some of those independent, in-depth sources, and base the article on them. But I suspect that it is TOOSOON. IN any case, writing a Wikipedia article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and takes time, especially for a new editor.
I'm sorry, but I think that your frustration arises out of your attempt to use Wikipedia for something which is wholly outside its remit and purpose. If you want to get a page on the web about Kehoe before the Paralympics, you almost certainly need to choose a different site to do it on. --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do we create an entry for our organization?

The Camden Conference is a 31-year-old non-profit, non-partisan organization in Camden, Maine, whose mission is to foster informed discourse on world issues. We believe that this mission can be advanced by inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you tell us how to go about it? 207.5.164.226 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, 207.5.164.226 The short answer is you don’t! Wikipedia is not a means to advance your mission. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with your organisation have chosen to publish about them. The article would be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about them. As you have a conflict of interest you would be strongly advised not to write about them. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theroadislong is correct. If the Camden Conference is reported about by reliable sources, then it should meet the notability threshold for an article. At this stage, someone else will create the article - it is ill-advised that you do so, as you have a conflict of interest. Essentially, keep on conferencing, and someone else will pen an article about you - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it was not created to advance organisation, but rather as a haven of accurate, verifiable information. If your intention is not this, to create reputable encyclopedic content, then it may not be the place for you. Thanks Stormy clouds (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pradeep Rai and Group of Employees Editing

I reviewed Draft:Pradeep Rai and declined it as having been written to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally, and as duplicating another copy of the draft, which was declined by User:David.moreno72 and deleted due to copyright violation. User:Wiki pkrai asked me, on my talk page, what needed to be done next, saying “We have received the following communication …” I asked:

Who is “we”? Who are you, and who is paying you?

I asked them to ask any more questions at the Teahouse.

The same account then replied: "We are a small group of junior legal practitioners working with Senior Advocate Mr Pradeep Rai…. Writing for this page is part of our overall work with Mr Pradeep Rai. Please do let us know any other information we need to furnish in this regard. “

I am not entirely sure what to do next. This group appears to be acting in good faith but doesn’t understand. I am not sure that this group account understands that group accounts in Wikipedia are not allowed, and I am not sure that they understand that they have not made the required disclosures under the paid editing policy. It is my understanding that they need to start editing with one account for one person and to declare their conflict of interest before we can even review the draft again.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps I'm just missing to where you posted them, but I'm not really seeing simple, declarative statements: "Joint accounts on Wikipedia are not allowed; you may have only one person working on any one account." "Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. You must make an open disclosure that you are being paid to work on an article for your employer before proceeding, and your draft will not be further reviewed without it." And so on. Ravenswing 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ravenswing - I didn't explicitly state the account policy, because I don't happen to know what the abbreviation is for it. I did explicitly refer them on my talk page to WP:COI and WP:PAID and told them to make the required disclosure. They then quoted the policy back to me in a way that suggests that they read it and didn't understand its impact. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ISU is the shared use policy. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated the shared use policy and restated the paid editing policy on their user talk page. I am not optimistic, because it appears that they, in good faith, don't understand. They quoted the paid editing policy back to me, but haven't complied with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chaz Ortiz

I reviewed Draft:Chaz Ortiz and declined it as not showing the subject’s notability. User:Hturnt inquired on my talk page, saying:

I am requesting a review because i believe this subject to have adequate notability; perhaps not to everyone, but the topic of skateboarding is a very large one and it is growing rapidly. The fact that one of the most famous skateboarders, Chaz Ortiz, does not have a Wikipedia article was surprising to me, as he is known by anybody who skateboards or watches Street League. Also, the sources that I listed are ones that cover all sports, and some that cover all of skateboarding. These sources both have coverage of a specific person of the sport of skateboarding, so I believe it is notable.

I am a little puzzled by the comment that he is well known by anybody who skateboards or watches skateboarding, when the draft says that he is ranked either 23d or 13th, depending on ranking. Will other editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does not establish notability to an adequate standard. Referencing is poor in my opinion, with a heavy emphasis on primary sources and minimal application of reliable sources. Therefore, the article itself does not do enough, in my view, to establish notability for the subject, irrespective of his ranking internationally in skate parks. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are two solid cites in there, from Rolling Stone and ESPN, providing the subject substantial coverage, and that's absolutely enough for a GNG pass; there is no way an article with those two cites would fail at AfD ... quite aside from that he's got nearly five hundred Google News hits. [1] I agree that the draft has some issues, but that's a content problem, not a notability one. Ravenswing 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have invited the author to join us here, but am inclined to accept after a resubmission, based on the general notability assessment by User:Ravenswing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

blocked Account

Hi

I am a new user, I just was trying to explore Wikipedia how to edit the article and how to use it and my id and account was blocked. I am writing in anticipation that someone here will help me or guide me how to proceed. I want to do it the right way and have my article on Wikipedia.Ahsia-info (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Ahsia-info (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahsia-info: Hello. If your account was blocked, you need to return to that account and request to be unblocked. There should be instructions on your original user talk page. By creating a second account you are evading your block. Blocks are on the person, not the account.331dot (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, Thank you so much for sharing this information. I will go back and try once again. I have contacted info@wikipedia but it is still not unblocked. The IP address was also blocked. I will go back and try again, Thank you very much for quick reply.

Ahsia-info (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahsia-info: You may wish to read This guide which will help you. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page

Hi! I have this page that I want to delete. I saw that you should type in {db-g7}} (with one more {) But when I do that it doesn't link into another page, it doesn't come up in the list of pages that should be deleted. What am i doing wrong. It just writes "Template:Db-g7". Please do not just delete the page, I want to learn for the next time!Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Jan_Lexell.jpg

Umm... Hey Nimbo.lo. I'm not sure how you managed to do it, but you uploaded the image on Media Wiki, which is a totally different site all together. I... hadn't even considered it was possible and honestly have no idea if MW has a speedy deletion criteria. Pinging a friendly neighborhood steward who may be able to clean it up for us. GMGtalk 21:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) {{db-g7}} is for use on the English Wikipedia. That template does not exist on mediawiki. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Then I'll just keep an eye on the image and see that it gets deleted! Thx Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you're on a project other than enwiki, you can usually just use {{delete|reason}}. Other projects have a less bureaucratic code for deleting pages and images :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your intention was for the image to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, the process which the copyright owner needs to go through is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that the copyright owner is usually the photographer, and that purchasing a copy of the photo does not give you the copyright. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulp: I know, but the photo of him was taken by a photographer. The person on the photo explicitly asked and payed the photographer to take this photo of him and then to give him the photo. Wouldn't that count as the photographer gave the copyrights away? Or do I need the photographer to send a text where he confirms that he has given the rights of the photo away to me? Nimbo.lo (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about creating a Wikipedia page?

How do I go about creating a Wikipedia page?ArtMac4 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ArtMac4. A good place to start would be to review our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Then you can create a draft using the Article Wizard and submit it to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMGtalk 22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also encourage you to take some time first to start small and edit existing articles first, making minor changes. Creating an article is probably the most difficult thing to do here, and first learning how Wikipedia works would reduce the chances of disappointment and hurt feelings after your work is mercilessly edited and critiqued by others. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add the 'welcome to wikipedia' template for new users?

Hello, I'm just wondering if I should add the 'Welcome To Wikipedia' template on new user pages. I kind of feel like it's a good thing, but also at the same time think that I will get in trouble for it or something. So should I add it? AllyGebies (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Presuming you mean user talk pages?) Go ahead. You qualify for Twinkle, so I suggest using that. I would say, though, that if they haven't made any contributions yet, use the {{welcome-screen}} one, because it doesn't mention their contributions. Thanks for wanting to welcome new users! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice there from A lad insane, and welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Yes, with Twinkle you can automate the process of leaving welcome messages, and can select which type to leave. There are about ten to choose from for positive contributions made by signed-in or by anonymous users; and about the same number for those who might have made their first edit or two in a non-constructive way. You can preview the contents before posting via Twinkle, too, and the welcome is automatically placed at the top of a user's page, even if there are already other messages in place there. Even for obvious minor vandalism I tend to think that a warm welcome and a gentle steer is better than just a gentle warning on an otherwise blank page. You can get tough later, if necessary. I tend to leave welcome messages either because a brand new user has asked a question at the Teahouse or, more frequently, because I've spotted a pattern of unusual editing at Recent changes patrol. However, sometimes it's interesting to monitor the live list of new users accounts as they're created and spot those who have made their first edits from those hundreds a day which have been created, but are not yet active. I have no evidence, but I think a warm welcome always goes a long way. See Special:Log/newusers. Regards from a snowy UK (Wikipedia is open, but everything else is closed here) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)  [reply]

I went to add the 'Welcome Screen' template to a user, and when I put the four tildes in (for my signature), it didn't show my signature. It only had the tildes. Am I doing something wrong, or is it a glitch? AllyGebies (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Template:Welcome screen you'll see that it tells you to {{subst}} the template; you didn't do that and you merely transcluded it. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m not mistaken, consensus has long held that only users who have made at least one edit should be welcomed. For whatever reason, dozens (hundreds?) of accounts are created each day but never make a single edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Perhaps they are created by people who misunderstand semiprotection, and when they realize they have to put in a bit of effort they quit. But where was this consensus stated? I never knew anything about it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that David, I tested it on my sandbox and it now works. AllyGebies (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A lad insane: Mostly it’s been argued in the past that a bot should welcome every single new account, and each time it has been proposed consensus has been that we should not be auto-welcoming based on nothing but the existence of the account, it’s happened enough times that it is listed at perenial proposals. There could be a few here and there who experience what you describe, but we have no way of knowing which ones they are and which ones created an account and just never bothered to use it for whatever reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: That makes sense, thanks. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that other Wikipedia sites send a welcome message immediately, whether you've edited or not. I consider it somewhat of an annoyance, but don't feel strongly that it should be one way or another. When I do userspace NPP, I often use a welcome template if the user's talk page hasn't been created yet, but - by definition - those users would have to have created at least a user page or sandbox to come up on NPP. When appropriate, I try to add a more personal note, but I suppose even my personal notes could be seen as if they were coming from a bot. Response rate from these welcome posts is quite low, but I like the idea that the account creator gets a jog some days after they created something to tell them that they should come back to WP and keep trying to see if they like it here. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

When Wikipedia calls for substantive coverage by third-party reliable sources, what's a rough guideline/estimate for 'substantive?' Going from this quote, it would appear to be approx. two paragraphs at minimum. Is that roughly correct?

Notability: "... think generally two paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue ..."

M47Boot (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a frequent flyer at Articles for Deletion, where that very question is oft debated, I'd pretty much never consider a mere two paragraphs to constitute substantive coverage for a subject; four's about the rock bottom minimum I'd accept.

Other editors would of course have different takes on the matter, but one consideration is this: this response I'm typing in is two paragraphs exactly, and I don't think many people reading this would consider these many words all that "substantive." Ravenswing 10:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now we get into the question of how substantive the paragraphs themselves are. Furthermore, two paragraphs from a well-renowned international media outlet is going to have more weight than 6 in the local newspaper... or at least, I think they should. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph length an issue, too. My natural style is paragraphs 75-100 words, but an editor at one of the newspapers I write for does not like length over 25 words. (It's a column width thing.) David notMD (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a fair use photo

Good morning, One of my students is looking for a fair use photo of Dr. Celine Gounder (https://www.celinegounder.com) that she can add to Commons for her article. Can anyone assist? I would be most appreciative! Thanks so much.Amyc29 (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use photos can not be uploaded to commons. They can be uploaded here but only if they meet all the requirements at WP:NFCCP. A fair use image can not be used on an article about a living person. ~ GB fan 12:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Amyc29. My advice would be to email Dr. Gounder and ask for her to release a photo she owns the copyright to by following the directions at WP:CONSENT. A lot of people are willing to do this type of thing, since they have a vested interest in improving the quality of their own Wikipedia article. Hope this helps. GMGtalk 12:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template code change

Hi, I'm not sure if this request can be granted but it's worth a try,
Template:Infobox broadcasting network is currently using deprecated syntax ([[File:NHK logo.svg|250px]]) instead of:
| network_logo = NHK logo.svg
| network_logo_size = 250px

I've tried copying code from Template:Infobox broadcast but that's all but failed so I was wondering if someone with a lot more knowledge with templates would kindly update it ?,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping resident template wizard. GMGtalk 15:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean; the template is properly invoking the Module:InfoboxImage. What your describing sounds more like usage on an article. Please elaborate further? Primefac (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
Hi Primefac, My apologies I missed a few points off but I was trying to say that "network_logo_size" didn't work however having just tried other parameters "logo_size" does work ... probably should've tested others before coming here!, Anyway apologies and thanks for your help, –Davey2010Talk 19:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

moving pages

Why can I move only some page and not others, like Cankar Centre, even if they're not move-protected? L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey L293D. It may have to do with where you are trying to move it to. What error is it giving you when you try? GMGtalk 15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, when I hover on the "More" tab, there is a 'move' option that appears. On some pages, even if not move-protected, that option does not appear. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Hmm. I'm not sure then. It works alright for me, and I've not noticed anything out of place generally, but it may be some kind of glitch. If no one follows up here with any ideas, you might consider asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). GMGtalk 15:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the link is missing but does it work: Special:MovePage/Cankar Centre. You can start moving another page and change the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have a move tab in MonoBook which has no More tab? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm in vector. Next time I'll try with Special:MovePage. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Hello! I need to write about how many citations a professor has on all of his works. If I do that, I need to get reference for it. Can I use Google Scholar for it. The professor doesn't have any profile there. But if you search for his name on GS you will get all of his articles and see how many citations he has. So, would Google Scholar be a good reference for this purpose? Nimbo.lo (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nimbo.lo: I highly doubt that you need to write in Wikipedia how many citations a person has. It sounds like the kind of WP:TRIVIA that would best be avoided, and it does not establish notability. If we are talking about Draft:Jan Lexell you would do well to look at the criteria outlined at WP:NACADEMIC, none of which include citation count. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the article about Jan Lexell. But citations is used to show notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics It explicitly says in criteria #1 under specific criteria notes.

The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. Nimbo.lo (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nimbo.lo: Citation count can be used as a means to prove that someone made a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed. I stand corrected that the letter of policy allows this to be established based on the raw numbers solely, but from my experience, this has never happened; there is always a couple of independent review papers etc. The obvious reason is that since citation numbers vary across disciplines etc. evaluating the edge cases reeks of original research.
Unfortunately I don't think you are ever going to have an answer such as "you need X citations to be considered notable in that field". You could try to contact one of the reviewers who previously declined your article and present them the sourcing you have.
On a side note, since you found a link to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics, there is a passage about GScholar there. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newly Published Article

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my newly published article for my English class! The article is Veterinary Pharmacy! Any feedback would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterinary_Pharmacy Jgreen262 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jgreen262 and welcome to the Teahouse! I have taken a look at the article, and, while medicine is not my primary field of interest, it was an informative read. I have edited it slightly (adding more WikiLinks and minor copy-edit for flow), other than that the only suggestion I would have would be to add more (reliable) references if possible (more is always better). Overall, I think you have done an excellent job so far! I hope that you enjoy your time on Wikipedia and decide to stick around. If you have any questions, please feel free to let us know and we will do our best to help. Thanks again. -- All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jgreen262. Your article is an excellent start. My main criticism is that it only discusses veterinary pharmacy in the United States. I recommend that you find and summarize sources describing the topic in other countries, so that, in time, the article has a global perspective. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation

Hey all, I've worked on an article draft for the community health wikipedia page. I would appreciate some feedback on the draft, located in my sandbox under the community health heading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsnu/sandbox). Thanks. Dsnu (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dsnu We already have an article called Community health perhaps you would like to improve that instead. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox includes a file "File:Table 2 Summary of Governance Issues, Strategies, and Problems.tif" which appears to be a scan of a published document, with no reason to suppose that it is free of copyright. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My entries were remov d

The three notable people I added recently have been removed from the Pawhuska, oklahoma page. I would like to know why.BookerTpanther (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded lists in articles of notable persons assosciated with the subject are expected to already have their own Wikipedia articles. Or to put it another way, such lists should not have redlinks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmaker seeks help in adding external links to 4 documentaries on his Vimeo site, pertaining to 4 Wiki biographies

I am a retired documentary filmmaker, and recently uploaded my four best docs to my Vimeo page, just to keep them available to the public. I'm not selling them, and they cannot be downloaded, just viewed with online streaming. Wikipedia already has a biographical page for each of the four subjects, and my wish is to add the Vimeo URL to the "External Links" section of those pages. I have read through much of the info on how to encode, on markup, etc., but it feels like a very long and steep learning curve for me and my 83-year-old brain! Any help or advice will be much appreciated. Kelvin52 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kelvin52! Sure, I'd be happy to help; what are the four articles? Ravenswing 07:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coding to link a specific fact to a specific footnote?

I've seen, just a handful of times, some kind of coding so that when you mouse-over a section of text, the text associated with a given footnote is highlighted. Seems a useful way to avoid someone assuming that, say, a footnote applies to the previous three sentences when it only applies for the previous one sentence.

Can someone point me to the right template or whatnot to do that format? And is that something that's going to become more encouraged on Wikipedia, or does it have major drawbacks and is just a niche practice? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MatthewVanitas . The only time I've seen something like this done is for cleanup tags. For example, Template:Citation needed span can highlight certain portions of text to indicate what content needs additional sourcing.[citation needed]
As a general rule, citations cover the content immediately preceding it, up to the previous citation. So for example:

Content covered by source number one. Content also covered by source number one.[1] Content covered by source number two.[2] Content covered by source number one again.[1] Content covered by source number three.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Source number one
  2. ^ Source number two
  3. ^ Source number three
Using citation templates and the quote = parameter, you can include short quotations to indicate which content is covered by which source. Other than that, since our policy on verifiability means that everything (or nearly everything) should be supported by a citation, I'm afraid using highlighted references similar to Template:Citation needed span would wind up just having everything highlighted, which would probably just wind up being unnecessarily distracting for readers. GMGtalk 13:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GreenMeansGo. Ah, so it's just for "cn" and it's pretty visually obtrusive, got it. I somehow thought there was some more subtle way where you had to mouse-over to see which text is which cite. I know the cite follows the fact, but again the issue is sometimes there are five facts in a row, but the cite only applies to the last two, so I guess the only solution is to use a "cn" to cut off where uncited text ends. I'm doing a major cleanup of Shivaji and it's a real tail-pain having to verify sources to see if the whole paragraph is covered by the footnote at the end, or just the last sentence. (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally MatthewVanitas, when I write I just abuse the crap out of Template:efn in order to be as clear as possible. These footnotes allow you to comment more on the sources, their content, and what may or may not be clear from each one. GMGtalk 19:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why?

why has my page been rejected? I cant find any citations on it. the page is Draft:Noodlebomber. Noodlebomber (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noodlebomber and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft reads as an advert for the subject, so is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. It might be WP:TOO SOON for an article on the subject, but you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources before you submit it again. If you cannot find such citations, then Wikipedia cannot have an article. You also have a problem with your user name because it appears to represent the subject. Are you in some way connected? Dbfirs 08:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Noodlebomber. Perhaps you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a promotional social media platform. You are trying to write an autobiography, which is highly discouraged. In addition, you have done a very poor job of it. Your references are not independent and are unacceptable for showing that you are notable. Your draft article, Draft:NoodleBomber, is so brief that it provides no useful information to the reader. Start by reading and studying Your first article, and I hope that you will decide to abandon this project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict): @Noodlebomber: - many reasons. Firstly, it does not include suitable references, but rather links to various streaming platforms. These are not suitable, either for external links or for citations. Secondly, it does not establish notability. Your streaming site must be reported upon by reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. If it does not receive such attention, and you cant (sic) find any citations on it, then the content is unencylopedic and does not merit an article. Moreover, as the draft you penned is about yourself, there is a blatant conflict of interest to it, which is holding it back. Finally, it has a promotional tone, rather than an informational one, and as such is not suitable for Wikipedia. Perhaps make some constructive edits to other pages, and let your streaming network grow independently. If it receives coverage elsewhere, someone else will write an article about you. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why? (2)

@Dbfirs I am noodlebomber the gamer and I just want more people to know about the work I do. Noodlebomber (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use other media for your advertising. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to let more people know about new things, but to report what has already been written in reliable sources. Sorry to disappoint you. Dbfirs 08:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to copy image from Indonesian article into English article

I tried to add the image of Beretta Rx4 Storm from Indonesian Wiki (article is id:Beretta Rx4 Storm) to English Wiki (article is List of assault rifles) - English article does not display the picture. What to do now? Krom8888 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the best way to be able to use an image on multiple Wikipedias is to move the image to Wikimedia Commons. You can use this tool to do so, assuming that the image is freely licensed. Iffy★Chat -- 10:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image is copyrighted, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: List of assault rifles displays an image of Beretta Cx4 Storm at the Rx4 entry. --CiaPan (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to all of you for help, advise and the edit that solved the problem (somewhat). Krom8888 (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 markup problems

1) Why doesn't the following give me an indented quote? 

{{quotation|.....<ref name="Hume"/>{{rp|515}}

2) Why doesn't the following give me an encyclopedia citation? 

<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|last=Cohon|first=Rachel|title=Hume's Moral Philosophy|section=5|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/hume-moral}}

3) How do I find templates 468 and 472? Many thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TBR-qed. Assuming I understand your question correctly, number one and two are because you did not close the markup properly. In the first, the opening {{ requires an additional closing }}. You currently only have one closing }} which closes the Template:Rp, leaving the Template:Quote open. (Although I'm not tech savvy and this is probably the wrong terminology.) Similarly, any time you have an opening <ref>, you have to have a closing </ref> at the end of the reference.
As to number three, I'm not totally sure what you mean. As far as I'm aware, templates on Wikipedia do not follow a meaningful numerical order. GMGtalk 13:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Coding

Hi fellas. i created a new Robot in another language (persian/farsi) of wikipedia, but i can't fix the errors. Can somebody show me the Instructions of Python Coding, cause i can Use this Software. thanks a lot. Dandamayev (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Dandamayev and welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend Googling any errors and/or googling for tutorials. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dandamayev: If you need more specific wiki-related guidance on that coding, there's a very small chance that a posting to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard might yield some useful replies. But this is just a guess on my part. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are Upside Down

Hi, When I try to upload several images they are turned upside down. How do I fix this and why is it happening? AAbrahamsen2016 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AAbrahamsen2016 - welcome to our Teahouse. Looking at one of the images you uploaded, the image metadata shows that your iPhone7 camera rotated the picture by 180 degrees when it was taken. This often happens if you hold an iPhone or other device to photograph a book or map the wrong way round- the autorotate function makes it look OK to you, but the reality is the image has been rotated. If I were you I'd either retake the photo with the camera held the other way around, or I'd delete all the EXIF data using a wonderful little free program which I swear by called Irfanview, and crop/rotate/enhance the image as well. (I doubt it's available as an iphone app, though). Forgive me - as I'm about to nip out to a Jake Bugg concert, I've no time to comment about any copyright issues of the images you uploaded. I'm sure another host may do that. Regards from a snowy UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AAbrahamsen2016. As to the copyright issues... There's... a lot to unpack here. Probably starting with the fact that simply saying evidence will be provided upon request is not sufficient to justify uploading images to Wikipedia. Looking through your recent images, many of them are from the 1950s, which means unless they were proactively released under the license you claim (which would need evidence, usually in the form of a link or an email following the instructions at WP:CONSENT) they would most likely not be usable for Wikipedia.
For faithful reproductions of two dimensional works, such as photographs of paintings or photographs of other photographs, taking that picture doesn't affect the copyright, which is still retained by the original author. For works published after 1923 in the US, copyright generally expires 70 years after the death of the author, and since these pictures are themselves only about 70 years old, this is highly unlikely. Even if this was the case, we would need to be able to identify the original author to verify their date of death. For an overview of US copyright, see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#United States. Unless you can provide evidence that the files you have uploaded are suitable for unrestricted public use under the licenses you claim, then they will need to be deleted, or you will have to show that they can be used as non-free media under our policies on non-free content. GMGtalk 17:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the copyright issues, but the pictures were not taken by an iPhone. How do I fix the rotation of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAbrahamsen2016 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty much any photo editing software will suffice. Ravenswing 20:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AAbrahamsen2016. Sorry again for blowing up your talk page with all those notices. If you can sort out the copyright on the images, they can be pretty easily transferred to Wikimedia Commons and there is a bot there which preforms automated image rotations. GMGtalk 20:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I had to dash off, AAbrahamsen2016 (great concert tonight, though). Unlike images on Wikimedia Commons, those uploaded to Wikipedia can't be rotated as far as I know. But you can replace the image by uploading a new version which you rotate yourself beforehand. (It's odd that the exif data has been changed to indicate it was taken on an iPhone7, when you say it wasn't.) Like you, I'm a Museum Studies graduate, though now retired after 35 years in the profession. I know from personal experience that many museums fret long and hard about releasing images of works of art they possess (my own included). It looks like GreenMeansGo has given you some useful advice and a lot worries and things to think about with your institution in terms of permissions for releasing images. Whilst you may have access as a curatorial assistant to those images, I would advise you, assuming you've not already done so, to speak either to your Director of Collections & Interpretation or your Executive Director to ensure they approve you uploading such high resolution images of the museum's collections for commercial use, and lower res ones too, for that matter. Many museums still like to strictly control access to these as they can bring in small amounts of revenue through charging for reproduction fees, whereas they may be happy to release much lower resolution images for free use by anyone. Either way, as GMG has advised you, you are going to have to get the museum to formally give its permission - relatively easily done via an official museum email address sent to our OTRS team, linking to the images already uploaded, or sending them again if they've already been deleted. Let us know if you need a link to the relevant page for how to do this. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

It is advisable to have two images in a Wikipedia article section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Dreams (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Midnight Dreams and welcome to the Teahouse! Having more than one image can be appropriate, it really depends on the length of the article, size of the images etc. If you want an example of an article that does have more than one image in a section, take a look at The Rolling Stones#1965–1967: Height of fame or (to a lesser extent) Mick Jagger. If you have any questions or would like anything explained further, please do let us know. I will keep an eye on this discussion for the next little while. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think it is 'advisable' to have two images per section, Midnight Dreams. As TheSandDoctor says above, it all depends on the article itself. In many cases it would be definitely inadvisable. The question to ask is "does having this image enhance the information-giving purpose of this page or section?" If "yes" then use the image - if in doubt, leave it out. You might want to look at a page for the Mont Blanc massif that I built up some while ago. It covers a large geographic area, spanning three countries, many sub-topics, and is very lengthy. In places I've used three images per section, some of which are on the left side of the page which isn't normally recommended, though here I felt the alternation gave balance. You may well feel it was inadvisable for me to use so many in this way. I'd say there's no definitive answer to your original question. But do check out: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and the nice, short Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Nick Moyes. I agree with what you said (in the case of the Stones, main reason the images are so prevalent is the fact that they have a larger sized article and the fact that there is 56 years of history to cover of one of the most commercially successful bands of all time). Those links Nick gave are definitely worth checking out Midnight Dreams. -- Any questions? Feel free to reply here & let us know! TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page message from guest

Hello from en.wiktionary. Could not find 'Feedback', so I left a message at Template_talk:Greek_language#Periods 17 FEB 2018. I did not know how to alert or whom (with {attention} {ping} etc). I was wondering if anyone read it. Thank you, sarri.greek (talk) 2018.03.03. UTC 00:41 Sarri.greek (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sarri.greek. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing if anyone has read any post. The problem with templates is that very few people watch them. Often the best way is to ping individuals who have previously edited that template, and I can confirm that two other editors who did just that are both still very active at the moment. The other way to reach people is to consider where a particular template might get used, and to post a message on the appropriate wikiproject - in your case Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece. Or use the "What links here" button to find articles using that template, and post on the most likely candidate - in your case Greek language. Hope this helps, regards Nick Moyes (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick Moyes. I proofread a lot, I never edit. But my messages go un-noticed. Same problem at wiktionaries. There is no designated 'watcher' for each page. I presume (being new around here), that this is an inter-wiki.. problem. Ok, thanks, I'll follow your suggestions. sarri.greek (talk) / Sarri.greek (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. I fear that most editors (like me) work within the one language project and don't stray beyond it. To be frank, I don't think I've ever tried to 'watch' pages on other projects I've edited - I'll give it a try - but there are certainly no designated 'watchers' for any pages. As you know, all volunteers simply follow their interests and desires, so it would be impossible to establish a formal system, I fear. Nice idea though. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passcode to join an event

I'm trying to Join an Event, but whenever I click on join, It goes to a page informing me that the passcode is already expired.

Where can I get a passcode for Join 'wiki4women UNESCO 2018-03-08'?

Or Can I go start researching, writing and editing even without the passcode, and even without joining the event?Hazellamaria (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to relate to the following event, which requires a Wikipedia login: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/UNESCO,_Ambassade_de_Su%C3%A8de_en_France,_Ambassade_du_Canada_en_France/wiki4women_UNESCO_2018-03-08?enroll= --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hazellamaria welcome to our friendly Teahouse, and thanks for expressing an interest in wanting to join the #wiki4women UNESCO event. I see your problem and (as soon as I've answered here) I am going to send a personal email to John Cummings who has organised this event. It's possible that a password is needed for those physically wanting to attend UNESCO's International Women's Day editathon in Paris. I'm honestly not sure, and rather confused by this, myself. I can only apologise, but we will find out for you!

Secondly, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop you researching/writing/editing before you sign up to the event. In fact, I would actively encourage you to do this. You might like to use your own user sandbox to work in (see the link at the very top of the page in desktop view). For a list of ideas for creating biographical articles about women see this list of redlinks, arranged in various orders), and you might also like to see Ten Simple Rules for Women in Red, or this longer "Primer for creating women’s biographies".

Come back if we can help you in any other way. Looking forward to seeing lots of activity on International Women's Day on 8th March! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've now emailed John - so hope to have this sorted out soon for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Hazellamaria: and @Nick Moyes:, thanks very much for the message, I've messaged the person who set up the sign up and hope that it can be fixed very soon. Please can you try signing in again? If you still get the message can you copy and paste it here? I've tried the same link and it works, so it may have been a temporary issue that is now resolved.
Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Thanks for responding so rapidly. There's no change in the function over the last couple of hours. I'm first prompted to sign in as a cross-platform user via OAuth, which works easily. This takes me here. The 'Actions' box at the bottom right of that page has a link to 'Join programme', which I presume Hazellamaria assumed she needed to do. Clicking this link then prompts for a password, displaying the following text: To join this program, you need to get the passcode — or link that includes the passcode — from the facilitator. Enter the passcode to join: With the incorrect password entered, the next page is a Programmes and Events Dashboard which displays (note the typo) this message: Incorrect passcode. :-( The passcode for enrolling in this course in incorrect. Please ask the instructor for the current passcode to enroll in this course. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nick Moyes:, the password has actually expired. I corrected it, should work now. Thanks for joining! Kvardek du (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Kvardek du. This is a ping to @Hazellamaria: to ask if you would try to join again now, and let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bosman Twins or The Bosman Twins - How to get page restored.

The Wikipedia page for jazz artists The Bosman Twins was deleted. The Bosman's didn't do anything wrong, but yet their page was deleted. They are in fact notable jazz artists, with a global following. There is evidence. They are notable and recognized as international artists, as is evidenced by them being featured in a new book, "All That's Jazz". This book was commissioned by Tomahawk Press, written by Sammy Stein, and includes jazz artists past and present. Their music has been played on jazz radio stations all over the U.S., right alongside other jazz greats. I've seen artists' pages on Wikipedia who doesn't have 1/2 credentials and their pages just indicate: There are issues with this page. Those pages were taken down.

How do we get the page restored? How can I appeal this decision? Is the page at least archived?Pr1775 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article The Bosman Twins was deleted in May because it was created by a user who abusing multiple accounts to evade a block. If you want the article restored, you can make a request at WP:REFUND to do so. Iffy★Chat -- 10:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pr1775. It's unfortunate when an article is deleted only because its creator is behaving disruptively; but I'm sure you understand that this is to avoid rewarding disruptive behaviour. However, please understand that a Wikipedia article is absolutely not for the benefit of the subject (it doesn't belong to them, they have no control over the contents, and sometimes it will contain material that they would prefer it didn't), so it is not a "punishment" for the subject when an article is deleted. (Note also that I am not using the phrase "taken down": that is something that happens to "pages" on social media. This is an encyclopaedia, which consists of non-promotional articles). --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pr1775, rather than restore the page that was deleted I would suggest that you and others start it from fresh at Draft:The Bosman Twins and when it is ready it can be moved to The Bosman Twins. Occasionally it is better to start fresh than to salvage. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Notability

I have been asked to create and publish a wikipedia page on the Northern-English artist Tony Huggins-Haig. Could i please get some advice as to whether this is a notable enough, or acceptable subject to have as a wikipedia page? Many thanks MichaelHuggins91 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MichaelHuggins91. Welcome, and thanks for coming to ask before plunging in. Creating a new article that is accepted is difficult, and I advise you to get some experience editing existing articles first. I suggest you start by studying your first article, which has a lot of useful advice, including pointing you to where you can read about notability. But a quick summary: the article should be almost entirely based on where people who have no connection with Huggins-Haig have chosen to write in some depth about him, and been published in reliable places, such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. If you can find enough such independent published material to say anything substantial about him, then he is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word) and an article is possible. If you can't then he is not currently notable, and not article will be accepted. In any case, things said or published by him or his associates are of little relevance.
One other point. From your name, and the fact that you "have been asked" to create the article, I'm guessing that you are a relative. This does not prevent you from writing an article on him, but it makes it more challenging, because your conflict of interest may tend to make it harder for you to write sufficiently neutrally - in my mind, the fact that you have been asked to write it is of greater concern than your relationship. At the least, you should be open about your COI, and expect to submit your work for review Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin, thank you for your help. I just have a couple more questions if that is okay?

Firstly, what would you classify as "in some depth". Is there a certain size article needed for example? Secondly, do the articles I currently have about his work in the art community, etc have to be digital (or have digital copy) or can they also be physical paper versions? Does there have to be a certain amount of cyber-based 'evidence' on Tony? Would it be more advised to have a third-party who isn't connected to Tony or the family?

Sorry for all of the questions, I just need to get all of the information before I begin writing and then jump through hoops of rewrites or get turned down. I hope you understand.

Thank you again! MichaelHuggins91 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelHuggins91: Hello, sources do not need to be online, as long as it is possible for someone to verify them. (like a book in a library) As Colin indicates, you will need to read WP:COI. If your relative is paying you, you are also required to read and comply with WP:PAID, the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you know something to be true - for example, his date of birth - can only include that in the Wikipedia article if there is a published source to reference that fact. This is why it is harder to create an article about someone you have a connection to. Does not preclude you, just means references trump knowledge. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to hire someone to create a wikipedia page for me. How can I do that?

I need to hire someone to create a wikipedia page for me. How can I do that?Rsgraves1 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsgraves1: - please provide more information, so that we can give a concrete answer. Hiring people to create articles (not pages) is really not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What exactly do you want your potential employee to do? Stormy clouds (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this concerns Sinner, an article which you have attempted to create yourself, there is a litany of issues. The article would struggle to avoid deletion, as it lacks notability. For an article to be created about the book, it must receive coverage in reputable and reliable sources. In your sandbox, you have used citations which are not permissible, and do not establish notability - particularly, do not use Wikipedia articles as citations, as they are user-generated, and so are not allowed. Moreover, your username indicates that you have a relationship with, or are, the author of the novel in question - this means that you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing anything which is associated with you or someone who you are closely related to. Finally, regarding your initial query, you should not hire anyone to create an article here, as it is a violation of our paid editing policy, and will likely result in any article created being deleted and removed from the encyclopedia. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of free publicity. Any edits made must conform to the relevant guidelines. So, in summation, and to succinctly answer your question - I need to hire someone to create a wikipedia page for me. How can I do that? - you don't. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, Rsgraves1. If you mean, you want to hire somebody to create a Wikipedia article about you or something you are associated with, my advice is a very strong DON'T. If you go ahead, they will be required (by our terms of service) to declare that they are in a paid capacity, and will be required to write it in a neutral manner. They (and you) will not have control over the contents of the article, and will not be able to prevent other editors changing it, even in ways that you do not like.
If you are philanthropically proposing to pay somebody to improve Wikipedia, then I'd say, cautiously, Go ahead! Your agent would still have to declare their paid status, and probably find themselves subject to people who were suspicious of your motives; but we all contribute to Wikipedia in the way we choose. --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rsgraves1 I would add that Wikipedia would not have a "page for you", it would have an "article about you", and only if you met the notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BIO(there are also more specific ones for certain professions like musicians or athletes). As Colin notes quite well, you would not have exclusive control over such a page, and it may not be a good thing for you for there to be an article about you here; see this page. Your best bet would be to wait for an uninvolved party to write about you, which would be one indication that you meet the notability guidelines; however, if you still want to proceed, your agent/employee would need to use Articles for Creation(after they make the declarations Colin mentions) to submit a draft for review by an independent editor. Your agent would need to have independent reliable sources that discuss you in depth, and they would need to forget everything they know about you and only write based on what those sources state. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsgraves1: - given that you are apparently Rebecca Soler, please refrain from editing that article as well, as you once again suffer from a conflict of interest. Rather, use the talk page to bring up issues you have, and other editors may address them for you if you can bolster your points with reliable sources. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

interesting pages

A friend of mine once showed me a page of odd articles but I can't remember what it was, can someone help?2602:306:32CF:34D0:549:C629:342D:4B87 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia List. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jerome-Adika Vincent Sator Jr

I reviewed Draft:Jerome-Adika Vincent Sator Jr and declined it, saying that it appeared to be written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. Its author User:Powerd By AMAS then replied (twice, probably by accident) on my talk page, asking me for examples, and saying that they thought that they had been careful to be neutral. I would like the comments of other experienced editors. My first observation was and is that referring to the subject as “multi-talented” in the lede sentence in the voice of Wikipedia is non-neutral. That is just one point at the beginning. Other than that, I notice the specific example: “His on-air charisma and technical skills behind the scenes, catapulted him into the film and television industry. ” Beyond that, I had issues with the overall tone, but it might have been just my personal response. Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gods, no, you're dead on. It's a superficially well-written article, but it's dripping with peacock verbiage, devoid of inline cites to back it up, and quite free of reliable sources which meet the GNG. There was a quickie resubmit which I just declined. Ravenswing 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Express Entry (2)

I reviewed Draft:Express Entry (2) and asked that the author consolidate that draft with Draft:Express Entry into one draft for review. I said that both drafts relied too much on the primary source of the government’s information and not enough on secondary sources. User:Onkreukbaar then wrote on my talk page: 

(I thought this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry would be an easy post to start with. Now I know none of them are easy. :)
A few questions before I start consolidating my Express Entry Post with the previous one.
Would Immigration Agencies count as secondary sources? All reputable agencies are legal experts and work daily in the interpretation of the Canadian Immigration Law. I am thus inclined to think that the immigration services (those who can prove that their author is a qualified Immigration Consultant and also boasts a good reputation amongst users) would be the most up to date secondary source available. What is your opinion?
There are other secondary sources but they usually focus on the amounts of people who use express entry, and not the details as pertains to its inner workings.

I will comment that the original poster may have thought that developing a new article is easy. It isn’t. I will also comment, and this isn’t addressed to the original poster, that the user of second person language addressed to the immigrant in Draft:Express Entry suggests that the language was copied from the government’s instruction brochure.

Comments for a new user who has found writing a new article to be harder than it seems?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also a discussion regarding this on my talk page, where I just pinged Robert about 0.5 seconds before seeing this thread. GMGtalk 17:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the first draft is very highly likely to be copied from somewhere, even if we can't definitively say from where. Not going to hurt my feelings if someone applies a pretty common sense G12. GMGtalk 17:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't reject out of hand the validity of the government website for information about the program, but the elephant in the room is the complete lack of sources attesting to the subject's notability. That, of course, can't come from the government sites. What makes this program notable? If the article creator can't come up with independent, third-party cites to answer that, there's no point in proceeding further. Ravenswing 17:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from another language

Hi there, I wanted to create an English page about the Froissartage (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froissartage), to help English speaking friends to understand what it is. So my question is can I reuse the French version and just translate it into English ? I'd still say it's a translated version and add a link to the french version if needed, and I would use the french sources too. Thank you for your answers.

Captain Hornblower Captn Hornblower (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer.

Captn Hornblower (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier High School (Louisville)

Just curious, but what do you think about my edits on the article St. Xavier High School (Louisville)? I’ve added several citations to the article but I just would like to know what you think about the article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 20:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truth to be told, the article gives the impression that the high school is a Potemkin front for an athletics club; the amount of prose you devote to sports for this ostensible educational institution is about five times that devoted to academics. You've also got a number of the superlatives sourced to the school's own website; if, for instance, the article makes claims of notability such as it's the only school in Kentucky to win a particular honor four times, you need some outside source to say so. Ravenswing 22:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: I’ve been trying to find a source for the sentence “and had been the only school in Kentucky to have won a state championship in every Kentucky High School Athletic Association (KHSAA)-sanctioned sport open to boys before the KHSAA began sponsoring coeducational championships in archery and bass fishing in the early 21st century” but I can’t find one. I need help finding a source for the sentence. —LovelyGirl7 talk 23:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help restoring a biographical article

Hi, I've monitored a biographical article for several years, and it was suddenly deleted, with what I find to be very suspicious reasoning, as even a three page Google search reveals the newsworthiness of this biography, as it is a writer/journalist who has greatly impacted the modern fitness industry as a pioneer during the 80's and 90's and recently published a rather revolutionary book, BioLogic Revelation, that many experts believe will greatly disrupt the modern fitness industry. I can't help but believe this was the motivation for "someone" to remove a meaningful article. I have discussed this with someone at the Help Desk, and after sending a wealth of verified third-party references that I found in just a couple minutes of Google searching, they said they would "move it to restore it as WP:DRAFT where it can be improved to address the issues identified in the deletion discussion before being re-submitted to article space." I personally have only made minor edits in the past, so is there someone on your team that can right this wrong, even if it has to cite just new web-archived articles? I wouldn't even know where to begin. I know the deleted article cited mostly hard copy magazines and newspapers that have never been archived on the web, but I read somewhere that those are entirely acceptable, as evidenced for the 5+ years the article remained on Wiki with no interruption or objection. Thank you KaySorin (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Help desk discussion, the deleted article Wayne Caparas, and the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Caparas. --bonadea contributions talk 23:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, KaySorin - the article was deleted as a result of a discussion at Articles for Deletion - for posterity, that discussion is here. The admin who deleted the article has made over 43,000 edits here, so I would be hesitant to claim that their rationale for deletion was because many experts believe will greatly disrupt the modern fitness industry. The article was deemed, by consensus, to fail the general notability guidelines, meaning that it was not sufficiently referenced, and lacked citation from reliable sources - online or printed. As evidenced by Bine, the length of time with which the article was on the site means nothing, unfortunately, so this rationale (as evidenced for the 5+ years the article remained on Wiki with no interruption or objection) is worthless against a lack of compliance to guidelines, which the deleted article apparently suffered from. It is also worth noting that Wikipedians are specifically instructed to not right great wrongs, as you have urged us to do. Finally, disputes are not handled at the Teahouse - for a prompt AfD-related response, try the talk page - just don't expect to overturn consensus without a substantive reason to do so. I am sorry if this is not a satisfactory answer, but it is the best I can offer. On an unrelated note, you mention having made edits to Wikipedia in the past, but your account's first edit was mere hours ago. Please divulge any alternate accounts you have used, as at present you are a single-purpose account. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a long-time contributor at WP:AFD, it's quite common for people who disagree to ascribe malicious motives to the people proposing deletion. Trust me that there are very, very, few Wikipedians who go around cackling "HaHa, today I will destroy another few random articles for No Good Reason!" and trot over to AfD to do their dastardly work. Generally, the explanation is far simpler: nominators run across articles they do not believe meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Without access to the deleted article, and just what I can find looking up Wayne Caparas on the web, I'd agree with the nominator. I could find only two reliable sources on a Google News search, and both quote him only in passing; neither provide the "significant coverage" of Caparas himself WP:GNG requires. This new book of his (published last April) hasn't cracked the top two millionth of Amazon's book sales ranking, nor the top 700 of the sub-sub-sub category of quick workout books, and there are zero mentions of it on Google News; if "many experts" believe that this book will have an impact on the fitness industry, there's little evidence of them saying so publicly. A straight Google search of Caparas doesn't fare much better: the top hits are his Linkedin page, his Facebook page, his YouTube page, his IMDB page, the original Wikipedia article, his book's webpage, his Twitter feed, his Allmusic page, and the various other sites we normally associate with devoted self-promoters. Ravenswing 23:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted, now back up

My page on Cynthia Charlotte "Lottie" Moon Clark got deleted earlier. It seems that the issue was mainly about a bad source. I've fixed that now, but could someone look at it and tell me if it is likely to be deleted again and if so, what I can do to fix it, I would really appreciate it. Also, I've been working on her sister's page, too. Her name is Virginia Bethel Moon. Do my changes to that page look alright?

This is my first time editing on Wikipedia (I participated in an edit-a-thon) and I really enjoyed it. 222H (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I put inline citations

Hi, I have looked at a couple of articles, and I am not sure where to use inline citations (such as in infoboxes and lead sections). Could someone explain where and where not I should use inline citations?

Thanks

Peterye2005 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=828660621"