Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help

Wikipedia

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Perhaps your needs would be better served on LinkedIn? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Robert McClenon: and @Ravenswing: Would I be permitted to edit the Draft:Chaz Ortiz? Or is that considered "bad form"? Since the two of you have decided it is notable, I would like to help this editor get their page accepted. They haven't edited since the draft was declined. The external links in the tables need to be changed to text and wiki linked, if possible. Let me know if it is #1: okay to polish this up and #2:submit it for @Hturnt:. Or I could "polish" and wait and see if they return. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Tribe of Tiger - Huh? Why wouldn't you be able to edit it? If it were accepted, you would be able to edit it in mainspace. The author hasn't responded to my invitation to come here anyway. Draft space belongs to the community. Go ahead and improve it, either before or after it is accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

+1. Anyone working on an article to improve it is a good thing, and you need neither Robert's permission, my permission, or anyone else's to dive in and help. Ravenswing 04:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, great! Thanks for the replies! Cheers, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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. GMG^talk 21:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

(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)

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)  

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@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)

@Beeblebrox: That makes sense, thanks. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. GMG^talk 12:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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, –Davey2010^Talk 14:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ping resident template wizard. GMG^talk 15:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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, –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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? GMG^talk 15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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). GMG^talk 15:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

And do you have a move tab in MonoBook which has no More tab? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm in vector. Next time I'll try with Special:MovePage. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

• @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. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

• @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. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Hi Kelvin52. I think I can help. What are the four articles and the Vimeo URLs? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mission accomplished! Thanks for your help, Ravenswing!Kelvin52 (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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.

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. Content covered by source number two. Content covered by source number one again. Content covered by source number three.

References

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. GMG^talk 13:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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. GMG^talk 19:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The image is copyrighted, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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. GMG^talk 13:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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. GMG^talk 17:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Pretty much any photo editing software will suffice. Ravenswing 20:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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. GMG^talk 20:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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).

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• Also a discussion regarding this on my talk page, where I just pinged Robert about 0.5 seconds before seeing this thread. GMG^talk 17:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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. GMG^talk 17:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.

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

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)

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)

@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)

• I haven't been able to find one myself, which suggests that it's best left out of the article; one of our catchphrases on Wikipedia is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Ravenswing 23:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: since we both can't find one ourselves, do you think I should remove it? I also can't find sources for "With the conclusion of Project X, St. Xavier now boasts some of the best high school athletic facilities in the nation" either. Should I do the same with that sentence (remove it)? --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I've got some concerns about the sourcing too. I can't tell whether you added them or simply moved them, but there are several citations that claim to be from the KHSAA but are not. Additionally there is a citation ourpoting to be from Sports Illustrated that is actually from "somerandomwebsite.com". There is also a considerable amount if superlative content sourced to dead links on the Courrier Journal's website. Now the CJ is one of the finest newspapers in the country, and is certainly a reliable source, but given the overall promo tone of the article, I think actually looking at them is in order. John from Idegon (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

Indeed, the book is a new publish, and I believe the PR effort has been held up by a companion video series that is due to launch next month. You can find the expert endorsements at the publisher site and several other sites. I know the author is a senior now like me, so most of his most notable accomplishments were documented before the internet started archiving everything. I guess that's an unfortunate reality. Whatever the case, as a fan of Wikipedia, I believe the article is justified. If you read the publisher's content or the interview I found, I "hope" you'd agree. Finally, I really had no idea how Wikipedia editing works. When I suggested there might have been a malicious reason the article was deleted, I was inferring someone exposed in the book came to Wikipedia and deleted it themselves. Now I know better. Glad to see real gatekeepers exist around the clock. Keep up the great work. KaySorin (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And to answer Stormy clouds' question above, I didn't know until this session that there was a login, so when I made my minor edits I must have been able to do them without logging in. I guess that explains why I was never alerted to the deletion discussion even though I clicked "watch this page" at some point in the past. Thanks again for all the clarificationsKaySorin (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words, KaySorin. A couple things to mention: as a general rule, reviews on a publisher's website are solicited by the publisher, often from other authors in the publisher's stable, or for other considerations, and are usually not considered independent reviews, such as can be found in newspaper or industry sources. Another is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance -- as an encyclopedia, we can only take notice of what reliable sources say, and therefore whatever the reasons for the book not catching the public eye, the fact that it hasn't means it has no bearing on the author's notability. Ravenswing 23:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• I echo the gratitude expressed by Ravenswing, and agree with their two caveats mentioned directly above. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, KaySorin. Because I am an administrator, I was able to read the deleted article and the deletion was completely appropriate. The article had a highly promotional tone in violation of our neutral point of view policy and was poorly referenced. I read the various links you provided at the Help Desk, and none are adequate for the purpose of establishing notability. We need significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Passing mentions, blogs, IMDb, publisher bios and book endorsement blurbs are useless for showing that this person is notable. By the way, the deleted article contained a number of edits from your account, but those edits were removed from your history when the article was deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the thoughtful replies Wikipedians. It would seem like the standards for "notability" have changed over the past decade, is that the case? I'm really enjoying Wikipedia through this process, as I had no idea how engaged on so many levels you all are. I'd love to start working toward joining your forces for more than just an occasional edit on a subject or person of interest. So thanks for the inspiration and the speeding of my learning curve. For future reference, since the article was considered to be "poorly referenced," how would I use a magazine or newspaper article as a "quality" reference if it is not archived on the web? I see that most the references in Wayne's old article appeared to fit this category. Is there a place in your database that answers that question? Also, is there a place where "notability" is addressed methodically? In order to avoid diverging subjective standards, it would seem necessary to have some sort of empirical milestones involved in the decision-making process. If so, I'd love to learn more about that as well. Thanks again all! KaySorin (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, KaySorin. There have been no significant changes in how we assess notability in the last ten years, although there may have been a few minor adjustments. Please be aware that this is literally "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and that includes writing new articles. With over 5.5 million articles, there are at least a million or more with very significant problems. Although millions of people have edited Wikipedia, there are less than 5000 highly active editors who maintain article quality. It is entirely possible for a low-visibility article to sit there without an experienced editor noticing it for years. In this particular case, the article came to the attention of Edwardx, a highly experienced editor with over 88,000 edits on a wide variety of topics. I assure you that this editor has no grudge at all against Caparas, but is just working very hard as an unpaid volunteer to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia.

To learn more about notability, read that link, plus Notability (people). The shortcut to the section about authors is WP:NAUTHOR. One important place where the disputed notability of specific article topics is addressed is through the Articles for Deletion process (abbreviated AfD), where we discuss and debate dozens of articles every single day. The shortcut to today's debates is WP:AFDT.

Printed newspaper or magazine sources which are not available online are perfectly acceptable, as long as they are properly cited with complete bibliographic detail. For a newspaper article, that bibliographic information would include the complete article title and subtitle, the author's name, the newspaper name, the city of publication if not part of the newspaper name, the date of publication and the page number. It is also wise to include a one or two sentence quote from the newspaper in the reference, that helps verify the content. Online sources are preferred when available but not mandatory.

Inevitably, there is a certain amount of subjectivity in all of these assessments, which is why we operate on the consensus model of decision-making. Administrators or experienced editors close debates and make decisions, but they do not count noses or count "votes". Instead, they evaluate each editor's arguments based on how closely they adhere to our established policies and guidelines. If someone advocates keeping or deleting an article based on personal preference rather than solid reasoning, their opinion will be "discounted", which means it will be pretty much ignored.

I hope that I have answered your questions and given you useful information. I have taken the time to write such a detailed response because your questions have been insightful and perceptive. I also hope that you will continue to edit Wikipedia, and you can ask other questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Edwardx, since I messed up the original ping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• KaySorin, I regretfully disagree with Cullen328 on a couple points ... more by way of that he's articulating the ideal, and I'd like to acquaint you with a little more reality. He's right in that the standards of notability haven't changed much over the years, and most of those changes are technical fiddles. There used to be a one-size-fits-all notability standard for sports biographies, for instance, and several years ago that was devolved to the various sporting Wikiprojects. What has changed, however, is the community's willingness to enforce them. Deletion discussions used to be dominated by head-count decisions, and knee-jerk Keep votes along the lines of "Seems notable" or "The article could be improved" were both common and often devoid of any critical examination. This doesn't much happen any more, and in particular, our practices on how biographical articles of living people are handled have tightened up considerably over the years. Ravenswing 04:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• With all due respect for Ravenswing, I see things a bit differently, at least based on my participation in AfD debates over the past eight years. Yes, there are a few ill-informed votes, both now and then, but those are usually ignored by closing administrators. The main change that I see is far fewer nominations of obviously notable topics, although that happens occasionally. In my opinion, the debates are usually of a fairly high quality and most contributors make policy based arguments. When reviewing old AfD debates, I see the type of thing that Ravenswing describes in the 2003 to 2006 time frame. These days, disagreements arise mostly from editors with strict interpretations opposing editors with more lenient interpretations of policy. I rarely see what I would call "slam dunk keep" nominations these days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to laugh at some of these comments, when you consider that Jack Carlson (rower) as an article is allowed to persist on the project. BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

It looks fine, but it probably needs renamed. That's a bit of an unwieldy title. Also, it says it was deleted per G6. Did the article have a different name before it was deleted? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

How could I rename it? And, yes, the name has remained the same.

222H (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@222H: I suggest you name your article Cynthia Charlotte Moon. Wikipedia already has an article for Lottie Moon (1840-1912), who was a Christian missionary in China. The person who reviewed your article was probably getting Google hits for this (more famous) Lottie Moon. I'm not really sure how to rename a draft, but the reviewer or someone else can help you. I searched for sources and found two good print books, and I will post them on your user page. You still need to finish the end of your draft either way, because it stops in the middle of a sentence. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: I am confused why you refer to it as a draft: it is in mainspace. I've moved it to the suggested title, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@A lad insane: It still had a "big box" at the top when I looked at it (@2:00 or 2:00 UTC) so I thought it was still a draft. Thanks for doing the move. Like your user name, BTW. Cheers! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Hi there Peterye2005! Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources/WP:INCITE should have all of the information that you need. Essentially, citations should be used to cite sources and back up any claims made in articles or information that could be disputed. Include citations "allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it" (from third link). The third link contains information about how to add them. Hope this helps! If you have any questions, please let us know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Message

I received a message from Wikipedia that makes no sense at all. "User talk:207.177.111.158 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia September 2011 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kira Buckland with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kira Buckland with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Breawycker (talk to me!) 17:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)" It makes no sense because I have never, ever contributed, or edited, anything on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I have never heard of "Kira Buckland". Not sure what to do about this or where to post it. Gary "Gig" Giegerich 207.177.111.158 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You are using a dynamic IP address. The message is from 2011. You may want to consider creating an account. This will allow you to have a stable talk page and contributions history. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gary. You are editing anonymously using an IP address, which may be shared among many internet users. It seems that someone used the same IP address seven years ago to vandalize an article twice. I suggest that you register a Wikipedia account, which eliminates such confusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble getting this active

Having difficulty getting an architecturally significant building listed. I need help, please.

I'm also appealing any decision that this piece of architecture isn't notable or significant. Simply because the building hasn't yet been NRHP (not NHRP :-) listed doesn't mean it isn't significant - it's merely a superficial qualifier. In this particular building's case, it was not listed because the owners saw no benefit in doing so. Having personally listed buildings on the NRHP I can say this particular structure chances of getting listed are quite high - if the owners decided to go that route. It was built by the most important early 20th century architects on the west coast. I can understand that if one isn't interested nor understands architectural history why they would brush this off since it isn't their purview. However, for those who are interested architectural history, this is an important building to reference.

As for notability references, what exactly do you want? I'm sure I can find something.

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

Apollodorus1982 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2018

Hello, Apollodorus1982 and welcome to the TeaHouse. Every article on Wikipedia (including architectural ones) should qualify as having a "Notable" subject (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term). Notability in Wikipedia is mostly driven by how thoroughly the subject is covered in independent, reliable sources. In addition, certain official recognition (such as NRHP) can also strongly indicate notability, but they are not required. So to establish notability, start by collecting the sources that discuss the subject - books written about it, newspaper and journal articles that discuss it in depth (not just a passing mention), television shows about it, etc. There is a good article that covers the topic here. Or for more detail you can see the "General Notability Guildelines" here. Good luck.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Create a Category?

I was trying to add some categories to the page of an author (Peg Kehret). The author is a polio survivor. Unfortunately, there isn't a list for this. Is this deliberate to avoid linking people by a illness or is this something that could be added? Or should I use the category "poliomyetlitis?" I don't want to mess something up! 222H (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just found it! It's "People with poliomyelitis." 222H (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you know any interesting names of food named after Greek gods and goddesses?

i need them for a menu I have to create for a class. Please help and give me any you can think of. THANK YOU! Any types of food will work. Ashlyn2838 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ashlyn2838 and welcome to the teahouse. Unfortunately this question is not the kind of thing that this page is for. Please post your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities where answers will be forthcoming. MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ashlyn2838: Do a Google search for "Nipples of Venus" a confection. You will see photos and receipts. Also, see Ambrosia. Look in the "see also" section for Idunn's apples, etc. Good luck! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Typing in "foods named after Greek gods and goddesses?" into Yahoo gets plenty of answers. BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A question about Wikipedia guidelines

Hi! Recently, I found a problem about Wikipedia guidelines. In WP:V, WP:REFB and WP:RS, and other guidelines about reliable sources, only paper sources(Such as books, journals and newspapers) are given as examples of reliable sources, no website sources. Does this means only paper sources can be reliable sources of Wikipedia? And any website sources (even notable medias with editor reviewing) are not reliable sources of Wikipedia? Or paper sources are more reliable than website sources? However, paper sources are much more difficult to find than website sources. This may mislead newbies. Omega68537 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Omega68537 and welcome to the TeaHouse. Yes, web sites are acceptable as references, provided they are independent and reliable. Even conventional media such as newspapers often make content available on the Web as well, which makes convenient links for readers who wish to follow up the source.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Omega68537. Yes, websites can be reliable sources, even though 99% of websites are not acceptable. Reliable source websites will meet the same standards as reliable books, newspapers and magazines. They will have professional editorial control and an established reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Citation templates, you can see that citing high quality websites is very common. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In medical arena there are reputable organizations with websites that are accepted as references: WebMD, Mayo Clinic, etc. This does not automatically extend to websites created by individuals or small organizations or companies promoting their own products. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Another question

I have an article about a major facility in Mexico, which is in direct competition with other similar entities in California. The facility in question was started by a Media Mogul who has been at the centre of world wide politics and controversies for the last 60 years. He started said Enterprise in an effort to nullify the power of a major stateside Trade Union. Almost certainly all of the above has meant that the quality of printed and web media about this facility from our point of view (as described here) is minimal and pathetic. Yet we have photos that are undeniable proof of its existence and its high profile position in its industry. How to include an article for same? BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BeckenhamBear. Wikipedia articles summarize what published independent reliable sources say about a topic. If such sources are, as you say, "minimal and pathetic", then it is not possible to write an acceptable article. Unpublished photos are not acceptable as sources. Your claim of a "high profile position in its industry" is what we call original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

How to get drafts reviewed?

Hi. I've created two article drafts, one of which was a request on a WikiProject page. However, I'm unsure of what to do next, I believe it has to get reviewed to go live. Can you guide me on how to go about that? Thank you, this newbie is appreciative of all help! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheOneWorkingAccount: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to Draft:The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis and Draft:Suhail Chandhok. It appears that you have submitted both drafts for review already. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis" is already in an existing article, The Big Bang Theory (season 2). BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi BeckenhamBear. Thank you for the welcome. The link you mentioned redirects to a part of the main Big Bang Theory page. According to the project page, some special episodes need a full new page and it is that instruction I followed to create the page. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Episodes_for_creation Also, does the other draft look good? Appreciate your help! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi 331dot. Thank you for the welcome. Yes, those are the two drafts I'm talking about. So once submitted for review, there's nothing further that I need to do?TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your a man after my own heart. I was not aware of that page. However I think you may find a request such as "Episodes_for_creation" is not an automatic sanction for inclusion of said article. Especially from a loooong running series like this. Notability rules still apply. Oh, as a PS I would have separated out these two different requests. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh! What a waste it would be in that case :(

P.S - I'm a woman :)

For Draft:Suhail Chandhok, there was already an existing, deleted article that I simply cleaned up in terms of advertorial sounding language and added a lot of references, which the original version was missing. Would that be enough to have it published?

Noted your suggestion on separating the requests, thanks! Will do so going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneWorkingAccount (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Once submitted, you just need to wait for them to be reviewed. As this is a volunteer project, it may take a bit. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Yes, fully aware of that. Just wanted to make sure it's submitted and there's nothing more that I need to do on it. Well, on to look for some other tasks now. Thanks! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Any experienced Teahouse hosts available March 8, 12-6pm (Japan time) to man a Q&A forum for wikipedia editathon aimed at adding articles about Japanese women artists and women artists generally?

Hello I am organising a Wikipedia editathon with other professors at Temple University, Japan Campus.

Our participants will be more than half English Wikipedia users, however there were no locally available English Wikipedia experts, and on the day we are grateful to be joined by an experienced Japanese Wikipedia user but we are anticipating English Wikipedia specific issues to arise.

I am a new user and although I feel confident with the content guidelines, verifiable sources, citations, notability guidelines, neutral point of view etc, I do not feel confident with more complicated editing tasks and the review process etc. And participants will be even less so.

If anyone is available at this time and could we set up a way for students to ask and have questions answered during this time period I would be so grateful! How could we do this? We currently have a Japanese language project page set up... is that a good place? Should we make a translated version of the project page? https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E3%82%AA%E3%83%95%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%BC%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%EF%BC%8B%E3%83%95%E3%82%A7%E3%83%9F%E3%83%8B%E3%82%BA%E3%83%A0/20180308%E6%9D%B1%E4%BA%AC Louise000 (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Louise000, welcome to our Teahouse. It's absolutely fantastic to learn that you are also running an edit-a-thon for International Women's Day on Thursday 8th March. Please could you tell us all what time editors may be seeking help in UTC? This is the format most people seem to work in here. I shall be at Derby University, England, at our own edit-a-thon from 10:00 UTC to 16:00 UTC and (if we're not too busy) may also be online, monitoring the Teahouse for any IWD-related requests. I'm sure other hosts here will, as usual, be happy to help any editor. Are you aware of our own Women in Red wikiproject? I'm going to ping @Rosiestep and John Cummings: as they're both heavily involved in events during this month, and especially on International Women's Day on 8th March. I believe there may be a post going out to all the help fora to alert hosts thatt a number of new editors around the globe may seek assistance to edit or create articles that day. I don't know if ja.wiki has an equivalent of our Teahouse/Help desk or [live chat channel], but you could make it clear on your event page that questions can be posted on its own Talk Page - and you could ensure you monitor that, too. Maybe make a shortcut to help people remember and find your editathon page? I've created WP:Derby18 for ours - as even I can't remember its full title!

It sounds like you have enough experience - you should be absolutely fine on ther day. Most requests from new editors at edit-a-thons are likely to seek only basic advice on editing and on citing sources. It is what happens next that can be daunting for them. After the event they will want to enhance and to get their draft articles into mainspace, and may experience what might seem rather sharp treatment by article reviewers, or at the hands of page deleters. The best advice I can give you is to ensure that you capture the usernames of every single person attending your event. (Maybe a signing-in sheet or a huge whiteboard?). That way you can monitor each new editor after the event, see what subjects they are working on, give them a post-event welcome messsage, and help move their drafts into mainspace when you think they're ready, or offer support in other ways. I've been developing a handout to give participants before they leave our event to assist them further in the days ahead. Possibly this page may give you ideas relevant for ja.wiki and your event?

It's also a very good idea to encourage all new editors to put a description on their userpage about their interests in editing articles, and to state on any new draft or article that it was created as part of a themed editathon. Although I have no evidence of other editors' perceptions, my own is that if I see a new article about which I'm dubious regarding notability or content, I am likely to be far more supportive if I can be aided to appreciate the circumstances under which it was created. I'm therefore less likely to propose it for deletion, and more likely to want to help a new editor if I can tell it's not just another WP:POV/WP:COI article or WP:PAID work.

You asked if it's worth creating an English translation page. I think only you will know whether the time investment is worth it - but it can certainly do no harm, and would form a valuable record of the event thereafter, and perhaps encourage page creation on notable people in more than one language.

Finally, I imagine you have already read Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon, but there's another very good resource on planning and running these events here. And if you want more of my own view, here's a blogpost about an editathon I helped at last year, which might be of passing interest. Good luck with your event on Thursday. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

i have news channel called news1india in india want to publush my page

hi this is zeeshan want creat page in india for newschannel if any one can help me within the same i would really appreciate or guide me how to creat one Zee101010 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article first, it will help you a lot. FlyingShrimp (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Writing a Wiki Page- Copyright

Hi. I have written a Wiki page about my lifestyle brand and I cut-pasted content from an article that I wrote, which explains my brand; as well as from my website; which I also wrote... and the page was deleted- never really published. How do I overcome that copyright (of my own work and writing) when I re-submit my text? It seems that an automatic cyber-bot found this information; so had no idea that I INDEED was the same author of my own work. Should I create a new account? Re-submit for a Wiki page.

The same thing happened to me when I added my name to Wiki... It found my website bio and called it copyright; but I am the author of everything that Wiki found to create their argument to delete my profiles. Please help me understand the best way to get these pages onto the Wiki platform. Thanks. CatherineGioia333 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To properly donate copyrighted material you need to follow the procedure at WP:DCP, which also explains what doing so means.

However, you state you are writing about your lifestyle brand. You need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you edit further. You should not directly edit about your brand, instead submitting a draft using Articles for Creation. Please understand that you cannot use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and that we are only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a published author, blogger, film-maker and others are asking me where is my wiki page. I see 1000s of wiki pages on other people. This is how I learn about them and their backgrounds. How are these pages created? Please inform the proper protocol...

And to branding. Maybe I used the wrong word... I conceived of a lifestyle "term"-word, concept that has generated much interest; and I want to make sure it is in wikipedia. What is the correct protocol to do that? When I listed it before; again the cyber bot found my own written work and deleted the entry because of copyright... but it is my OWN work, vision, idea, writing. Thanks for informing. cGioia333 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

1) Focus on your business such that independent news organizations write stories about you without you asking them to. Subjects only get articles if there are multiple, independent, professionally-published sources about them.

2) Focus on your business so much that enough of these news stories appear that someone with no connection to you uses those news sources to write about your brand. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion.

3) Do not edit the resulting article, because you have a conflict of interest.

4) ???

5) PROFIT!

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: I would add that any article would not be "your wiki page", but a Wikipedia article about your brand/business. You would not have exclusive control over it, and any content good and bad can be in it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. It is not necessarily a good thing for you to have an article about your business here, see WP:PROUD, WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, so I don't write an "article" about myself. Someone else independently decides to do so; and it appears? Also, on the term I conceived... I have been writing about it over the past few years; and now more so; also books... Shouldn't i be the one to write the term into the wiki space as an "article"? If anyone else did; it would then certainly be a copyright violation, yes? How else do terms that the author of the term conceives get out into the wiki public eye if not from the author him/herself? Gioia333 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: No, there's paraphrasing and summarizing. Those are not copyright violations.

What happens is some news organization decides to write about your brand. They write about it. Someone else, with no connection to you, decides to write an article on this site. They would summarize, paraphrase, and cite the news articles, not your website. There's no copyright violation there. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And, how can anything on the internet, as well, on Wiki, be written about me without my consent; if it is not me, the author of my life that writes the biography, myself? This is find strange. I am not aware of anyone else in my sphere of influence who has not had a hand in the writing of their own Wiki page??? Gioia333 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable Wikipedia biographies are written by independent, uninvolved editors, Gioia333. Although comments and corrections by the subject on the talk page are fine, the substantive decisions are made by other editors who summarize published reliable sources. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not LinkedIn, Facebook or Instagram. We have the right to include biographies of anyone who meets our notability standards, and exclude those who don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333:(ec) Your consent is not needed in order for a third party to write about your work. This happens every day in every news outlet in the world.

An important principle of Wikipedia is that as an encyclopedia it has a neutral point of view. See WP:NPOV. That cannot happen if people write about themselves or their businesses, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you have independent reliable sources, you can (as said above) submit a draft for an independent review at Articles for Creation. This may be how people you know write about themselves, though it is discouraged. (WP:AUTO) However, if your creation is not written about in independent reliable sources, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. We are only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. You cannot use Wikipedia to generate third party coverage, it must already exist. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: There's a difference between biography and autobiography. This distinction is not unique to Wikipedia. In fact, it predates Wikipedia by centuries.

Also, regarding I am not aware of anyone else in my sphere of influence who has not had a hand in the writing of their own Wiki page -- could you please point to those pages and the users in question? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333:, a couple of other things, and apologies if this seems like a pile-on. First off, if you've coined a term that you want a Wikipedia article for, the bottom line is that you can't. WP:NEO is the guideline stating that we don't have articles for neologisms that haven't been widely written about in independent reliable sources. If the only sources you have for your term are your own works, then your term hasn't gained enough public notice for a Wikipedia article. Secondly, the overwhelming number of biographical articles on Wikipedia aren't written or edited by their subjects (I'd be astonished if as many as one in ten thousand have been), a practice as others have mentioned is strongly discouraged here. Like Ian.thomson, I would be grateful to see links to any articles you believe to have been. Ravenswing 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thanks. It does actually feel and sound like you are attacking me; which is not very kind or compassionate. I am not in your world; and simply responding at this time to others in my community who are asking me to put up a wiki page about me and my lifestyle vision... So, I guess what I will do is share with them your rather harsh responses for a "teahouse" dialogue and suggest to them that there is nothing I can do.

cGioia333 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: Good idea, taking my quotes out of context and re-framing them to make me the bad guy will present you in a much more favorable light than explaining that you repeatedly ignored when multiple editors patiently explained that:

• You have a conflict of interest and should not edit articles relating to you or your brand.
• Wikipedia is not for promotion.
• Subjects must be notable (i.e. mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources).

I mean, that was explained, but you kept asking how you can write your articles to about you and your brand. At no point did anyone try to stop you about writing about anything else, or working on any other subject. I mean, it'd be more responsible to use the three bullet points to explain why Wikipedia is the wrong model for you say what people keep asking you to do, but whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333:, it's regretful that you feel hard done-by that Wikipedia has guidelines as to what can and cannot be included on the encyclopedia, but we're not at all troubled if you choose to share that fact with others who might not have known. Ravenswing 23:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: I'm sorry you feel that way. There is no intention to be harsh, just to tell you the way it is. It sounds like that what you want to do would be better accomplished on a personal website. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancies between articles.

Refer to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Numbers

It says, "In general, write whole cardinal numbers from one to nine as words" but in the main article for the section,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers

it says, "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."

Please fix this discrepancy. It can cause confusion. I have no permission to edit either article.

175.193.153.88 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. In the future, you should be able to use the relevant talk page for these issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Hello! I have found a picture of a person that I'm writing about and I want to use it for my article. The photographer have taken the photo for a medical newspaper and they did then publish it. If it's still the photographer that owns the copyright for the photo what do I need to do to be allowed to publish it here on Wikipedia. Is it enough if I just email the person and he or she sends back and tells me it's ok? And if that is ok, does the language have to be in english or can we make the agreement in another language? Nimbo.lo (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nimbo.lo, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, I'm afraid that would not be enough. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to provide a sources that anybody can freely use, and so almost all of the material in Wikipedia is licensed under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse it as long as they attribute it. You would need the photographer to carry out the procedure outlines in donating copyright materials: they may well be willing to do this, but you probably need to make the consequences clear to them. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Nimbo.lo and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, plain permission is insufficient because the photo has to be released under an appropriate licence, and it's possible that the newspaper owns the copyright. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for details. Dbfirs 21:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Update of Smoky Dog, wikipedia

Much is still happening with Smoky. For example she now has 11 memorials in the U.S. three in Australia and as of July 21, 2017, one at the 1st International Animals of War memorial in Pozieres, France. She also has been awarded-- 1)The first War Dog combat medal of Australia, backdated in 2012, in large ceremony at the Royal Brisbane Womans Hospital formerly the U.S. 109th Fleet Hospital where Smoky served as the first therapy dog in Aug.'44. The Aussies had no war dogs until the Vietnam War. Today a War Dog must serve 28 days straight in combat to receive the award. Research shows Smoky was born in Brisbane, Queensland at 101 Queen Street in mid 1943. At about five months old sold to a US Army couple. She served 24 months with the 5th USAAF serving 18 months straight in combat from New Guinea to Korea. In 2015 Smoky received the extremely rare and highest honor Animal Hero can receive, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, "RSPCA Purple Cross " medal of Australia. She is only the 10th recipient animal hero to receive the award for bravery in 164 years, dating back to Crimean war, 1864. In 2017 the United States War Dog handlers Association awarded Smoky the "Unofficial War Dog of WWII" its Service Medal and title of "MWD Smoky." Another memorial is underway. Sincerely, Bill Wynne, Smoky's owner trainer. Age 96. (photos available for proof) Can this be inserted in Smoky's Wikipedia? 2607:FCC8:67C9:800:78ED:8918:9F8E:EB43 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user. Yes, all that can be added to the article as long as there are references to prove it, like newspapers, magazine articles, etc. If you have them, could you post the links on the article talk page? Somebody can then use them to add the relevant information to the article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Faisal Jama Omar

Faisal Jama is a public figure and Somali  retired international Athlete. He have 3 National Records in 1500,3000m and 5000m

He was born in Hargeisa on March 24 1987. He is one of most decorated Somali Athletes He also played soccer where he was nicknamed Figo after the Portugal and real Madrid legend, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal Jama Omar (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Faisal Jama Omar - this is the Teahouse, where editors are able to ask questions regarding editing on Wikipedia. You appear to have errandly attempted to create an article here, which is not the intended purpose of this forum. Moreover, your username indicates that you have a conflict of interest in creating this article, and that it is autobiographical in nature. Editors are urged to refrain from penning articles about themselves, so please do not do so. If you wish to make another article, consult your first article prior to doing so. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

New article

Hi, I recently created an article called Paper.io. I first created Draft:Paper.io and when I was finished with the draft, I moved it to the article. Right now, the draft is a redirect. Should it be deleted?

Thanks.

Peterye2005 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)