Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aethalides (talk | contribs) at 10:55, 24 March 2018 (→A question on potential spam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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


Variation of WP policy across the various language editions

Where is policy covering the degree/extent to which the different language editions should follow common policies (e.g., re RS) ? I see WP:ABOUT says "All of these are maintained, updated, and managed by separate communities …", but was looking for further guidance re commonality/divergence of policies. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Humanengr and welcome to the Teahouse! Each language wiki tends to develop its own policies and runs more or less independently ("more or less" as the Wikimedia Foundation does have some control in matters of copyright, is the server host, etc.), so they can vary (somewhat) widely. For instance, the English Wiki seems to have one of the higher notability standards, when compared to other language Wikis. I hope this helps to answer your question and apologize that I am unable to give more of a straight forward one off hand. If anyone else has anything to add, I would welcome them to chime in. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(As a memory prompt:) Perhaps there were some 'founding' documents declaring intent to host WP's in various languages? Humanengr (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that for every Wiki they are given the liberty to change and write their own policies as they see fit. @Kudpung: You have been around here for a while. Do you know of any "founding" documents or base-policies that all the Wikipedia language sites must follow? I do know that they all tend to share similar policies, but imagine the wordings are different. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware. I didn't join Wikipedia until 12 years ago, but it was still very small then with only projects in the major world languages. Best to ask the WMF. Generally, the en.Wiki has the highest standards for notability which is why we often do not even accept translations from other Wikis, the en.Wiki is the most widely fread and therefore also has to cope with the copyright laws of many different countries. Main policy differences are the ways they elect thier admins and other functionaries, also often with much lower standards. Tha major Wikis, e.g. German, French, Italian, and Spanish are probably the most closely aligned, but do still have important differences. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Humanengr:, sorry we couldn't give you a better answer. I have opened a thread on the founder (Jimmy Wales') talk page (perma link, link until archived), so hopefully we all hear something there. You definitely asked an interesting question that I am now interested in the answer to myself. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your responses and fwd'g. Humanengr (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor, The meta NPOV page indicates "This policy exists on all languages of projects that have adopted it, but the details of the policy vary significantly between projects and between different languages in those projects.” Would it be appropriate to pursue discussion of issues re variation of RS policies across languages there? (Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see another meta page focused specifically on RS.) Humanengr (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr: I just took a quick look on meta and didn't see it there either. I think it would be safe to assume/bet that the policies typically have the potential to vary significantly across policies, but don't see a harm in asking elsewhere (so long as it is in the appropriate language if a non-English project). If you learn anything, please do let me know. You have me curious. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article: List of tea varieties?

Have a cuppa - you've earned it with that question!

I've noticed that there is no article that lists different types or varieties of tea in general. Is it reasonable and useful to create such an article? Also, is it possible for a list like this to get featured (it might be either incomplete or too long while meeting the other criteria for a featured list)? FlyingShrimp (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a good question, FlyingShrimp, and what a good place to ask it. That deserves a cuppa! Most articles that we have on one form of tea or another seem to use this template: {{Teas}}, which lists them all at the bottom of each tea-related page. Some people argue that when we have a template listing everything we don't need a 'List' to duplicate it; others seem to disagree and think that both approaches have merit. But there again there is also this List of Chinese teas. The problem I envisage is defining what is meant by 'tea'. I'd suggest that limiting a list to only those notable/recognised varieties based on Camellia sinensis would be manageable if anyone were so minded to create one. A question to pose on the talk page of Tea, perhaps? Regards from the tea-drinking capital of the world[citation needed], Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this elaborate reply, this is exactly what I needed to know, also thanks for that nice cup of tea:) ! I guess I'll actually try to get more information on the Tea talk page. FlyingShrimp (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this list: EN:Category:Chinese teas, and this one EN:Category:Chinese tea. Broichmore (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm game for chipping in to this mini-project, @FlyingShrimp:. It seems like, from the general vibe, that it should be, not a single list, but a number of lists:  List of Japanese teas, List of oolong teas, List of tea cultivars. That sound like what you were thinking?  Nessie (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention:  Lists of brands of awful teabags you wished you'd never bought and why you should stick to proper loose tea in future! Regards from the Teahouse, and have fun, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Editing Company Wikipedia

Hi all. I am new to wikipedia and trying to update the company page for Vermeer. I am very transparent about working for the company, but my motives are not to advertise or promote our brand, as I understand this is not the place. The page is just very outdated and has a lot of inaccuracies regarding dates. I simply want to remove these inaccuracies. I have two reference books written by a third party publisher but sponsored by the company that I am pulling dates from. These citations got denied. The company is privately owned, therefore it is near impossible to find information on it from an unrelated third party. All of the third party resources I can find are either inaccurate or unapproved. Yet it appears that the person who edited this before me was just citing the company website and other pages that no longer exist. I guess my question is, what is considered an appropriate source here: books written using company archives, third-party websites, or the company website? Your help is very appreciated. Thanks. --porch projector 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PorchProjector (talk • contribs)

@PorchProjector:. For starters, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Primary sources. Generally we want reliable sources that are independent of the article subject, not written by, published by, or sponsored by the company or anyone else with a conflict of interest. That said, for minor facts like the number of employees, who the CEO is, dates of certain verifiable events and so forth, a primary source such as the company website would be appropriate.
Also, if you are attempting any substantive changes beyond minor error corrections, it would be best to propose your changes on the article's talk page. You can use the template {{request edit}} to preface your request. This will cause your request to appear in a category listing monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you've been doing that. I see two paths forward: (a) you can remove the sentences that cannot be reliably sourced, or (b) you can state your case to the reviewer on the talk page, explaining that independent sources don't exist, and explaining why the reviewer was incorrect in his reasoning. Generally, however, if no independent sources exist to support a claim, the claim does not need to be in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the help! I will try that. porch projector 16:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PorchProjector (talk • contribs)
@Anachronist: Hey, me again! So I took your advice and used the company website instead of the book for the dates we invented new equipment. An editor just came by and deleted everything that used the company website, a majority of it having been there before I even began suggesting edits. I figured that since the information is verifiable dates of when we released new products, it makes sense to use our website. Either way, no third party sources have published this information. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you again for your help! --''porch projector'' (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PorchProjector: I have to agree that the company history section included far too many details. A broad historical overview is better, perhaps mentioning significant products that might be notable in their own right. Statements about personal events and motivations aren't appropriate. Finally, if you have a disagreement about content, you need to talk to the editor with whom you disagree. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

draft "approval"

I have been hoping to create an article about the writer Renee Gladman. When I went to create the article, I found that a draft had already been created:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Renee_Gladman.

This draft had been rejected for publication, I'm not sure under what circumstances, by an editor named GeoffreyT2000.

I cleaned up the article a LOT and added a number of citations. I re-submitted it for publication, because somehow I couldn't just publish it directly (or couldn't figure out how). Weeks later, it hasn't been approved. I even reached out to GeoffreyT2000 via his talk page, and haven't heard back.

Can you please help me publish this article? Thank you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewestin (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mewestin, and welcome to the Teahouse! You have successfully submitted the draft you have improved for review. Now all you have to do is wait. In the meantime, you can keep improving it. You should especially add new independent sources. Use them to include even more information. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mewestin, the draft is correctly queued to be reviewed, so it will happen. I just took a quick look through the list of references, the impression I get is that the article is largely based on Gladman's own writing about herself and her work. You should try to base it mostly on what independent sources, such as professional critics, journalists and academics have written. That is what makes an author notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. Wikipedia cares very little for what the subject of an article or the subject's employees, agents, representatives, friends or relatives have said about the subject. It's only when disinterested outsiders have taken sufficient note of the subject to cause them to publish significant in depth information about the subject, that it has become notable. You are welcome to continue working on the draft while it waits for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-submitted articles do not go to the same administrator. But IMO, the draft will be rejected again. Nothing Gladman writes, nor interviews of Gladman, are valid as citations. That is currently a lot of the draft's content. Limit the article to describing what people have published ABOUT Gladman. David notMD (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD, it's actually "not the same reviewer", most AFC reviewers are not administrators. I'm one of the few that are also admins, the roles do not really overlap much. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Question about editing a page (or creating a new page) for a U.S. government program that has been renamed/rebranded

I'm the Executive Editor of HIV.gov--which was previously known as AIDS.gov. We would like to know the proper procedure(s) for either editing the existing AIDS.gov page or starting a new page for HIV.gov and pointing readers of the old page to it.

We have thoroughly reviewed the rules for editors with close associations, and we find ourselves in a quandary about how to ensure that information about the original program remains available, while also providing information about our current incarnation.

Although HIV and AIDS are no longer on the health “radar” for many Americans, the current state of the domestic HIV epidemic (particularly in communities of color), the threat of a rising tide of new infections associated with opioid-related injection drug use, and the availability of groundbreaking new methods for both HIV treatment and prevention make it imperative that people who are living with, or at risk for, HIV and AIDS can find accurate and consistent information across all reliable platforms and sources.

Since Wikipedia is the "go-to" source for information on everything under the sun, we want to be sure that people who come to you before they come to us get that accurate information and know how to find us if they want to know more. Thank you in advance for any advice/suggestions you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigeb11 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Paigeb11: - thanks for taking this through the correct channels. You have accurately identified the conflict of interest that you suffer from. Any edits to the article would require supporting citations from reliable sources to remain, so any edits which you would like to make should include such references. You should also contact the relevant WikiProject, to double-check any edits you would like to make, and use the talk page, rather than editing directly, to suggest changes. The edits which you have suggested above, provided that you can source reliable references, would be relatively easy to make - I would suggest looking at medical journals, published research, books on the topic or media coverage. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paigeb11, I have moved the article to HIV.gov as the site itself is a good source for its own name. But Stormy clouds is correct that you need to edit carefully because you do have a conflict of interest. Supplying additional independent published reliable sources would help the existing article, and sources are vital for any suggested addition to its content. Please post any suggested changes to Talk:HIV.gov. Please inclkude source information with such suggestions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paigeb11, a common pitfall of major updates such as this is the loss of historical information. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles about organizations should primarily be about the history of the organization. The latest news/campaign/product lauch/etc is of relatively little interest here. So please do not for example remove previous brands/logos, rather place them in historical context. Aim at expanding the article rather than "replacing" it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do i submit an biography of Founder/ Ceo of a business?

How do i submit an biography of Founder/ Ceo of a business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlene Reena (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. If the person is truly notable somebody unaffiliated will write the biography without being prompted. Jehochman Talk 08:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darlene Reena: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not social media like LinkedIn or Facebook to merely post biographies. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable(as Wikipedia defines notability). Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wishes to say about themselves, but only in what third parties state about a person. Not every person merits an article here, even within the same field. If you are associated with this person, you have what we call a conflict of interest, please read about this at WP:COI. If you work for this person, you are a paid editor and required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy. As Jehochman states, a good indication that a person merits an article on Wikipedia is that someone not associated with them took notice of them enough to write about them here. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New name for a location

Hi,

I'm trying to update a page for a stadium. The name of the stadium has changed due to a new sponsorship and I can't find how to update the page title and URL. Can you help?

Thanks J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcoleman10 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcoleman10: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please tell us which article you are talking about. Changing the title of a page involves a page move. If you can show a source for the name change, we can help you move the page to a new title. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnybrook_Stadium - it will be known as Energia Park now due to a new sponsorship deal that owns naming rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.88.198 (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in before posting, so your edits are properly attributed to you. I see that the article has been edited to reflect the name change, but I don't see a source provided. If you can provide a source for the name change, the page can be moved. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this page will show the new connection. https://www.energia.ie/energiaparkJcoleman10 (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcoleman10: I Okay, I had moved the page, but I moved it back. I was not aware that you had already started a formal name change request discussion. That discussion needs to proceed before a page move can take place. Apparently the standard practice for stadiums in the British Isles is to not use sponsored names; if you wish to change that, you will need to make a case in the discussion you started. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks. Sorry about the effort to change. this is a new process for me. How can I see where the discussion is started? I thought this was it? Just as a point other stadiums have this done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bet365_Stadium and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Stadium so I didn't see it as an issue. Can you let me know how to proceed now? Is there a link you can share?Jcoleman10 (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion you started is at Talk:Donnybrook Stadium. Feel free to bring up any other relevant situations there. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't publish my article from the Sandbox

It has been more than 15 days since I've created my article in the Sandbox and still no "More" button and any possibility to publish my article. I'm confused and need help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Genesis_Vision_Project/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesis Vision Project (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an unconfirmed account you don't have the ability to move a page, which is just as well as it certainly isn't fit to be an article at present. When you have improved the draft you can submit it for review through the Article for creation process, but firstly you need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and Help:Referencing for beginners. Looking at your user name, you also need to read about conflict of interest, paid editing, and about corporate usernames. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help updating a page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_James_(chemist)

Because of potential conflict of interest – I will not edit the page.

However, I would like the page to have information about a “Royal Society Wolfson Merit Award” Link to indicate award: https://royalsociety.org/people/tony-james-7292/

Suggested text update:

From: Tony D. James FRSC (born 7 October 1964) is a chemist who is currently Professor of Chemistry at the University of Bath. To: Tony D. James FRSC (born 7 October 1964) is a chemist who is currently Professor of Chemistry at the University of Bath and recipient of the Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit award.

If someone other than me could update the page that would be great

Chemosensors (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Chemosensors I've done that for you. In future you can ask on the article's talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to Theroadislong's response, Chemosensors, if you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple COI request, then any talk page request that you make will likely be dealt with much quicker. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the changes and the advice for future changes Chemosensors (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-english references

Is it allowed to use material not written in english as a reference in an article? Not a very active user (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Not a very active user. The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is yes, but English-language sources are preferred if they exist and will do the job of verifying the material concerned. See WP:NONENG for more information. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading the professional profile of my friend

Dear Wiki Family,

Hi, I am new to Wiki-Edit community and seek your help in publishing a professional profile of my friend. I do have all related info, that I wish to upload and make it searchable. Can you please help me achieve this.

Kind Regards (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsri 1175 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amsri 1175 and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. It is not social media like Facebook for posting "profiles". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources.(WP:RS) If this friend is not written about in independent reliable sources, they will not merit an article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Upload

Hello there lovely editors, I would like assistance in uploading images to articles. I have uploaded a couple but all have been deleted which has raised a flag on my account. I would like to know what I am not doing right and how I can go about it as per the rules governing image uploads. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlikotoSam (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you own the copyright to the image (rather than just owning a copy), read WP:Donating copyright material. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could this article I’ve written be moved to Mainspace please?

I’ve written an article on Chartmaster Infurion, here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thaddeus976/Graham_Donald_Warner

I’m wondering, is this good enough to be published on Wikipedia? If so, could someone move it to mainspace please, under Chartmaster Infurion? Many thanks. Thaddeus976 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Thaddeus976 Your draft is sourced to IMDb which is not a reliable source, the other source is merely a catalogue listing. Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by reliable sources so that information can be verified.

We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. If there are no such sources then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the IMDb links confirm that Graham Warner did indeed have a credit as sound effects assistant in the film “Hangar 10”, listed under Sound Department, and that he added “additional material” under the Music Department for the film “With Love From...Suffolk”. I’m not sure of any other way to confirm that. That ‘The Passerby’ is used in the film Hangar 10 is confirmed by the end credits of the film which mention both Graham Warner and Chartmaster Infurion by name. All I can say is - everything I’ve written is absolutely accurate and correct. Whether Chartmaster Infurion is noteworthy as an individual or not I guess is another thing! Thaddeus976 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thaddeus976. I know it can seem strange; but his appearance in lists, and in IMDb are not enough to establish notability. The special sense in which Wikipedia uses that word does not mean famous, or popular, or important, or influential, or significant (though it is often correlated with these). It means that several people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write in some depth about the subject, and been published in places with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. If that is not the case, then there is nothing which could go into an article on the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Theroadislong and ColinFine. I will take that as a no for this article then. I will keep the code somewhere safe and maybe one day, if Chartmaster Infurion is written about somewhere reputable, I can try again. Thaddeus976 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K2-146b

I’m back again. I do need help with an article I created, K2-146b. Anything I can do to improve it? Based on these citations/websites used in the article, anything I can do to improve the article? —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LovelyGirl7 - welcome back. I only have very limited experience with astronomy related articles - but it looks pretty good to me. It's got through WP:NPP OK, and looking at your sources, I can only really suggest you repeat the year of discovery in the Infobox, and add some of the interesting stuff that us Earth-dwellers can appreciate. Namely, that it orbits much closer to its sun than Mercury does, and that being 97% closer to its sun than Earth is to ours, it orbits very rapidly and well inside what would be regarded as the 'habitable zone'. Providing your sources are reliable, I feel these little extras turn a dull factual stub into something that starts to seem more interesting. I don't think I can agree with your use of the words "Neptune-sized" - I realise the need not to copy phrases, but for the sake of accuracy this is not the same to me as "Neptune-like" which is the term one source uses. On checking further, I see Neptune is c.17 x larger than Earth, whereas one of your sources states K2-146b i just a bit under 2 1/4 times the size of earth (2.2 times). I hope this feedback is of value. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: I love using sources. I did added the sentence you mentioned about Mercury. What do you think about the sentence I just added? Should I remove the “Neptune-like” part from the article? Feel free to also do improvements to the article if you would like. —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

Hello, I am a new editor and i have added to the tropical medicine page as part of my semester coursework. I would love some suggestions or feedback before moving my work over to the mainspace. Here is a link to my sandbox. Kpo1364 (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kpo1364 welcome to our tropical Teahouse! How refreshing: not only does the tea taste lovely, but your article is pretty impressive, too. Great stuff. Of course, here at the Teahouse life wouldn't be the same if we couldn't point out a few things that you could improve on - but, hey ho, that's the way we all are here. First off, the one really important thing to say is that, whilst it's fine to prepare coursework like this in your sandbox, there is already an existing mainspace article entitled Tropical medicine, so we can't allow two. But that said, once your work has been assessed as a stand alone piece, there's no reason why you shouldn't incorporate it into the existing article. I hope that's precisely what you're planning. Heaven knows - it could do with improving. (your version looks a lot more interesting - at quick glance). It will be just a quick glance, but I'm sure others here could suggest additional things for you.
Your lead sentence should match our Manual of Style by emboldening the first use of the title. (we can ignore the odd positioning of the Contents box simply because it's in your sandbox). A good trick to checking style of writing is to read it out loud, ideally from a printed version you can annotate as you go along. Had you done so, I'm sure you'd have noticed how odd this sounds Physicians in this field must learn to diagnose and treat a variety of diseases and ailments that they may encounter in the field. May I suggest you work through and try and make every sentence much more succinct and factual? Remove any tendency to write as if it were an essay - you are writing an encyclopaedia today! Instead, how about simply: Physicians in this field diagnose and treat a variety of diseases and ailments. ?? Then go on to explain what these are.
You could create a distinct section with the title 'History' prior to that on 'Training'. Your references mostly look well formed, though there are a couple of red highlights to indicate some errors you need to fix. I like that you've used repeated citations well. My quick glance didn't let me check whether for some references you've listed the entire pages of that document, whereas we ask simply that the individual page or pages are cited to identify precisely where each factual statement is located within it. You can use {{rp}} for this (just click the link and you'll work out what to do with it). I'd quite like to see a 'Further reading' and a 'See also' section, and headings with titles that follow our style rules on capitalisation (see WP:MOSCAPS. All said, this isn't at all a bad piece of work - perhaps a bit too essay-like in places, with a lot of oft-repeated words and phrases (like 'these diseases' in the NTD section) which could do with being sorted out. There's no sign of any copyright violations, and I hope you'll feel able to carefully insert key elements into the live article. (You could even link to your sandbox from its talk page and discuss your proposal to add content with those already watching the TM article. I hope this is a useful start for you - I certainly think you've made a superb start at becoming a great Wikipedian. Well done. Regards from a very un-tropical UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Kpo1364. If you wanted to fix the cite errors, they're nothing big, just date format stuff. (If you only have a month for a journal issue, just use October 2015, not 10/2015, or for a full date always 15 October 2015, not 15 Oct. 2015 etc), although the last ref might need to be changed from cite web to another template to fix. Only other thing that jumped out was that in one sentence, you lapsed a bit and referred to "our military" Interesting as it is to ponder Wikipedia with its own armed forces, its not really the sort of thing you should say in an article. I thought it looked pretty good so far. Curdle (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I move my article from the Draft page to the main Wikipedia page?

For the second time, I have received this message:

"Hello, Davidhanson471. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Integrated Rubber Network Models". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code."

I am confused about what the Wikipedia Editors want me to do to have this article moved to the Wikipedia main page (I thought that I had done this but apparently not). If there are objections to the content or its suitability for Wikipedia, I would be happy to address and correct them but I can't seem to find anything to respond to. Could someone please tell me how to move forward on this issue? Thank you. 14:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Davidhanson471 (talk)

Looking over the deleted draft's history, I see that it was declined, then you did nothing to fix the article, then it was deleted because of six-months inactivity, then it was restored, then you did nothing again, then it was deleted again.
Instead of trying to fix a problematic article, I find it's best just to do the following:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find about the subject.
2) Focus on just the sources that are specifically about the subject and provide in-depth coverage (i.e. not sources that only mention the subject in one line, or sources that only discuss the subject in relation to the primary topic), and that are not dependent on or affiliated with the subject (so if the subject is a company, not the company's website).
3) Summarize those sources, placing citations at the end of each summary. You might want to do this off-site, in a program like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++ (programs with heavy formatting like Microsoft Word and LibreOffice writer are more likely to have issues in copying).
4) Combine overlapping summaries where possible (without arriving at new statements no individual source supports), repeating citations where necessary.
5) Paraphrase this draft to ensure there are no copyright violations.
6) Post this version of the draft, wait until it's received approval, and then expand it using sources you dropped in step 2 (just make sure they don't make up more than half of the sources, and don't let affiliated or dependent sources make up more than half of that).
Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It has gone again, as you failed to do anything after the reminder you received a month ago at User talk:Davidhanson471#Draft:Integrated Rubber Network Models concern. You probably ought to remind yourself of the discussion at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 673#How do I respond/ correct objections to draft: Rubber Elasticity/ Integrated Network Models?. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being so remedial but...

On Ted Neeley's wikipedia page, there's a parenthetical note asking how it could be possible that he could have performed on the Smothers Brother's Show, and I found a clip on youtube but couldn't figure out how to add to the References section. I noticed the biography notation above the editing box, and it said to use 'high quality sources' and I wasn't sure if you guys wanted a youtube page being linked to as proof of a thing as opposed to something... I don't know, more formal I guess, but I could've sworn I'd seen youtube pages in reference sections on yall before, but just didn't know how to have it applied. I've made small typo corrections in the past, but aren't sure what yall'd want with the two cents I picked up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJeg43-FTmg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehappypoet (talk • contribs) 18:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome to the Teahouse, Thehappypoet. Looking at Neeley's article, I can understand the objection: that the way it's written, it seems to stipulate that Neeley appeared on SmoBro after 1974, well after the show had been cancelled. If you rewrote the mention to him having appeared earlier in his career, that would make much more sense. That being said, YouTube can't be used as a source to support the notability of a subject, but this is a case where it can be used to verify a simple visual fact. Ravenswing 22:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing, it is not at all the case that YouTube can't be used as a source to support the notability of a subject. Many, perhaps most, YouTube videos are not reliable sources and can't be used on Wikipedia at all, unless that video is the subject of an article (very rare). Some YouTube videos would be primary sources, and of little or no value in establishing notability. Some YouTube videos are fully reliable secondary sources, and of as much value as printed news publications. Youtube is a platform, not a publisher, and everything depends on who actually published a given clip, and what it shows. Specific context is vital. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the context that is most useful for the Wikipedia novice is that YouTube seldom meets the appropriate standards for linking to an article at all, and that the overwhelming number of links to TV shows or movies violate copyright standards. As a frequent flyer at WP:AFD, I can think of scarcely any cases where YouTube links were legitimately considered to satisfy the GNG, and we do a disservice in suggesting otherwise to newcomers. Ravenswing 02:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Objectivity/Promotional Writing

Hello. I've been told that my writing is often too promotional on pages that I try to edit. However, several competing pages write in a similar manner and are not penalized. The current "editor" im working with wanted me to pay him to make changes but I dont think that it's ethical. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.128.60.45 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Could you tell us the names of the articles that you are working on, and the name of the editor who wants you to pay them? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Indexes

Can someone please explain to me how Wikipedia:Indexes works. Is this a valid form of categorisation, or is it a bunch lists like any other lists? Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply, or reply on my talk page, this page is too busy to have on my watchlist)[reply]

Hey @Prince of Thieves:, can you tell us more about your plans for what kind of index you want to do, or not? I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia:Indexes until you mentioned it. Looks like it may be falling out of favor, as the portal may get deleted and the template mentioned, Template:For index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) looks like it was only ever a test page. I'm not the most seasoned piece of wood around here, but I don't see the big advantage of an Wikipedia:Indexes over Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, but i'm not one to kink-shame. If it works for what you want to do you could still go for it, but be prepared if the sun sets on the format and whatever that may entail. Nessie (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nessie: Thanks, but this was in regard to a debate on whether to get rid of one, rather than making a new one. And yes, it looks like it's on the way out due to disuse. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hola

Hello my friends, I am a little overwhelmed about this site. Can someone help me please? As editors maybe someone would like to contribute to Wikipedia with a Low Profile software engineer who has created many inventions to the world? I am his wife. I read that I can't write the article by myself. At home, we have many prototypes already created by him and his Software engineering team. He is working in his biggest project now. He doesn't like recognition. Thank you. Best regards. --Dannykangoo (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)danny[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Dannykangoo Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with your husband have chosen to publish about him. The article would be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about him. You would need to show that he meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Would it be ok that ESL users contribute to English Wiki? --H.S Warren K 01:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howd Warren (talk • contribs)

Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Anyone with some capacity for communication in English and enough common sense to avoid trouble is welcome to edit Wikipedia. A number of upstanding and vital editors speak English as a second language. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
First, thank you being a helpful editor and for reading this post. Can you please provide your feedback on adding a new section to the Chandra Levy article. The article is currently rated a "Good Article", I just want to be careful and want to enhance the article versus degrading it.
The section would likely be titled "In popular culture", I have done some extensive research and there are at least 12 documentaries concerning her case, should I add the section?
Thank you,
Vwanweb (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.
I have posted this topic on the articles talk page, I am just reaching out to another group of editors for guidance.

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse Vwanweb! What sorts of sourcing have you discovered? Could you give some examples? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vwanweb. I am not a big fan of "in popular culture" sections, but many articles contain them. So, if included, the content must be policy compliant and truly encyclopedic. Please read a very good essay called Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. I do not believe that documentaries about the disappearance and murder of Chandra Levy belong in such a section. Any such section should be about fictional works, song lyrics, poems, paintings and sculptures. You say that you have found twelve documentaries. The best of those should be used as reliable sources. The worst, which are amateur, repetitive or those that advance conspiracy theories, should be ignored. Because Gary Condit was falsely accused, our policy on biographies of living people requires that we be very cautious about including any sensationalistic or poorly referenced content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to publish my draft

Hi According to a reviewer on my talk page, subject that i am interested in writing about is non-notable on Wikipedia standards. Subject Mr. Abhijeet Gholap is a Indian National award winning film producer (reference quoted in the draft). He is also a successful entrepreneur and is founder of Optra Ventures that consist of OptraSCAN which is part of Cancer MoonShot 2020 project.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/2999965, https://www.360dx.com/business-news/optrascans-demand-service-may-make-digital-pathology-more-affordable#.WrNAeOhubcc, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161018005285/en/NantOmics-Launches-Augmented-Intelligence-Program-On-Demand-Digital

Kindly help me to understand Wikipedia standards ~Optrajennifer

@Optrajennifer: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In examining the draft, I would first note that the way I read it and the sources is that a film that he worked on won an award, not he himself. The sources all seem to just mention Abhijeet Gholap, discuss something he is involved with, or consist of an interview with him, neither of which is sufficient to establish notability. There needs to be in depth coverage of him in independent reliable sources that indicates how Abhijeet Gholap meets the notability guidelines for biographies listed at WP:BIO. I must agree with what you have been told on your user talk page that it seems unlikely such sources exist. Please understand that not every person merits an article here. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References, online or printed

Good morning,

When giving references, isn't it preferable to cite a website containing articles about an individual? Or you only prefer articles from megazines? I don't write articles about myself or friends or colleague or my company, but I'm told that I write articles about people I'm close to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA Media Agency (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The poster has been blocked for promotional editing under a promotional user name, but since it is a relevant question: Sources can be online or offline as long as they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Sources that are easier for the reader to access are preferrable, but the first requirement is that the source is reliable. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Online sources are more convenient for readers who want to look at a source, perhaps to learn more about specific information cited in the article. One potential problem, however, is that online sources might disappear for some reason. Therefore, it's advisable to use a web archiving service, such as the Internet Archive or archive.is, to create an online backup copy of the original page. Many citation templates contain spaces for the address of the archived copy and the date the archived copy was created, so that those two items appear in the citation. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Arthur Margoschis, Want to know if any voluntary writers are assigned by Wikipedia

My article Draft:Arthur Margoschis has been declined once for not being in an encyclopedic format and peacock terms. It is still at a draft stage. I feel that my article is a very important one. It is about a Christian SPG Missionary who made valuable contributions to my place and people. Most of his details could be at Oxford and Cambridge libraries. Now am not able to consistently do researches on him, and write this article. Now I just wanted to know if there are any voluntary writers who are assigned by Wikipedia to complete this article. by Johnson.Johnson.devaraj (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Draft:Arthur Margoschis
Hello, Johnson.devaraj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not assign anyone to write any article. It is possible that some volunteer might choose to work on the draft you have created, but there is no guarantee. From a very brief glace at the draft, you have a fair amount of information and a number of sources already collected. I don't know how high quality those sources are, or what more might be wanted.
Note that Wikipedia articles should use the neutral point of view. They should not be written to praise or blame anyone or anything, but to present the facts as documented in published reliable sources. peacock terms and Puffery should be avoided, but that is a matter of writing style, not research. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello Johnson.devaraj welcome to our Teahouse. No, as stated above, everyone here is a volunteer, and no one can assign anyone to any individual task, I'm afraid. (We even have to make our own tea!)
That said, at a quick glance, your problem seems less with references and much more with the style of writing you have used and how you have included far too much petty detail, some of which is not supported by inline citations. My advice would be to cut out any sentence that cannot be supported by a reference. Do this one line at a time, ensuring that your words are not accidentally portraying him or his town in pleasant terms - just use factual terms. By way of example, there's no need to state that he was a 'capable doctor', even though you have a reference to a person who wrote exactly this. It's just stating the obvious, and is irrelevant trivia. That he was a doctor is a different thing altogether. Trying to cut this article down to half its size is a good way to force yourself to decide what to excise. Be cold and clinical (i.e. neutral) in what you write, and I'm sure you'll get there. Sometimes less is more. (I haven't considered issues like WP:Notability, which is always key here, but I suspect this won't be a major issue, and the reviewer didn't highlight this. Does any of this assist you and give you confidence to move forward? I hope so. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate language sets

Is Cubic function and in other languages pl:Równanie sześcienne. Similar is Quartic function and pl:Równanie czwartego stopnia. Is possible merge English and other version to Polish and others version? I can't merge because is different WikiData. Borneq (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borneq, the Polish articles are about the respective equations, rather than fuctions. I have no idea whether it's really a meaningful distinction, someone more familiar with the subject could better advise, so I'm asking WikiProject Mathematics for opinions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, in English Wikipedia, there is only one article for Cubic function and Cubic equation, the latter being a redirect to the former, while there are two different entries in Wikidata. I have previously encountered the same problem with Fibonacci number and Fibonacci sequence. This has been solved by the magic command {{Interwiki extra|qid=Q23835349}} at the end of the article (the qid must be adapted). D.Lazard (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful if someone could write a bot for scanning the redirects having a Wikidata entry and adding the magic command at the end of the target of the redirect. D.Lazard (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In most Wikipedia languages (English, Polish,etc) is only one article, but problem is in German version. There are shorter and longer article. Longer enclosing shorter (?) and German version force all other languages to have both versions or exists disjoint language sets for this subject. Borneq (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The other day I uploaded (JFB-Profile4.jpg) a picture of the mathematician Jeffrey Brock, which got deleted because of copyright issues. I agree with that decision. Since then, the author of the picture (Jeffrey Brock) has added a line to the website where that picture is located (https://www.math.brown.edu/~brock/) declaring that he's the author, and included another line (visible when hovering over the picture) declaring that the picture may be used.

Still, the new upload of the picture got deleted. Can anyone advice?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janedbdp (talk • contribs) 11:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That looks to me to be a valid and acceptable copyright release. Maproom (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello Janedbdp - this looks absolutely perfect to me. (Tripods and self-timers are great things to use to take your own picture, so one doesn't have to worry about another photographer claiming its their copyright!) I can't, at a quick glance, see the notification of deletion you would have received on your talk page- there should be a link to guide you how to get an image undeleted. If you need further help with this, just come back and ask. (and don't forget to sign your messages, and include full links to pages and files you're talking about - it makes our work here much easier). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Janedbdp, welcome to the Teahouse. Your new upload was commons:File:Jeff Brock.jpg. Deleted Commons file pages can only be seen by Commons administrators so I cannot see which information you gave. I see you posted to commons:User talk:Patrick Rogel#File deleted, Jeff Brock.jpg. That user nominated the file for deletion but is not an administrator and cannot delete or undelete files. The new upload was deleted by commons:User:Ronhjones who can be contacted at commons:User talk:Ronhjones. I don't know whether Commons has a policy about licenses which are only specified as a mouseover on the image. I do see the mouseover made by this in the html source of the page:
<img class="imageStyle"
	  	title="Image: Jeffrey Brock - this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.
{{cc-by-sa-4.0|Created by Jeffrey Brock}}
"
	  	alt="head" width="223" height="330"
	  	src="files/JFB-Profile4.jpg"
	  	/>
PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks so much! I've asked the user who deleted it, as suggested. --Janedbdp (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving CSD logs?

Kosher? Permissible? Allowed but frowned upon? My CSD log is over 114k bytes, and it takes a bit of time to fully load. Anyone have thoughts on it? Thanks L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L3X1. User:L3X1/CSD log is made by Twinkle with an optional setting. I would say you are free to do what you want with it: Archive, request deletion, turn off in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, whatever. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PrimeHunter. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, L3X1, as you'll be well aware, CSD logs do get scrutinised at WP:RFA, and that there was a recent case of someone deleting theirs, and soon after standing for adminship, which caused one or two raised eyebrows. So, maybe keep it all if you think you might oneday want to wield that mop yourself. It's certainly impressively red. (Wouldn't want to bump into you on a dark editing night!). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Redirections need to be discussed? These redirects [1] [2] seem authoritarian, removing content created for years.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guilherme Burn and welcome to the Teahouse. Converting an article into a redirect is considered normal editing, and any editor may boldly do it without advance discussion if s/he considers that it improves the encyclopedia. Any other editor may revert the change. At that point the bold, revert, discuss cycle should be followed. Or you may start discussion on the talk page of the destination article and suggest undoing the revert. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DESiegel:Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article

How should I know if the select topic is notable enough to write an article on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Garginsnout (talk • contribs) 10:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pete Garginsnout, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, a topic is notable if it has been covered in some detail in multiple reliable sources. Below is some advice on creating new articles. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing templates

Good afternoon,

I'm a complete newbie and would like to know how to remove a box (I believe they are called templates) from a page that suggested there was too much advertising material in a paragraph. I have edited the paragraph and would like to remove the box. I followed the instructions (click on box, it will turn blue and click delete) but I only got 'edit'.

Can somebody give me 'idiot proof' instructions? Many thanks.

P.S. It says above to place question at the bottom of the page, I'm assuming it doesn't do that automatically, I also don't know how to do that. When I click on 'publish changes' at the bottom of this question......what changes? I find this all very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecloggs (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spacecloggs and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The box is known as a maintenance or clean-up tag or notice, and it is produced via a template, in this case probably Template:Advert. This will show up in the wiki-source as {{Advert}}. It may be removed by editing to remove that piece of code. However, if you are at all unsure that the problem has been completely fixed, and all advertising tone removed, I suggest that you post on the talk page of the article involved, and request that a more experienced editor review the situation. If you mention here what article you are looking at, one of the volunteers here would probably examine the situation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earin

An entry that I just made was redirect with all the info entered deleted without a discussion. The redirect has no information about the entry listed. Note that I did provide sources and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnuwame (talk • contribs) 14:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jnuwame, and welcome to the Teahouse. SamHolt6 converted the article Earin into a edirect pointing to i.am+, with the message redirected article to i.am+, the company which recently bought out Earin. Earin did not receive significant coverage, nor did it actually produce any products due to project delays. Any verifiable info about Earin could be added to the i.am+ article, with proper sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, but my issue is that ll other references/citations were deleted with no discussion. The redirect - removed all other references and history. Such as [1] Which the first product was first delivered in 2015, and only credits the sale company.

Here is a complete list of the history

Product reviews:

Funding details:

Media Accolades, M-2 Previews: 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnuwame (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This material is more appropriate for the article's talk page, but I will do my best to respond here. From my reading of the article and it's sources, the company is a startup that produces a limited number of wireless earbuds. However, a majority of the sources cited by the article place more emphasis on the concept of wireless earphones as opposed to delving into inter-workings of Earin itself. Other sources such as Kickstarter.com, Swedishstartups.com, and the various product reviews are all dubious sources for an encyclopedia. Citing our policy of Wikipedia:PAGEDECIDE, articles that do not have sufficient information or in-depth coverage should not have their own articles, and should instead be added to different articles. This is backed by the most recent (8 Jan 2018) citation concerning the company ([3]) which notes that the company has been bought out by i.am+.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/10/hearables/

How do I add tab on a Project Page?

Hello,

Could someone advise as to how I can add a new tab to a Project Page? The page already has 5 tabs with different content on each. Many thanks!

Srsval (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srsval. It depends how the tabs were made. I assume you refer to Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee. Editing the page shows {{:Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Tab header}} so it uses Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Tab header. You should be able to add a tab by following the existing pattern. Remember to add {{:Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Tab header}} to the top of the page the tab links to. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PrimeHunter, thanks for this. Yes it is for that project page. Ok I will have a play around. Thanks again. Srsval (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Question

Does anyone know what happened on the main page on November 16, 2016? There were alot of edits but the username has somehow been removed and I was just curious. Thanks Goveganplease (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deleting edits wouldn't make a lot of sense if we then revealed what the edits were on request... sorry, but your curiosity will have to go unsatisfied, I'm afraid. Yunshui 雲水 15:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, thanks anyways. Goveganplease (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quoted text in articles

Hi, I am in the midst of drafting a new wikipedia page and was told by someone on your help line that it is forbidden to use quoted text from other publications (i.e., because that's a copyright violation). But what if I am quoting from books or other publications to which I myself hold the copyright? Am I still still forbidden to use them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmcelroy (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mwmcelroy, and welcome to the Teahouse! The advice you were given was either incorrect, or you misunderstood it. Brief quotations are okay if they are relevant and properly formatted.
What is not okay, on the other hand, is copying long sections of text from copyrighted sources. In theory, you can use long portions of text you own copyrights to, but since this is almost always a bad idea I won't go into specifics about how to do this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Mwmcelroy, while brief quotations are indeed permited, each must be marked as a quote, attributed to the source, and must be followed by an inline citation to the source being quoted. All this and more is explained at MOS:QUOTE, which Finnusertop linked to above. I mention it explicitly here in case you did not follow the link, and so others may also learn from this response. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

First time in the Teahouse. Hope you can help.

I'd like to upload some diagrams in US and/or UK Patents, in order to illustrate inventions. The patents are all over 100 years old.

While I have read what I can in Wikipedia help pages, I am still confused about several aspects of the process.

Specific questions:

1. In order to upload an image in a Wikipedia article, do I upload it to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia commons?

2. If I upload an image from a US patent, I seem to be OK on the copyright front. Correct?

3. It seems I should tag the US patent image with "PD-US-patent". Where do I put this tag?

4. On the UK front, I see from The UK National Archives that Crown Copyright seems to apply to patent content, no matter how old, if earlier than 1 August 1989. However, the official UK position is that "no steps would be taken to enforce that copyright (notice of this was given in our Official Journal (Patents) on 25 June 1969)" for non-commercial use. How does Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons deal with this?

5. Is there a different place I should be asking these questions on Wikimedia Commons instead?

Thanks for any help you can give!

ElectricFeet (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElectricFeet: I suggest asking at WP:MCQ, which is where the folks knowledgable in copyright answer questions. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I created the Metallyticus fallax page (not of information, I know), and then added the Taxobox, but unlike every other article that has it, my one does not have links under the Scientific Classifications and Binomial Names. Why is this, and how do I fix it?

Thank you for reading and I hope you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I, nasus ille qui inde exhalat (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yours doesn't have links because the text you added in the taxobox doesn't have links. For details of how to make a wikilink, see WP:wikilink. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I, nasus ille qui inde exhalat The problem you encountered is that we have two types of Infoboxes for species articles. The one you chose to use is a manual system and requires you to add wikilinks to the relevant taxonomic levels yourself; the other is automatic and (provided the parent taxon is already in the database) will populate the infobox automatically for you. Please see Template:Taxobox/doc for more information on both systems, and Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro.
You are a very new editor here, and creating articles on species requires both biological understanding and some skill in using Wikipedia. It's great to see you wanting to reactivate WikiProject Mantodea - but please be careful of rushing in too rapidly which can only result in creating poor quality articles. It's far better to edit existing articles and take it one small step at a time until you've get the hang of things. If you create articles, please add at least one reference to show where you got the information from. You also need to add at least one Category to the bottom of the page. An easy trick is to look at related taxa and use the ones you find there. Any questions - just ask. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there @I, nasus ille qui inde exhalat:. I'm in the camp that the Automated taxobox system is the future and is in the long run easier. It is tricky at first, but If you need someone to set up the taxonomy templates drop me a line. I just made {{Taxonomy/Metallyticus}} for you so now you can use {{Speciesbox}} for any species in Metallyticus without having to create any templates. Nessie (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David Biddulph (talk), Nick Moyes (talk), and Nessie (talk) for all your help! thatsneezingkid (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article about MI (Misery Index) was rejected.

Greetings,

My draft about MI (Misery Index) was rejected? How can I find out the reason(s)?

Thank you,

There is a note on your talk page at User_talk:73.16.162.194 and also on the draft at Draft:Winter_Misery_Index. RudolfRed (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add cycloid drive cam to cycloid drive article?

Cycloid drive cam is a recently patented advancement of cycloid drive technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA2x6nWBj-k

Would it be possible to add a section under cycloid drives which explains how a modified cycloid drive, normally used only for rotary speed reduction, can now also be used for large rotary-to-linear speed reductions using a single moving cycloid drive disc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.150.215 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can find published Reliable Sources to cite for the new additions. See WP:REFB. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Getting Rejected

I don't often edit pages on Wikipedia as we have rarely been successful but just wondered if someone could give me feedback on this article we are struggling with. Been trying to update this page but keep getting rejected for "looks like advertising copy" and "relies on references". I am not sure how it can be improved, it looks pretty basic to me. Any experienced members care to provide any advice? Thanks so much! New copy follows: The American Academy of Health Behavior (AAHB)[1] was founded April 1, 1997 by Elbert D. Glover, PhD, a professor in Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at West Virginia University School of Medicine to “transform the health promotion and health education field from a teaching- and service-centered profession to one with a stronger research foundation in which discovery would be valued as a means of improving practice and enhancing public health. The origination of the Academy was based on the belief that the future growth and evolution of the health promotion and health education fields rested on a strong commitment to conducting and disseminating quality research.”[2] The initial office was located in Morgantown, West Virginia. Today, the executive offices are located in Rudolph, Ohio. The Executive Director is Joanne Sommers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendrowe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one problem is that the quoted portion is word-for-word a copy of content located at https://aahb.org/About_the_Academy. We do not permit copyright violations here; that quote is not fair use of copyright content. You'll need to write using your own words. General Ization Talk 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was our own copy from our website but I get your gist, and appreciate the advice. Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendrowe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stevendrowe, you mention "we" and "our site". Just who is "we"? The rule at Wikipedia is that each account must be used by one and only one person. Accounts may not be shared, and may not represent companies, organizations, or groups of any sort.
Also, please sign your posts on talk and discussion pages like this with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will transform this into your user name and a timestamp, or your custom signature if you set one up. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of a friend who runs the organization asked for help with editing this page since he doesn't have much coding skills, and this is how I got involved. I am not affiliated with the organization, and I am not being paid, I was just doing it as a favour. Some people at Wikipedia are giving me some bad attitude as they think I am trying to sell something. That attitude has completely put me off contributing here so I have to walk away from it. The information may have to remain out of date or incorrect which is a shame since that will my expectation about reading any other info on Wikipedia. Appreciate the time though. Goodbye. (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendrowe (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Adegnika editing

My article has been decline. Since I'm a new editor I don't have much experience. Is there anyone who would be willing to help me? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedricad (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cedricad and welcome to Wikipedia. None of the sources cited in your current draft really discusses Adegnika in detail. Either they mention him only 9in passing, or they primarily discuss his new restaurant, and not him. To build a valid Wikipedia article, there must be multiple independent published reliable sources, each of which discusses the subject in some detail, say 3-4 paragraphs or more. You would need to find and cite such sources.
Secondly, quite a bit of the draft is currently quoted or closely paraphrased from your sources. It must be written in new, original words, although based on facts from the sources. Any quotes must be marked, attributed to the originator, and cited to a reliable source.
Thirdly, your user name suggest that you might be Cedric Adegnika yourself. If you are, or if you have a financial or personal connection with him, you have a conflict of ihnterest and must openly declare your connection with Adegnika. Autobiographies are discouraged here, although not totally forbidden. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, here's the problems:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
6) Post this draft and wait for approval.
7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. 01:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me out with this draft as the submission has been declined. I'm a new writer and am having a hard time with this one. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedricad (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

content copied from draft page CEDRIC ADEGNIKA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

EditStop watching Draft:CEDRIC ADEGNIKA Submission declined on 14 March 2018 by Dan arndt (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Find sources: "CEDRIC ADEGNIKA" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference. Declined by Dan arndt 2 days ago.Last edited by Dan arndt 2 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author. Resubmit Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again. AFC-Logo Decline.svg Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: A significant number of the references are just mentions in passing and significant sections of text closely paraphrases the Miami New Times articles. Note that WP:ANYBIO requires multiple independent verifiable sources - at this stage there is insufficient there to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Known as "The Legendary South Beach Gatekeeper".[1], Cedric Adegnika (born August 3, 1973) moved from France to the US in 1995. He worked at the most prestigious venues in the country such as Bar None (owned by Sylvester Stallone), The Living Room, Man Ray, Mynt, Set, LIV and Story [2]. Throughout his career he denied access to celebrities such as Dennis Rodman [3], Wilmer Valderrama, Jamie Foxx (with whom he later became friend)& Robert De Niro establishing a reputation for himself. With a resume that includes events during the Cannes Film Festival & Paris Fashion Week, and two years at the A-list restaurant-lounge Man Ray in Chelsea New York City (owned by Johnny Depp, Sean Penn, John Malkovich, and Harvey Weinstein) [4]. It was here, eighteen years after moving to Miami and living the South Beach lifestyle, that he realized his influence. In 2013 he left his velvet rope days far behind and opened THE FLAT, a cocktail lounge which quickly became a hotspot [5], and despite his success Adegnika sold it to move to Panama City Panama where he opened LESSEP'S bistro cafe [6]

References Edit

^ https://www.thrillist.com/drink/miami/miami-beach/the-flat ^ https://www.modernluxury.com/miami/story/game-changer ^ https://pagesix.com/2010/04/30/carmen-electra-leaves-dennis-rodman-off-the-list/ ^ http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/the-flat-brings-late-night-cool-without-the-bs-to-sofi-6568392 ^ https://nypost.com/2013/01/15/miamis-new-heat/ ^ http://www.panama24horas.com.pa/gastronomia/cedric-adegnika-anuncia-la-apertura-de-lesseps-bistro-cafe-el-unico-autentico-bistro-frances-en-panama/

Hello @Cedricad: a couple things:
  • Did you read the big pink box at top of your draft? The main issue is that the article is written in too emotional/hype of a tone and just needs the dry facts without any colorful language. Also, please look at other Wikipedia biographies to see how they start out introducing a subject (it's different from what you're trying).
  • Are you writing about yourself? If so make sure you read WP:Autobiography which explains why that might be a bad idea you end up regretting. It's a quick read, take a look and you might change your mind.
Let us know if you have a follow-up question. Don't post a new question, just reply here in this section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Help with Draft/Work In Progress Page/Article

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so please excuse me for my limitations.

I've researched around for answers to my questions, getting some answers for some things and striking out on others.

Here's the draft as of now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tqiwiki/Peter_Steinmetz?wteswitched=1

Starting with the title, the name of the page should be changed to "Peter N. Steinmetz" (adding in the formality of the subject's middle name initial).

Before I submit it for review, I'm seeking help here because I imagine it's too far from being anywhere close to good enough for that.

Please advise any and all revisions to get it on its way to conforming to the Wikipedia protocol.

I added a photo of the subject, but it looks like the photographer has since passed, so striking out on getting enough of a permission or authorization to use it, and so that photo got removed, understandably, so, in the meantime, I'm seeking another photo that will work for the article.

If there's something I should keep in mind for future reference when getting articles started, from terminology here, to templates, to formatting, and so on, please advise on that, too.

Thank you for any and all help.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Tqiwiki (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tqiwiki, the draft, User:Tqiwiki/Peter Steinmetz is organized very much like a resume or CV for Steinmetz. It should instead read like an encyclopedia article about him. It should not list all of his professional publications, only the moat significant few. It need not list every professional position that he has held, and the ones it does mentions should be included in prose, not in the form of a list. It should cite several sources that are independent, and have been published by reliable sources. The content of the article should be based largely on those sources. Significant details should be directly cited to such sources. You might take a look at existing articles about scientists, such as Hazel Bishop and Joanna Aizenberg, as examples. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some advice on how to build articles:
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Underwood M1 Carbine

How do I find out if my M1 was issued to a serviceman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.212.254 (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @142.0.212.254: this page is only for questions about how to use Wikipedia itself, not answering general questions. To ask general questions from volunteer fact-finders, please visit WP:Reference Desk. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K2-155d

I’ve been doing article improvements and been asking for suggestions to add in the article (which I’ve added each one). I’m planning one day to nominate it as a GA article. However, I know it’s start class for a reason. I believe the article should be more improved first. Is there any suggestions on what I can add in the article? If so, feel free to list them down, along with the citations for them. —LovelyGirl7 talk 11:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LovelyGirl7, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your contributions. I don't see any obvious hole in the K2-155d article. i haven't searched for additional sources, so i don't know what else might be out there, but the current article seems to cover the cited sources fairly well. Unless there is more content available, I am not sure this can get up to GA. But I work more with new and C-class articles, so i am not the best person to judge that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible way to see who created a deleted article

Hello again Teahouse team. I was wondering, is there a way to view which editor created an article that has since been deleted? I know that admins are able to view deleted articles, but is their a way for a non-admin such as myself to do so? Thanks as always. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. Only admins can see the deleted revisions of a page, and that's the only way to find out who the original page creator was. You can, however, just ask an admin; whilst there may sometimes be a reason that the article creator's identity needs to be concealed, in most cases there's no good reason not to tell you. Yunshui 雲水 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the prompt response Yunshui.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SamHolt6: "What links here" can be your friend sometimes, if there is a deletion notice on the creator's talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this has been brought up multiple times, and usually shrugged off, but I agree that it would be supremely helpful in many ways to have article creation be a publicly visible logged action, but no one has taken the bait yet and made it work. GMGtalk 13:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Public Utility Commission

Thanks for the prompt input on the article I created for the Vermont Public Utility Commission; however, MatthewVanitas' message baffles me. If it's just a matter of removing the link to the PUC Web site, that's one thing; however, to imply in any way that a governmental agency that has existed since 1881 is not "notable and worth of inclusion in an encylopedia" (especially when the Vermont PUC is among many throughout the USA) makes little sense. Moreover, its a page virtually identical to content appearing under an existing Wikipedia page titled with its old/former name: Vermont Public Service Board). 13:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)VLHudson (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the content already exists at Vermont Public Service Board, creating a new separate article would be inadvisable in my view, as it would be an unnecessary content fork. Rather, a page move, which I have implemented, is in order. No view as to whether or not the article would survive the articles for deletion process, but more references, preferably from reliable sources rather than primary ones, are required, as is an article rewrite. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing article translation links

Hi, I was browsing around randomly and found that fi:raipparangaistus is linked to caning instead of birching on the Finnish side (caning has its own article fi:kepitys). I tried going to the articles wikidata page to fix any possible oversights, but i couldn't find anything. I've seen this happen multiple times in the past, is there a some kind of redirect in place? How can i fix these, is this mentioned somewhere in the wikipedia manual? NinuKinuski (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, there was a redirect tag on the Finnish article. NinuKinuski (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmala Mani Adhikary

I would like to write an article on Prof. Dr. Nimala Mani Adhikary. He is a communication scholar, developer of communication method based on eastern civilization (Sadharanikaran model of communication), has written more than 40 books and more than 60 research articles in philosophy, religion, communication, media and contemporary social issues. Is it notable topic for Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxat1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. To pass the notability guidelines, there would need to be sufficient references from reliable sources. A quick Google search indicates that you may struggle in this regard, but you should try a draft article, and then submit it for review via the articles for creation process. It is also worth noting that, if you know the proposed subject in any capacity, this is a conflict of interest, which must be disclosed. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) Hello, Saxat1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Academics and scholars can pose a particular problem for Wikipedia and its concept of Notability. You see, notability (in the special Wikipedia sense) is largely measured not by what a person has done, but what others have written and published about the person and the person's works. See our guideline on the notability of academics, particularly the "Criteria" section of that guideline. From your summery, it may well be that Professor Adhikary is notable and that a valid Wikipedia article could be written about him. But everything will depend on the number and quality of the reliable sources which can be found and cited discussing him and his work. I will add some general advice on creating such an article below. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help editing a new page

I appreciate if somebody with better skills can contribute to the English and Dutch pages of Maastricht: Open Eerlijk Democratisch Thanks in advance.

If there's a corresponding article in the Dutch wiki you could start by linking the articles together. A good way to broaden an article is to find another article in this case one of a political party and following the same form fill out the new article according to WP:REF. Please sign your posts in the future. NinuKinuski (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that nl:Maastricht: Open Eerlijk Democratisch was deleted as "propaganda" last week. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to mention you have permission to use an image in an article?

Hello,

I am creating a new article (Metallyticus fallax), and I have gotten permission to use an image on the article. Do I have to mention that I have permission (to avoid suspicion of copyright infringement), or is it unnecessary?

Thank you for reading and I hope you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I, nasus ille qui inde exhalat (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I, nasus ille qui inde exhalat, a permission is needed, but not any permission will do. In particular, "you can use this image on Wikipedia" is not adequate. The terms must allow anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercially. Various free licenses exist that make it easy to give these permissions. We recommend the Creative Commons attribution -sharealike 4.0 license. See c:Commons:Licensing for more information.
In addition to permission, we need proof of permission; we can't take your word for it. The easiest way is if the picture is published outside of Wikipedia first with an accompanying free license. Then a link will suffice. If not, proof of permissions can be sent here: c:Commons:OTRS.
I'm linking you to guidance on Wikimedia Commons where Wikipedia's images are usually uploaded. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is proof of permission, but I am awaiting a reply of the full permissions; https://imgur.com/a/MUaBA thatsneezingkid (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, nasus ille qui inde exhalat, that is the kind of statement that Finnusertop has explained is not adequate. You need the copyright holder to allow use of the image on more than just Wikipedia, as it will be available for all sorts of uses once it is uploaded to Commons. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the Wikipedia content as it appears on Google

I've just edited the date of birth of a noted politician, from 10th Feb to 28th Mar, based on a biography of the man and following confirmation of the date by the politician's secretary. However, when you search for the person on Google, the Wikipedia paragraph that appears displays the incorrect 10th Feb date of birth, yet the correct DOB (28th Mar) is displayed in the body of the article. How can the aforementioned paragraph be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.55.199 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon. The short answer is that there isn't very much Wikipedia can do about it. Google pulls information from a variety of sources for their summary box, and Wikipedia is one, but other than passively being a source if and they choose to use it, Wikipedia can't actively change what is displayed there. In the Google search, at the bottom of the summary box there is a feedback button, and leaving a message for Google there is about all that can be done about it. GMGtalk 19:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the IP editor might be referring to the text beneath the search result, rather than the Knowledge Graph box to the right. The text in the search results usually updates reasonably regularly, but I'm not sure if the Knowledge Graph data updates with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get in trouble

Can I get in trouble, I wanted to send a message on discord but I didn't realize I pasted it on Wikipedia in NS, so I made a joke on wikipedia and deleted it in a minute. I want to apologize. I didn't mean to do it. BTW it's about politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.190.242 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bit curious that you pasted a direct link, formatted for Wikipedia, by accident, but I guess we can overlook that transgression. As you reverted your own vandalism promptly, no, you should be fine. Just ensure that you don't do it again, as such incidents can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. You acted accordingly, so have this mulligan. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

requesting redirect to its own article

Hi,

I recently proposed a draft page and have discovered that a redirect with the same name exists. Should I wait to see if my draft is accepted before requesting that the redirect link to its own article?

Johnnyeallee (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Johnnyeallee. Whoever accepts the article should be able to take care of the redirect (or request someone do it if they do not have access). Until then there's probably nothing that anyone really needs to do about it. GMGtalk 20:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added citations to article. Enough to remove Maintenance Templates? Seeking help to add Infobox.

Subject article:

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

Seeing the Maintenance Templates, I added citations (6).

Checking to see if the added citations work, and, if so, if they're enough to remove the Maintenance Template, or, otherwise, what's in store for working to get it good to go.

I'd also like to add a starter Infobox. I researched around, but I'm still striking out.

Please excuse me being relatively new and my limitations in getting articles going and keeping them good to go on my own.

Really appreciate all the help throughout the Wikipedia Community.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Tqiwiki (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tqiwiki:
  • You can remove the citations templates when the issue is solved, but I note that you have several "citation needed" tags on individual sentences in "Early life" and "Education". Since the subject is still living it is absolutely required that facts about them be explicitly cited, for the protection of their reputation. You need to either cite those facts about them, or remove those facts if you cannot prove them.
  • If you can't find an infobox that you feel explicitly matches the subject's career, there's always the defalt option of using the code shown at Template:Infobox person.
Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing - identifying unreliable sources

Hi. I'm just wondering if anyone can give me advice about an article. The article is "Jehovah's Witnesses Handling of Child Sex Abuse" The first paragraph makes the claim that an independent study found the rate of child abuse among JWs is similar to the general population. This is footnoted with the 2nd footnote, which cites a Norwegian book - so as it's a book and not in English it's not possible for me to check the claim to try to verify it. The claim is at odds with the Australian Royal Commission information in the rest of the article. Should I just delete the whole sentence? Or should I modify the sentence somehow? e.g. I could put brackets at the end of the sentence saying that the claim is unlikely due to the coverups that have been exposed in the last few years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerJC (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TruthSeekerJC: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Strictly speaking, it is not impossible for you to verify the Norwegian book, it is just difficult and likely expensive(to fly to Norway and visit a library or purchase the book) as well as time consuming(learning Norwegian so you can read the book). See WP:SOURCEACCESS. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to discuss this on the article talk page, with those that follow that article. It is possible to present two disparate viewpoints in the same article. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TruthSeekerJC. The reliability of a source has nothing to do with how difficult it is for you, personally, to obtain a copy of a book. But it is not impossible to get any published book. Major libraries arrange interlibrary loans. Amazon and hundreds of other online booksellers ship obscure books all over the planet. We assess the reliability of a book in any language by taking a look at the reputation of the publishing house and the author, and their academic credentials. Reviews of the book by people with expertise in the field are also very useful. There is nothing inherently unreliable about books published in Norway. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328. Thanks for the response. I'm aware of what you've said. My issue is that I'm almost certain that the information is wrong, based on what I already know about the cover-up of child abuse among JWs (e.g. Nearly 2,000 cases of child abuse in Australia JW churches and not one of those cases was referred to the police). Given that I'm almost certain that the information is wrong, I want to try and verify it and find out more about the claim that is made - for example is it just referring to JWs in Norway? What was the sample size? How did they obtain the information? Because if they just looked at conviction rates then that would be skewed by the covering up that goes on, and if they did it by interviewing JWs that wouldn't work either because JWs are taught that they should lie if necessary to protect the JW organization. I also suspect that whoever put that information in could have been a JW and so the editor could be deliberately distorting the truth and making false claims in order to protect their organization. While this might sound like a conspiracy theory, it's not unfounded when you look at what we already know from investigations that have been conducted.

I don't want to just delete the sentence and the footnote, and if I did that it might get undone anyway. So I'm currently trying to find someone in Norway that can find the book and let me know what it says.

The book in question is published by Universitetsforlaget, which has all the signs of a highly reliable academic publishing house. Of course, you are welcome to try to read a copy yourself. Your comments indicate that you may be editing as part of some sort of campaign to discredit the Jehovah's Witnesses. Bad idea. Every religion has bad actors and any critical content must be balanced and neutral. All editors must adhere to the neutral point of view, a core content policy. Wikipedia is not a forum to right great wrongs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TruthSeekerJC Try asking at Norwegian WP, you may get replies there. I suggest Wikipedia:Torget . Also, consider what Cullen328 says. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding Wiki Philosophy Terminology

Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Is there a name for the view that policy decisions should give more power to the average user? This philosophy would suggest, for example, that semi-protection should be levied less often or even abolished because it restricts new and IP editors' actions. I am calling it Wikilibertarianism, but I don't know if the community has already given it a name. Would the opposite of this standpoint be Wikistatism? Centibyte(talk) 02:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Centibyte. I am not familiar with any Wikijargon about the concepts that you describe, but there is definitely a range of opinion from leniency to stringency about how best to deal with disruptive editing. Here's my opinion as an administrator who takes a moderate view between the extremes: Semi-protection is a highly effective tool in managing attacks against the encyclopedia, which is almost always used carefully. As for power to the average user, Wikipedia is the most egalitarian volunteer project I have ever been part of, and I have been volunteering for 50 years. Even fairly new editors are respected and influential if they edit productively in compliance with our policies and guidelines, and the occasional good faith error is soon forgotten. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Family Tree" from Wikipedia pages on people?

Greetings!

I've been thinking about writing a program to build a family tree from wikipedia pages based on persons. It looks doable as there seems to be a consistent format for indicating determining parents, spouss(s), and children. I was thinking of creating it in GEDCom format so it could be imported into things like Ancestry.com, wikitree etc.

Any advice or cautions? Anyone try this before?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomethingWikiThisWayComes (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SomethingWikiThisWayComes, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would imagine you can find this same information structured in a more data friendly way at Wikidata. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translating Wikipedia pages into English

How do I browse the German Wikipedia page (de.wikipedia) in English? Brunski13 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could use translate.google.com but it is pretty rough. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the menus in English by using this link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptseite?uselang=en – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question on potential spam

Hi I just noticed that on my talk page a link appeared for me to join some whatsapp group. Is this kind of behaviour endorsed by Wikipedia? I experience it as spam and do not want these kinds of messages on my profile page. Can anyone have a look and see if it violates some policy or if I just should bear with it? Thank you Aethalides (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aethalides. Definitely spam and definitely not appropriate. I reverted anything that hadn't already been undone and left them a warning. GMGtalk 10:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aethalides (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=832186318"