Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ashlee444 (talk | contribs) at 07:02, 31 March 2018. 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.

jmcgnh, 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.


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]
@RudolfRed: Thanks RudolfRed. Do you (or anyone) have advice on question 1? ElectricFeet (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ElectricFeet: That will depend on the licencing/copyright of the image. If it is out of copyright or freely licenced, then upload it to commons. Otherwise it will need to pass the criteria at WP:NFCC and then you upload it to this Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Great. That makes sense. Thanks RudolfRed! ElectricFeet (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey ElectricFeet. Works first published in the US before 1923 are fair game, otherwise it's usually 70 years after the death of the author. If it pre-1923 or post-death-plus-70-years, you can take it with Template:PD-1923 or with Template:PD-old-70 in the "Licensing" section of the file. In the US specifically, as Template:PD-US-patent indicates, patents themselves may be public domain if prior to 1989, but content of the patent (such as an illustration) as far as I know would not be covered under this and would need to go via 1923 or 70 years after death. For the UK (since you know the author and publication date of the patent) it would pretty much be 70 years after the death of the author across the board.
To upload to Commons the file needs to be public domain in both the US and the source country. If this is true, it's better to upload to Commons, and not the English Wikipedia. If it's only public domain in the US, and not in the source country (the US is generally less strict than the UK) then you can upload it to Wikipedia with Template:Do not move to Commons, and it can be later transferred to Commons when it falls totally out of copyright.
For the purposes of Commons, the content has to be public domain or licensed in a way that is compatible like CC BY SA. Being copyrighted, but not enforced is probably not going to cut it if it gets nominated for deletion. For the purpose of Wikipedia, it's probably similar, since I doubt it would be usable under our fair use policy, which is stricter than fair use laws. GMGtalk 17:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: Thanks GreenMeansGo. That's a very comprehensive response! I see now why the copyright questions are fundamental to the response to the others. ElectricFeet (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i was removed from NPR access but why??

i was removed from NPR access but why?? Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The log says concerns over CSD tagging. You presumably read the various concerns before you deleted them from your user talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamstraw99: Please see this version of your talk page (the "Your CSD tagging" section, second from the bottom). --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adamstraw99, if you are serious about editing Wikipedia and want to obtain and keep advanced permissions such as NPR, you should immediately stop deleting contents from your talk page and instead start archiving it. I do it manually, but there are automated solutions available. These are discussed a few sections up this page. To many, if not most Wikipedians, deleting talk threads make it look like you are not being transparent about your activities, something that is highly valued here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok, got it, thanks everyone for help -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvement of WP:USCITIES

Hello. I would like to suggest an improvement towards WP:USCITIES. I disagree with this statement in the Geography section of the guidelines: "If a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, if there is any, remove any existing article coordinate from this section." I disagree with this statement because this is shown on many articles of incorporated municipalities in the United States. Here are some articles as examples for my disagreement: Johnstown, Colorado, Manchester, Ohio, Lockhart, Texas, Arvada, Colorado, and Aurora, Colorado. Here is a featured article with this as another example of my disagreement: Hillsboro, Oregon. I wanted to ask my question here at the Teahouse. Comments welcome, please! 2601:1C0:6800:72C1:6940:1387:90CC:AAAD (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place for suggesting changes to WP:USCITIES is the project's talk page: WT:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: I just did. Thanks. 2601:1C0:6800:72C1:6940:1387:90CC:AAAD (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not-very-anonymous IP user. I recognise those questions and issues because they remind me of a nice young man who a while back disgraced himself quite badly one time and got themselves permanently blocked from editing. They came back with a new account and immediately got blocked again, and my advice to them at the time was to accept that block and not attempt to edit Wikipedia for at least a year. The problem with evading blocks is that when a person is ready to return to constructive editing their past activities at evasion will be held against them and prevent them from being formally unblocked. If you are who I think you are, I am saddened and disappointed to see you here, asking questions in this way. I know that person is well-meaning and immensely keen to edit, but I feel it would be best all round if they ceased editing until they had, at least, got through their school/college education and learned to settle down a bit more. Best regards, as always, from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the comment 2601:1C0:6800:72C1:6940:1387:90CC:AAAD posted at WT:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline per WP:BLOCKEVASION BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's Sink - possible copyright violation

The article Einstein's Sink looks suspiciously like a translation of the Dutch version to me. I'm an infrequent user and unsure of the right procedure. As far as I remember the Dutch versions have to be imported. Where do I have to go to request that import?

On a related note, I have reason to believe that both the Russian and Chinese versions of that article have been translated by volunteers on reddit.com/r/translator. The translations have then been copy/pasted to Wikipedia. I believe translations are worthy of copyright and without permission from those reddit users both those language versions ought to be deleted. What should I do about that? I have already taken the appropriate steps on the German Wikipedia. Thanks in advance --Nfreaker91 (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nfreaker91. They don't necessarily need to be deleted, but they do need to be attributed to the source, as is required by the license Wikipedia is published under. To do this, you need to add Template:Translated page to the article's talk page, assuming you are reasonably sure this is what has happened. It looks like at least the English article was created by an anonymous user, so confirming that with them directly may not be possible, if they don't reply on the article talk page. The translated page template is also available in a few dozen languages, and so should hopefully be available in these alternate translations on other language projects.
Incidentally, if you're familiar with the reddit user's who are helping to translate articles, it may be a good idea to pass this advice along to them when you get the opportunity. GMGtalk 12:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I have no reason to think the anonymous user who wrote the English version got that from elsewhere on the web, so your template should work here. I will put that on the talk page. As for the other language versions: To my understanding of the reddit user agreement, content published on reddit.com is not under a free license compatible with Wikipedia. I am under the impression that a translation in and of itself can be protected under copyright. Unless you are saying that translations of one paragraph are de minimis or similar, I don't see how the Russian, Chinese, German (and probably Swedish) versions are proper, since the user accounts that published them on Wikipedia are almost certainly not identical to the people that put the work into the translation on reddit. The reddit users that did the work, did not give permission for their work to be published under a free license (they gave reddit permission to use it). I'm by no means a copyright expert though. Regardless, I don't speak a word of Russian and Chinese and am unable to navigate to talk pages there, let alone fill out a template correctly. Nfreaker91 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Looks I was misunderstanding you Nfreaker91. So yeah, the original on the Dutch Wikipedia is licensed appropriately, but if someone translates it elsewhere on the web, although it's derivative of a free work, the translation itself creates a separate copyright. As far as de minimis, that's... sketchy, and I wouldn't be comfortable using it as a rationale.
I'm just grasping at straws here, but I know User:Alex Shih lives in Japan, so maybe they know someone who speaks a touch of Chinese as a random shot in the dark. Looks like User:Maxim is active and listed at WP:Local Embassy as a Russian speaker, so maybe they can help out with the that version, or maybe they know someone who can. GMGtalk 12:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GreenMeansGo, I am actually a native speaker of Chinese myself. For the time being, I have provided the required attribution for both zh:Talk:爱因斯坦水槽 and ru:Обсуждение:Раковина Эйнштейна. If the reddit volunteers would like to claim copyright for their translation, they are more than free to do so, and then each Wikipedia language project can discuss deleting these pages accordingly. This is however counter-intuitive and unlikely to happen. I would only be concerned if the user that requested these translation helps at the reddit pages took advantage of these reddit volunteers by publishing their translated works for profit. Alex Shih (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: Aren't you basically saying that it's only a copyright issue if someone complains? I think the German Wikipedia is stricter when it comes to this stuff - de:Einsteins Waschbecken has been deleted. I don't really care all that much though, so whatever you think is fine with me. Nfreaker91 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not totally sure I follow on that one completely. I wasn't sure if it was a difference in interpretation somehow between projects. GMGtalk 16:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly what I was saying. In the ideal scenario, everything posted on the Internet is "published" and should be protected accordingly, but if we were to chase after every single forum post that were re-distributed, I am afraid there are simply insufficient resources to do so. What I am saying is resources should be focused on tackling those who intentionally violate copyright to make profit. Not saying there is right or wrong, just expressing my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everybody!

Hi my name is Calculator bag and i am new to wikipedia. I am thinking of working in the genre sections of music articles. so if anybody has advice they could give to me that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculator bag (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say the obvious, the genres themselves would be related areas to work: Synth-pop, new wave, post punk, etc. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Calculator bag (I like the username, by the way!). Others might have more specific suggestions, but I would advise you to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and its sub-projects. You could also introduce yourself on the talk page of that project, where other editors with experience of editing music articles might be able to offer you advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calculator bag (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Hello Cordless Larry!! Thanks for the advice, the username was a result of me trying to think of the most random amalgamation of words! Anyhow i will head to wiki project music asap for advice. I would also like to say that when the idea of wikipedia was novel to me i did make a minor vandalization as a joke, but did not think of the after effect it could have, so all i can say is sorry and i hope this does not damage my reputation as a wikipedian. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculator bag (talk • contribs) 21:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~ Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calculator bag:, you have the right idea, but please do sign at the end of your comment. It confuses SineBot if you don't. And the past vandalism is fine, as long as you aren't doing it now :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles

I would like to know if my article Sacred ties wasn't good enough that it was reverted to Pavitra Rishta Page, also I would like to help on any article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPagoo (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, AJPagoo. Am I right in thinking that Sacred Ties is an alternative title for the series called Pavitra Rishta? That's what it says at Pavitra Rishta. If that's correct, then we should only have one article about the topic, so your main mistake was in trying to create another one. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would like to apologies and have realised my mistake but still I would like to know why are pages like, Pavitra Rishta and other series not giving full summary of the show.Why isn't there any information about Vaishali and Varsha, and other characters. I would have edited the page but what forced me to create any article is that the Pavitra Rishta Page is protected from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPagoo (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best answer I think I can give to that question is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and no one has (yet) got around to writing a more complete plot summary, AJPagoo. That said, the plot summary already accounts for the majority of the length of the article, so it would be good to add other stuff too! I suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. You'll see that if you click on the padlock at the top of the article, it will take you to WP:SILVERLOCK, which explains how to request edits to the article. Once your account is a few days older, you will be able to edit the article directly, but please do so with care and caution if you do. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joining

How can I join you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jashangill18 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Jashangill18:, it looks as if you have already joined Wikipedia, so you should be able to edit and write articles. You can also join various WikiProjects if you find any interesting, but that is not a requirement. Nessie (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jashangill18: - if you are enquiring about becoming a Teahouse host, I would recommend that you spent the guts of a year improving your proficiency at editing, and acquainting yourself with the core policies of Wikipedia before you consider such a move. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How do you add Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RanaeFritola3 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I placed a welcome message on your talk page which has guidance on getting started. You can come back here if you have more specific questions. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have caused a misinformation on Wikipedia.

Hi, A few years ago, I uploaded This photo on Wikicommons. At first, I attributed the photo to Iraj Castle, then I found out that this was wrong and the drawing is of another castle, I removed the photo from the English wikipedia but now I saw that the article have been translated to several languages and all have used the misinformation I caused. I tried to remove the photo in other articles but it gets undone by other users. What should I do? Pouyakhani (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pouyakhani. Probably a good start would be to correct an obvious error in the file name on Commons. What sources are you using to determine that the original information was incorrect? GMGtalk 12:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the photo is provided in Wiki Commons,the name of the file is correct,tho.Pouyakhani (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading files

Hi! Is it possible to upload files with a mobile device or do i need to use PC to upload them? Not a very active user (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's possible to upload files from a mobile device. But using a PC will be much easier. Maproom (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Not a very active user. I do most of my editing on an Android smartphone. I use the fully functional desktop site on my phone for routine editing, which works just fine. I often upload image files without too much trouble, usually using the Wikimedia Commons Android app. Sometimes the app gets sluggish and I need to reboot my phone. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an entry where there's nothing but primary sources

I do research on a topic that no one has written on since around 1890's: the history of the steel (dip) pen industry in the US. As far as I've ever been able to find, mine is pretty much the only secondary source ever to write about many of these topics. You can see the topics on my site https://thesteelpen.com/.

I'd like to add some of these topics to Wikipedia, formatted for Wikipedia complete with sources and all, but I'm afraid of it's pretty clearly crossing over the line into Original Research. And I feel I'm in a bit of a Catch-22 in regards to notability as well. Few people even know about this topic, so few people care. It's not notable because it's not known. It's not known because no one has published on the topic before. (at least in the US, in Britain, there are several publications about that side of the industry)

I've started one example entry on a once major steel pen manufacturer in Philadelphia, Turner & Harrison (1875-1952), but no one has ever written anything about them before. My whole history is a compilation of primary sources, so I'm fairly sure it crosses the line into Original Research. Now, there aren't too many "conclusions" being drawn that would be controversial, mostly the account is pretty factual, so I don't think I'm in danger of creating controversy, (Was John Turner truly a recruit of Richard Esterbrook, or is that mere speculation and coincidence? Off to the barricades!) but I'm not relying on secondary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Turner_%26_Harrison

I'm just wondering if it's possible to add entries on this information, which is available nowhere else except my own website? I'd hate to just write an entry and do nothing by point to my website, which wouldn't be considered a reliable resource anyway.

I suspect the advice will be to get this published first in a legitimate source, and then come and create the entries. Unfortunately, it has a limited audience because so few people even know about this once important industry, and among those who even use these dip pens anymore, (mainly calligrapher) only a sub-set are interested in the history of the industry. (how many drivers of cars are interested in the history of the US auto industry?)

Any guidance would be most appreciated

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlucinumMaster (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GlucinumMaster. You're pretty much right on the money. While primary sources are allowed in limited circumstances with careful use, one of Wikipedia's rules for them is that we can't base whole articles on these alone. I'm afraid the topic will have to wait until it has been written about by more people. But there is no deadline, and even though it may take a long while for that type of coverage to emerge, we're still perfectly happy to have an article on the topic once we reach that point. GMGtalk 12:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suspected so. This brings up a related question. In existing entries there are some inaccuracies, such as the entry on Dip Pen, which I would like to correct. The evidence for the corrections, though, are primary evidence, not secondary. I'm assuming that is ok? The problem we run into is that very little has been written about these topics, and what little was written back at the turn of the 20th-century was wrong and the myths have perpetuated ever since. I can make corrections to the parts about the British history from published secondary sources, but the US side, not so much. Thanks. GlucinumMaster (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GlucinumMaster. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but Wikipedia values verifiability over truth, in addition to preferring secondary over primary sources. So in effect, we prefer untrue information in an otherwise reliable secondary source, over correct information based on original extrapolation from a primary source. This approach isn't perfect, but it does mean our articles are probably right more often than not, so long as they're following those rules.
So if the information is unsourced, and the sources you have can be used in accordance with guidance at WP:PRIMARY, then we can correct it using a primary source. If the information is cited to an otherwise reliable secondary source which happens to be wrong in this case, then we would need to wait until some other reliable secondary source corrects the record. GMGtalk 15:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deleting your article

Someone decided to delete my part of an article can people just do that without reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winbarker23 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find that one person removed one edit of yours, here, and they gave a reason in the edit summary. If you don't understand their reason, click on the "talk" link next to their name and ask them to elaborate. They should be able to provide you with a more thorough answer if you didn't understand what they meant by the reason they already gave. If there is another edit of yours which has been undone, please let us know WHICH edit on WHICH article, so we can help you further. --Jayron32 14:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another reversion was this one, also the article James Barker (photographer) was deleted under criterion G7, but you are correct that the OP needs to tell us which edit or which article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Winbarker23: First, it's better to think in terms of "ours" instead of "mine" and "yours."
Second, users can remove content that does not cite a reliable (usually professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic) source. They should give a reason in the edit summary but there's nothing forcing them to. I see here that a reason was given but here a reason was not (although most links to Youtube face problems of reliability and maybe even copyright violations).
Third, whole articles can be deleted if they do not meet the general notability guideline: new articles must cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject. Websites like LinkedIn and Yelp never establish notability; neither do directories or the subject's own website.

The one that the person did not give a reason makes no sense, i used multiple second sources and google internet archives from the artist to back it up.Winbarker23 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)winbarker23 Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winbarker23: As I said, links to Youtube face a variety of problems with reliability and even copyright violations. Also, there's issues of whether it's noteworthy or note. Independent sources are generally a better indication if something is noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with constructive editing

Over 5 years ago, I was topic banned under Discretionary Sanctions for discussing a source[1] I'm not concerned with the details of my content dispute, but I am interested in getting help to enable me to collaborate constructively, as suggested by one of the other editors.[2] --Iantresman (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iantresman, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not clear what sort of help you are asking for. I take it that you are not at this time appealing your topic ban. Any sustained constructive contributions woulkd no doubt help. Are yoiu asking for suggestions on how to do that? Are you looking for a mentor? What exactly do you want here? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel I guess a mentor. I'd like to know how I should go about discussing a difference of opinion in a way that doesn't get me banned. I'm not appealing my ban here, but I'd like to know what I could have done differently. --Iantresman (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new user, new page, question on if its worthy of addition

Hi there, i only created an account as i was wondering if it was worthy or not to write an article about different fpv flight simulators. im fairly well versed in one, though there are several out there they are the sort of thing that is now widely available and used by the people in the fpv community, and plenty of articles have been written about the different ones available on the web.

I was wondering if this is acceptable on wikipedia, and if i should create a page each for the most established ones?

I hope this is the right place to aks.

i have checked for the simulator i know the most about (LiftOff) and can find 3 independent sources, but they are independent reviews so im unsure if this qualifies under the notable rules or not.

if not that's fine, if so, what should i be mindful of?

these are the reviews i have to hand,

http://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/814970-testing-liftoff-drone-racing-simulator/

https://www.propwashed.com/liftoff-drone-racing-simulator-review/

http://www.controllercraft.com/articles/liftoff-fpv-racing-simulator-review/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robisnow (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robisnow, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think three articles is a little too little. From the looks of it, these are good sources, independent and reliable, but I'm not confident that three is significant coverage.
I notice that we have an article about First-person view (radio control), but it has no information on FPV RC flight simulators. I think you could create a section in that article about them. Try to explain what are some common features of FPV RC flightsims, and name a few of the most important ones. The great thing about editing existing articles is that expanding them is easier than creating new standalone articles. While some topic may not be notable enough for an article of its own, it can be introduced in an article about the larger topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I see the files I've uploaded?

On Wikipedia, not Wikimedia, I mean. The Verified Cactus 100% 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey The Verified Cactus. See here. GMGtalk 15:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... which is accessible through the "uploads" link at the top of your contributions page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, missed it. Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 22:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find how to wikilink to heading within a page/article. BrucePL (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the answer at WP:ANCHOR. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Recommendations Please - or Direction

Hi there, I hope I am in the correct place. (If not, my apologies. Could you please direct me to the appropriate place?) I have just created a draft of an article and am looking for recommendations. I am currently waiting for media, which I will insert, after checking for media's (pics) copyright status.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:12_Days_of_Pizza

Is there anything outstanding that I should correct/delete/modify? Thank you very much for your help.

Jkcproject (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkcproject: As a start, don't put links to other Wikipedia articles in a reference. Use a Wikilink to link to the relevant article See WP:LINK and WP:REFB. Also, read the information at WP:YFA for how to create an article, you will find good info there that you can apply to improve your draft. RudolfRed (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Forget about media until you get the basics right. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and then read about how to add references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. References to Wikipedia are not acceptable, see WP:CIRCULAR. References to the organisation's own website are not independent. If, after removing the unacceptable sources and the text which they have been used to support, you are left with a sufficient number of reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject, then expand those references from bare URLs to include sufficient information to allow reviewers to assess the sources, preferably using templates such as {{cite web}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Jkcproject, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, One Wikipedia article should never cite another as a source. So all your citations to Wikipedis should be removed. This leaves only one news article, cited three times, as independent coverage, and that seems to be purely local coverage. This is not nearly enough to establish notability. Additional reliable sources that cover the program in some detail would be needed, and they should be regional or national coverage. See out guideline on the notability of organizations, and Wikipedia's Golden Rule. I would advise you to concentrate on finding additional sources to establish the notability of the topic before worrying about images. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the incorrect citations to Wikipedia articles, and combined the duplicate cites as a single named reference. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, both of you! I have submitted the following links: External Links http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/local-businesses-feed-families-in-need-with-days-of-pizza/article_29e5800c-3f0c-5f08-990f-bf9902bc78b0.html http://www.blackhillsfox.com/content/news/12-Days-of-Pizza-helps-48-families-this-year-408093315.html http://www.bhpioneer.com/deadwood/days-of-pizza-take/article_efc1a0a6-cd10-11e6-be88-5b5d3a67ae28.html http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/days-of-pizza-takes-a-bite-out-of-hunger/article_72ef5156-ecb6-11e7-89b7-ff72578868d1.html http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/gooddeeds/our-good-deeds-days-of-pizza-program-takes-slice-out/article_27c79145-c3f7-5ba3-9a0f-bbd4ce639a0f.html

I hope this meets with your approval. If not, I will be happy to modify as instructed.

Jkcproject (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did my user page go to?

I am in the middle of resolving issues on an aritcle and today it says my user page does not exist -- what could have happened? And how can I sign my name if it doesn't exist? Thank you

Mikkopresents (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikkopresents: You can click the red link at the end of your post to create your userpage! You can express yourself however you want on there, but you don't need to. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Mikkopresents: Did you ever create it? User pages don't exist until you put something on them, and having or not having a user page has nothing to do with your signature. RudolfRed (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As Wikipedia sometimes claims, your userpage does not exist. As I see it, your userpage does exist, but has no content. Either way, your username does exist, and so you can (and should) sign your postings with it, by putting ~~~~ at the end of them. Maproom (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I typed some drivel on your User page, so it now exists. Put in your own content ( and delete mine). David notMD (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date format question

Is the date format used here always "1 January 2018"? Because usually (in America at least) it is, "January 1st, 2018". The format I keep seeing here is actually the military format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomorrow is Yesterday (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tomorrow is Yesterday. Wikipedia is a worldwide project and we do not mandate American preferences. Our software accepts several date formats, including "1 January 2018" and "January 1, 2018" for use in date fields. Note that the second contains a comma. The software does not support "January 1st, 2018". For details about various acceptable ways to format dates, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And just to clarify, DMY is the standard date format almost everywhere in the world except the US. Its use on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the (American) military. – Joe (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomorrow is Yesterday: At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering you can select the date format in log entries like page histories, user contributions and watchlists. It doesn't affect article content. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What should I edit

I love meteorology,so I was wondering...can anyone give me meteor..(blank) topics to edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanillaEditor (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VanillaEditor: Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Meteorology. You will find a list of articles that need help and other editors with similar interests. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VanillaEditor: You can also try introducing yourself at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject_Meteorology and explain a little bit about what specific aspects of meteorology interest you, and the folks there can probably give you some recommendations of what to work on.
@VanillaEditor: If you follow the helpful link given by RudolfRed above, you'll see a rather scary-looking table. It's actually rather helpful because it lists every meteorological article, both by quality and by importance. The shortest articles are called "Stubs" and these are often crying out for someone to enhance. Just click on the total number (in this case, 946), and you'll see this list of titles. You might well find something worth working on that matches your interests. We always advise starting out by making just small edits first, and listening to any feedback you get from other editors. Whatever you do, please never add stuff that you 'just happen to know', because this is not how Wikipedia works. We need you to only add factual statements that improve an article, based on references which you really have to 'cite' in that page as proof the statement is true. I know it's tempting to add a few random bits of trivia like you did to a couple of articles, but that's not how we operate, and so that's why you had a few notices asking you not to do that. Just so long as you appreciate why it's not OK, everything here should be fine. Remember, we're helping to build the world's greatest encyclopaedia that anyone can use or edit. I'm guessing that you're a pretty young editor (judging by the bit about an elementary school you put on your Userpage. If so, do please be careful not to reveal any personal information about yourself here -where you live/go to school/emails etc. We care very much about protecting youngsters, and can arrange to have any personal info permanently deleted should you ever need us to, because everything else can normally be found in the history of all the edits you have so far made. We also offer a little bit of guidance to young editors in the hope that you'll stay and become the amazing Wikipedians of the future. Do check this page out.) I'll now drop by and leave a few helpful links on your userpage, and maybe we can help you out here again, if you need it? Regards from a rather damp, 8/8 cumulo-stratus-covered England, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale behind removing red links?

So, I stumbled upon this user [3] and noticed that most if not all of his edits consist of removing red links. Take for example these recent edits: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Could someone of same mind as he elucidate me on what's the reasoning behind these edits and why are they justified? NinuKinuski (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REDLINK, it depends on what the link is. If it's for something that we really should have an article for, then the red link should be left to encourage its creation. If it's something we're probably not going to have an article for, then we should leave the link there.
As for Dhruvh's edits, I don't know what that user's reasoning is. In some cases, the removal seems justified, and in some cases I don't know why they removed the link either. You could try asking them. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Different People/Same Name

This is my very first time asking a question and even though I have read a lot on the subject, it is still very confusing to me.

In short, I am a musician from South Louisiana with 4 all original albums released.

With each album release, my songs are distributed to various media outlets, such as iTunes and YouTube.

The only problem I’ve run into is there is another musician from Australia who happens to share the exact same name.

YouTube and iTunes pages are constantly mashing both of us together and misrepresenting our works for each other.

This also is a problem for royalty distribution.

I read an article today about how YouTube differentiates between two artists of the same name and one of the main things they look to is if each artist has a separate Wikipedia page.

I would love to just throw up an article about myself with maybe a tag to differentiate us, but after reading some of the basic rules of this site, it seems inappropriate.

So, I’m asking for any help on what I can do next to give each of us our own artistic space and freedom?

Thank you in advance,

Beau Young (the one from South Louisiana) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byremix (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You surprise me. I thought it was common practice in your profession since around 1800 to ensure your name is unique. Since sometime 20th century you have to to register your stage name. Check out https://www.equity.org.uk/about-us/join-us/how-can-i-join/your-professional-name/. Presumably the Musicians Union is a partner to this scheme or operates similar. Broichmore (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Broichmore: I agree about the practice of unique names. I was 16 and naive to everything when I released my first original works, so the problem still stands.
  • @Tigraan: Thank you for further clarifying and for the link. Precisely the internal help I was looking for before I went and did something outside the guidelines.

Thank you both for the response.Byremix (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EditWatch this pageRead in another language South West Africa campaign

Dear madam / sir

I am not sure If this is the correct medium for this remark. If not could you kindley redirect me.

I was looking at the Wikipedia page concerning the South West Africa campaign in 1914-1915. German force strength is stated as 3000 schutztruppen and 7000 militia. I think this is a very much inflated number which i only come across in british propaganda of the period. German sources and more recent english language research gives a German military strength of about 5000 in Total. At outbreak of war the following forces were already under arms or mobilised:

Schutztruppen: 1967 officers and men Police: 483 officers Treaty police: 50 officers Landwehr 1 and 2: 823 men mobilised Landsturm: 900 men mobilised

African troops: 200 (since relations between germans and indiginous population were bad this represents the only localy reqruited troops of which part came drom Kamerun)

Total German strength adds up to about 5000 men which were virtually All germans. This is from a Total colonial German population of about 13000. To het to a strength of 10000 would have meant units consisting of grandmothers and Todlers and stoping All essential functions to run a society.

Possible reasons for the 10000 estimate are German disinformation efforts. For instance platoon size units were designated ad companies giving the impression of a far larger order of battle. British wartime propaganda mat be Another reason.

Kind regards, Jos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.200.58 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place for discussing the article South West Africa campaign is on the article's talk page, Talk:South West Africa campaign. You will need to support any suggested changes with references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summerwind Mansion book by Devon Bell

Hello,

I noticed that an editor on here mentioned my book about the mansion, but didn't post it because it had not yet been published. I'm the author of the book, but must admit, I don't know how to go in and edit it. It released in 2016.

Can one of the users add it for me?

Here's the link to my book which is sold on Amazon.

Best regards, Devon Bell


https://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Summerwind-Ghostly-History-Wisconsin/dp/1626194378/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522307299&sr=8-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinder38 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cinder38. The correct place to alert interested editors to possible sources is on the article talk page. However, it looks like the comment you reference was all of four years ago, so it's not certain that this editor in particular is still actively working in the topic area. GMGtalk 12:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cinder38, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please also note, that books and other publications should only be added if they have an encyclopedic purpose in the article, or provide additional reliable information about a topic. As you have a "conflict of interest" regarding this edit, you should read WP:COI and suggest the addition on the article's talkpage instead of adding it yourself. If you can briefly describe in your request why the addition would be useful, other editors will be more likely to add it. You can also add Template:Request edit to your article talkpage message - this template will notify other editors to check your suggestion. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want to change username

I would like to change my username from PorkchopGMX2 to PorkchopGMX. How do i do this? Thanks, PorkchopGMX2talk 12:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PorkchopGMX2, welcome to the Teahouse. For changing your username, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is there cpp plans for people with low income?

i was told there is a support plan for people with low income is that correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:7D1F:F9F4:197E:7722:75D0:635E (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a forum to ask questions about using Wikipedia, and is not a general question-asking page. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong place for an answer, but we have an article Canada Pension Plan that might answer your question, or some of the linked references might help. Dbfirs 15:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this draft likely to be accepted?

Hello guys, yesterday i created this draft, is this likely to be accepted, because i think it has more reliable sources. Is it likely? Newroderick895 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Newroderick895, welcome to our Teahouse. At a very quick glance (and without Google translating all your sources), this doesn't look too bad at all. I note there is a Swedish wiki page which you might wish to link to after it goes through WP:AFC/is put into mainspace. Personally, I'd make the lead much shorter and move stuff like its environmental activities lower down the page.  I don't like the promotional sound of the second half of this sentence: "In Sweden, Laastari has begun to work with Kronans Droghandel Apotek, the pharmacy chain that agrees that cooperation will generate mutual benefits.", so I think that should go, especially as it's a verbatim copy of a phrase used in one of your sources! I reiterate, I've not had time to check for organisational notability - which is absolutely critical - but my guess is that it probably will meet it. I hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean it is fine to google translate my sources? newroderick895 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can use Google translate to understand what a source says, but you must still cite it and write the content in your own words to avoid risk of copyright violation. (The citation templates allow you to indicate what language a reference is in.) Should you wish to translate a foreign language wikipedia page into one in English, that's also fine, but you would need to indicate where that translation comes from. There is brief but very helpful info on how to do that here: WP:TFOLWP. I hope this is what you meant. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for telling me, I understands right now, See you! newroderick895 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots that are not what they claim to be

The Pump It Up (video game series) article is generally a disaster, but one issue in particular is that some of the screenshots on that page (for example, File:Pump_It_Up_NX_Stage_Select.jpg) aren't actually from the games they claim to be from (they're poorly-done StepMania themes, it looks like). Can I rewrite the descriptions for these files to reflect what they actually are or should I just ask for them to be deleted? I don't think they would be useful in any way. Blah2 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, you don't need permission to edit most Wikipedia pages. If someone comes along and disagrees with your changes, then you can discuss them on the talk page of the article as per WP:BRD. Iffy★Chat -- 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help - Our Page Has Been Hijacked - "MeWe"

Hi Everyone,

Where do we register this important complaint? Thanks for your help.

We are a valid company called MeWe, with a trademark (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:68limh.2.6) on the brand name "MeWe" (https://mewe.com), and our page has been hijacked! Please restore our page. Even the inventor of the Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, is a MeWe advisor and tweeted about us last week: https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/976553383564840962

Please help, thank you!

Mark Weinstein, CEO— Preceding unsigned comment added by MeWe Editor (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mark. The page has not been hijacked, but it is being considered for deletion, in a discussion which will determine whether there is sufficient sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources (usually things like newspapers, magazines and books) in order to justify a Wikipedia article. If the discussion determines there is not, then it will be deleted, because it is not your article, and you do not own it. GMGtalk 14:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked for promotion. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if anyone doesn't already have the gadget enabled that strikes-through the names of blocked accounts, you definitely should. It's super useful. GMGtalk 15:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo:, where does one find more about said gadget? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in Special:Gadgets. If you're wondering how to enable it, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check the box "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in the "Appearance" section. --kewlgrapes (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble signing up for Wiki meet up

Hello, I know this isn't a strictly editing question but I was interested in registering for the Wikipedia:Meetup/Albany-Capital Region/ArtAndFeminism 2018 in about a weeks time and I was having difficulty registering. Whenever I click on the "register" link, irregardless of the browser I am using or the computer I am on it reads "url not found". Any suggestions? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: I tried the "Register" link myself and confirmed that it is broken. I saw that TrudiJ created the page, so I left a message on her talk page. Hopefully she will see it soon and have a look. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: I am sorry for the trouble. I am having difficulty getting the link to work with the Register tag after the URL. The link is working now, but isn't nicely formatted, I am afraid. Here is the direct link to the form --TrudiJ (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: @TrudiJ: I have registered now, thank you very much for your help! Inter&anthro (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

My name is Liam, I am a musician. I would like to create a wikipedea page for my Music as i like to be as accessible as possible. now after reviewing the wiki guide for uploading a page. I don't believe at this stage i am notable enough As i haven't yet had major success. Would a page like this be possible or would this be a no go. This page would be strickly in the format other artists pages would be presented and i do not see this as a means to gain a following or a promotional tool. but as a informative tool for people interested enough to look. can you please get back to me and let me know if this is something that would be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLKY (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, BLKY, no notability = no page. Wikipedia is not intended to cover every possible subject. I will also say that one man's "informative tool" is another man's "spam/promotion".
Notice that the criterion for notability is not exactly "major success" but "has been written about by independent reliable sources" - which is absolutely not the same measure as artistic talent or sales or whatever of the kind, even if it is often linked.
Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLKY In your case, you would need to meet at least one of the criteria listed at the notability guidelines for musicians, WP:BAND(maybe you've read that already?). Per the autobiography policy, it is strongly advised that you not create an article about yourself even if you do meet the notability criteria. It is best to let others unaffiliated with you write an article about you, as that is one indication that you would be notable enough. As Tigraan notes, "informative tool" is no different than "promotional tool", at least as Wikipedia defines promotion. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement of Conflicts

Some articles don't have good references but they still become notable and some pages which has good reference becomes not notable. How is the article judged on the basis of notability?--AJ5500 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AJ5500: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to read more about notability at WP:N, the notability guidelines. Many subjects have more specific guidelines, such as WP:BAND for musicians/bands, WP:BIO for biographies, and WP:NEVENT for events. Articles must meet at least the basic notability guidelines to merit an article on Wikipedia. Without you providing specific examples it is difficult to help you, but if you wish to challenge the validity or reliability of a reference, you can do so on the relevant article's talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AJ5500: Just to be clear, notability is a property of subjects, not articles. There are many articles with junk references, or many non-existing articles, when the topic would warrant a good, well-sourced article.
As for the logistics, when an editor finds an article and has doubts about its notability, the usual process is to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for discussion; see that link for the process. (Before listing, you are supposed to make a good-faith effort searching for sources to salvage the article.) TigraanClick here to contact me 16:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Repeating Citations

I can't seem to get using the "named references" correctly. This is what comes up for me every time I do it:

Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Pragmatism" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Or I get this:

Cite warning: ref tag with name Contrarian cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.

I have tried going to all the help pages but no matter what I do I cant seem to fix it.

Any help/advice for a newbie would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12A23B34C (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 12A23B34C. The problem is you have more than one instance of <ref name="Pragmatism">CONTENT</ref> in the article on Marc Elrich. Only one instance in the article with that name can have content in it. Every other instance should simply be the name with a "/" like this <ref name="Pragmatism"/>.
The preview "error" just means that the software can't preview the reference because it's defined elsewhere other than that section. Once you hit save, it should sill work normally; it just doesn't work in the preview. GMGtalk 17:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I am very carefully inserting the <ref name="Pragmatism"/> for all the citations. However, there are two entries that say Pragmatism in the drop down menu of named references. Perhaps I need to get rid of the second one? But I cant seem to do that. I am thinking my best bet is to delete all the citations for that source and then re-enter them? I think I have already done that once, should I try it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12A23B34C (talk • contribs) 17:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@12A23B34C: Hi. It's very easy for me to see where you went wrong, so I've fixed it for you. Let me know if it looks OK now. I did this by opening source editor and doing a word search for "Pragmatism". I scrolled down each of the eight uses of that word in turn and found you had used two identical full references, and given them the same name, when you only needed to create the full reference once, and then call up the reference, as shown below:
  • <ref name="Pragmatism">{{cite web|last1=Steve|first1=Hendrix|title=Marc Elrich's pragmatism belies his radical reputation|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101105583.html|website=The Washington Post|accessdate=29 March 2018|date=12 October 2010}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Pragmatism"/>
The system got confused because you've added two identical citations with identical names and content, and it only expects to see one example per ref name = Hence the red warning notice in the References section. So all I did was simply replace the second use of the full reference with the shorter one (ending in a forward slash) to call it up again. The system now only had one option to choose from, and was happy. Of course, had you given the same reference name to two completely different websites or sources, all you would then have needed to have done in that situation would have been to have changed the name of one of the references to, say, "Pragmatism2", and then work through your document and change <ref name="Pragmatism"/> to <ref name="Pragmatism2"/> as appropriate. But the solution was simpler than that. Does that make sense? If not, try this guidance paragraph: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for putting me out of my misery and fixing it and explaining how you did it. I am very appreciative.12A23B34C (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing changes gone unsaved

Greetings all!

A couple of days ago, I spent at least five glorious hours adding sources, creating citations, links, etc., to a page in progress. When I went to close it down for the day and hit "publish changes," an error message popped up telling me in effect that not all changes could be saved. When I signed in, I had checked the "keep me logged in for 365 days." Ugh...

Two questions: What did I do wrong? How can I avoid that in the future?

Respectfully,

Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melinda E. Pittman (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melinda E. Pittman. Welcome to the Teahouse - I really feel your pain. Obviously, the best way to avoid risking losing huge amounts of work is to save (i.e. Publish changes) much more frequently, say, every 15-30 minutes or so, just as you would with any other programme that plays up on you. Even a power failure can cause you to lose work, so it's really a good habit to get into. I have to admit, I've only ever experienced one issue with Wikipedia freezing up whilst editing, and that's when switching between the two different editing tools after having done a copy/move action. (But that's quite esoteric and the issue has been reported and was resolved a week ago). The only time I ever see a message saying that my edits can't be saved is when I click Publish changes after I've taken quite a long pause from editing. Like you, I can't quite remember the message, but, in effect, it says that my editing session has timed out. But all I have to do is hit Publish changes (or Alt+⇧ Shift+S) a second time and my edits are saved (i.e.published) and the page is updated. I wonder whether you tried clicking Publish changes a second time yourself, or did you do something else, like use the browser back button? But even then, I tend to think I've lost all my work, but usually find it's stored in the browser's cache and is still available.
On a different note, I don't know if you have read any of our guidance on writing articles about yourself? In general, this is best avoided for a range of reasons. Before you submit your article for review, you ought to put a note on your userpage to declare what we call a conflict of interest. The link I've just added will help you understand the process. And I'd also suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography. I hope this might have helped you a little - come back if you have any further questions. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelynam27 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move a section

I am considering moving a section from one article into another article (as the same or similar name section). I don't see this action described or discussed in Help. How to? BrucePL (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrucePL: See WP:CWW. You need to make sure to provide attribution. See the page on how to do that. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrucePL. You have to make two separate edits. I don't use VisualEditor and don't know how to do it there. In the source editor you just remove the whole section including the == Section heading code == and save. Then you add the text to the other article with attribution in the edit summary. If you mark the text first then maybe your browser can clip it with Ctrl+X and insert it elsewhere with Ctrl+V. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write about the Mondosol company

How can I write a page of an existing educational company called Mondsool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elio Mondello Anza (talk • contribs)

Hi Elio Mondello Anza. The first thing is to make sure you get the name correct. Mondsool or Mondosol? You've already tried to write about Mondosol, and that article has been put up for deletion on the grounds that it is does not meet our notability criteria, and was pure advertising. For your information that page has now been deleted about six minutes ago. If your subject doesn't meet these criteria, quite simply, it won't ever be able to have an article about it here. You need to find reliable sources that are independent of the subject (ie not connected) and which talk about it in-depth. This demonstrates that others have found that organisation worth talking about - and that's the essence of notability. I see that you are the CEO of that company, so you would need to declare your connection with any article you do write. You so clearly have a conflict of interest that I find it hard to imagine you are ever likely to be able to write about your company in a neutral, non-promotional way. Just remember we are an encyclopaedia of notable things - we're not here to help your or other people advertise their businesses. So my advice is not to try - let someone else write about Mondosol once they think it has met our notability threshold. Does that make any sense, or is there something more specific you need help with? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This user now blocked by Oshwah as a spam/advertising only account. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1672 in Brazil

I was thinking of making an article at 1672 in Brazil. This would be the entirety of it: 

{{Year in Brazil|1672}}

Events from the year '''1672 in [[Brazil]]'''

== Establishments ==

* Construction of the [[Basilica of the Good Lord Jesus, Tremembé]] was completed.
* The city of [[Itaboraí]] was founded.

[[Category:1672 in Brazil| ]]

Would said article be so short that it would be deleted? --Bringback2ndpersonverbs (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bringback2ndpersonverbs - welcome to our friendly Teahouse. What an interesting question. I don't really know how to answer you, except to say that my gut feeling is that whilst it does seem very short, I doubt it would ever be deleted unless the date and events can't be proven to be linked. Do you know enough to be able to comment whether it is likely to be subsequently expanded with more historical information? To try to answer you I searched on similar styles of titles. I found the following: 1670s, 1670s in archaeology, 1672 in literature, 1672 in science and so on. I also found 1817 in Brazil which is incredibly short, along with many others. Plus there's List of years in Brazil and Category:Years of the 17th century in Brazil. I think I would go for it, though if you wished you could always ask for views at the talk page of WikiProject Brazil. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that on the page Category:Years of the 17th century in Brazil we have a link to (amongst others) the page Category:1672 in Brazil, which has the single subcategory page Category:1672 establishments in Brazil, whose sole entry is a link to Itaboraí. Those italicised pages will not Wikilink for me in the usual manner, for reasons I don't understand, but you can follow the trail from one to the next, starting at the one Nick Moyes successfully linked.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To wikilink to a category page, you need to prefix the page name by a colon. Without the colon it tries to put this Teahouse page into the spwcified category. See WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Links to Wikipedia's categories. Hence, try this:
Note that on the page Category:Years of the 17th century in Brazil we have a link to (amongst others) the page Category:1672 in Brazil, which has the single subcategory page Category:1672 establishments in Brazil, whose sole entry is a link to Itaboraí.
--David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Mojo WorKings

Hi, I tried to creat a new article about a famous Hungarian blues band, but several times it was declined. I'm a new editor here in Wikipedia and really don't understand the real reason of declination. The reason stated: no reliable sources, but I corrected my article several times, always got back: declined. Sometimes promptly, it seems to me, it wasn't enough time to read my correction at this short time..... Please somebody help me and explain, what can I do? Karcsúbey (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karcsúbey, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since the previous decline on 7 December 2017, you added one word to the text, and one general reference to the draft ( http://www.bluesvan.hu/index.php?q=mojo+workings&s=keres%E9s) which was not used to support any specific statement in the draft. this diff shows the very limited extant of your edits to the draft since the previous decline. Evaluating these changes as not sufficient to fix the previous problem need take only a few seconds. There are many statement sin the draft not currently supported by inline citations. You need to support at least some of these, and cite additional published independent reliable sources that discuss this band in some depth, say several paragraphs each or more, for the draft to be accepted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a User Page for myself

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I keep trying to create one but for some reason the page won't let me. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 25songa (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I went ahead and created the page for you. Here is a link: User:25songa. Interesting that you couldn't create the page yourself... Were there any error messages that hinted at the reason for the problem?
By the way, it is a good idea to sign your posts on talk pages. --kewlgrapes (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did receive something about having to have the consensus of the community before creating the page, though I might have done something wrong in creation. -Adam Song 23:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 25songa. That sounds like the message display when an editor attempts to create a page which has been protected against creation, usually because a page by that name has been deleted multiple times in the past. Is it possible that you inadvertently clicked on a different link to such a page? Or perhaps you were logged out, perhaps because your log-in had expired? Editors who are not logged in cannot create pages in the user namespace, i believe. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Submission Declined

Hello Everyone, I have a draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Quick_Lane that was not approved stating it was "Straightforward advertising for a garage franchise." I have stated on both the article talk page as well as my user page that I do have a conflict of interest and in the spirit of disclosure I am open to suggestions on what to do. After reaching out to the reviewer if I can make any improvements he stated that Quick Lane doesn't seem to be notable. I am a little confused as a vast majority of Quick Lane's competitors have wiki articles and there is even a Quick Lane Bowl Wiki article currently. Quick Lane is a large automotive chain owned by Ford Motor Company so again, I am confused why it would not be "notable" enough. Is there anything I can do to improve the article/and or take alternative steps to get the draft approved? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --CA Bell (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" in the special sense used on Wikipedia doesn't mean "important in the real world", it means, "has sufficient substantial descriptions (not just listings or passing mentions) in independent Reliable sources" that can be cited to support the contents of the article. Please read thoroughly those linked instructions, and also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
To establish the subject's notability, there would have to be articles, or parts of articles at least a few paragraphs long, about it in such publications as national newspapers, magazines, or books from reputable publishers, and so on. Material written by the subject company, or trade journal articles based on its press releases, or interviews with its employees, might be useful to corroborate various facts, but cannot be used to support notability. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CA Bell: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Beware in citing other pages about businesses in the same field; just because pages about competitors exist doesn't automatically mean yours gets an article too. Other stuff exists. Not every business merits an article here, even within the same field. Businesses only merit articles if they meet the notability guidelines for businesses, written at WP:ORG. Please review those guidelines, but in short they state that a business must be shown to have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources and that brief mentions or routine business announcements are not acceptable in establishing notability. This applies whether the business is a mom and pop operation or owned by a large corporation(like Ford). The sources you provided all seem to be brief mentions or announcements of business transactions(such as sponsoring a race). If those are the only types of sources that exist, there cannot be an article about this chain at this time. I am sorry that is likely not what you want to hear, but I wished to explain the situation to you. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does editing software have a bug?

I have just made one small edit to the article G. Gordon Liddy. The Diff page is a scrambled mess, running from the Infobox to Categories. I cannot see my specific change highlighted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs)

That diff is between your version and one from 2005. Try this link. Rojomoke (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Quisqualis: How did you reach that diff link? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of asking that very question. At worst, I may have edited from the preceding version of the page, since I watch it. But I would have seen the error message on the preview screen. How I travelled to 2005 is unknown to me.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a picture on userpage

Hi. I am new on wikipedia. I would like to know how can i add a picture on my userpage?

Hello. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, specifically How to place an image. You can also look at my user page for an example. Let me know if you have any difficulties. --kewlgrapes (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you would like to upload an image to Wikipedia, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images. --kewlgrapes (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

printing

For years I have used the 'print version' tab to create clean page for printing. This no longer works. In fact I get message saying 'Internet Explorer has stopped working' etc. neither can I select a paragraph or two from main text to print. What do you think has happened. I have overcome it by copying and pasting the text to a blank Word doc and then printing.

B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindloon (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are having trouble. I can only speculate what the problem could be. I took a quick look in the recently opened bugs against Wikipedia, but didn't see anything related to printing. You would probably be better off contacting Microsoft support about this issue instead of looking for an answer here. --kewlgrapes (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are using a very old version of Internet Explorer. google suggests that if the browser crashes when you want to print, that possibly you have a problem with one of the addons. I also note that you don't need to press the "Print version" link, you can just go to File->Print or press ctrl-P. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Brindloon. Are you aware that you can print pages or create printable PDFs direct from within Wikipedia? If you look on the left hand side of any article page you'll see a load of useful links. There you'll find a section labelled 'Print/export'. I find the 'Download as PDF' option the best. You can preview the whole document and select which pages to print. I hope you find this a useful way to print out nicely laid out documents. Perhaps you could pop back and tell us how you get on, and maybe which browser you currently are using that has caused you these problems? Regards from all here at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Are online newspaper articles good to use as references? TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRealWeatherMan, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Yes, in general, such sources are good ones. Note that some newspapers do not have a good reputation for accuracy and reliability, and articles from those papers are not usually good sources. That is true whether the article is online or in print. Note that purely local coverage is usually of limited value in establishing notability of a topic, although it can be fine for supporting specific facts. Not also that a brief passing mention or purely routine coverage of an event such as a launch or merger is again of very little if any value in establishing the notability of a topic, although again, such coverage is fine for supporting specific facts. In general, if a printed newspaper article would be a good source, an online version would also be. When citing an online news source, please provide the title of the article and the name of the newspaper or publication, not just the URL. Whenever possible, provide the name of the author of the article, the date of publication, and the page of the print publication if there was one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note also, TheRealWeatherMan, that blogs run by a single person are not considered the same as newspapers, nor are fan sites. Neither are normally considered reliable sources. Do read our guideline on finding reliable sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I publish an article titled "GoingOut"?

Hi there,

I am conducting independent research for a local business based out of Providence Rhode Island. They currently do not have a Wikipedia page and would like to have one. Consequently, I am inquiring on their behalf if publishing their background and who they are as an organization is feasible? I have read that Wikipedia is very strict when it comes to publishing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerrowley (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tylerrowley. The real question is whether the subject meets our standards for notability, which ultimately decides whether it is appropriate for an article. This generally requires that a subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like newspapers, magazines and books, and excluding things like press release, or official websites. If the subject has received this type of coverage, then it may be appropriate. If it has not, then it is probably too soon for it to have its own article. GMGtalk 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is irrelevant. What matters are notability and reliable, published second-party or third-party sources. Reviews, blogs, the entity's own website and similar subjective material do not count. Wikipedia is definitely not social media, a business directory or a set of "profiles." "Having a Wikipedia page" is not the same as joining Linked In. If your industry is not writing about you in its journals, if newpapers are not reporting on your business's product, if your business is not going down in future history books, then it does not justify a Wikipedia article. Just because WP has had articles about non-noteworthy subjects in the past, our standards have tightened, and are unlikely to loosen in your lifetime.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, Tylerrowley, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. In general, all articles must be about topics which are considered Notable in the special sense that Wikipedia uses that term. Please read our guideline on the notability of corporations and businesses. Note that in general a business is not considered notable unless there are multiple independent professionally published reliable sources which cover the business in some detail - at least several paragraphs in each source. Passing mentions or routine coverage is not normally sufficient, nor are directory entries or the like. If all of the coverage is purely local, that also weighs against notability -- at least some of it should be regional or national coverage.
Also, you say that you are conducting independent research for a local business. This strongly suggests that you have a conflict of interest. You should declare that conflict as described in the linked guideline. If you are being, or expect to be, paid for your work for the business, you must declare that in accordance with our policy on paid editing. Undeclared paid editing is grounds for a block from all further editing. Are you in fact being paid for this work? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

biography pages

Hi.

I'm writing a bio page about an 89-year-old artist who lived in Palestine during WWII and now lives in America.

My question is, how do I write a Wikipedia bio on someone who has very little recorded past? I have information about the various places she's lived, her family relations, the colleges she attended, and her current art exhibits, but I cannot confirm any of her early experiences because there is no verification that she was even there. For instance, when she was 11, she was in Palestine at a time when a passenger ship sank in the harbor of her town. The event is verifiable online, but there is no record confirming that she was there and she cannot be verifiably tied to the event, so I cannot mention the sinking - is that correct? I'm running into this issue often with this particular individual.

She wrote an autobiography and it was published by one of those pay-to-publish book businesses. Can I use that as a source?

Please advise.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs)

When there's nothing you can usefully say (as when a ship sank in the town harbor but there's no evidence she was in the town), you should say nothing. You can cite an autobiography for uncontentious things, but it's not an independent source, so you shouldn't site it for anything contentious, and it won't help to espablish that she's notable. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Hello, George David NH. Welcome to our Teahouse. From what you've told us I rather fear that you have very little chance indeed of creating an article on an artist that would meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, based on reliable sources. What this means is that, unless there are some independent sources that you can find which have written about Judith Weinshall Liberman, then she will fail our criteria for acceptance. You can prove that she exists (verifiability), for sure, but if you can't prove that she was noetworthy (notable) by Wikipedia's standards, you will have hit a brick wall. That's not that you should stop looking - but it's only fair to warn you. You might like to read this short set of criteria for artists. I note that your draft says she was a playwright. Wouldn't that be likely to yield something if she produced plays that were performed and of note? I'm sorry I can't be more positive. regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: You could use her autobiography to help you chase up some independent sources about her, but I'm afraid we don't accept autobiographies as reliable sources on which to base an article because we regard them as 'primary sources' which are produced by the subject themselves. You should see what I've written in my own autobiography. Boy, would it make a great article about me, though not much of it would be provable or even true! Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk)
Hello, George David NH. Just to clarify the above, while specific non-controversial facts can be cited to an autobiography, we can't have an article about a person at all unless that person is notable, a term which is used in a special sense on Wikipedia. To establish notability, multiple independent professionally published reliable sources which discuss the person in some detail are usually needed. Until such sources are available, there is no point is citing anything to an autobiography. If there are published reviews or critical comments on her artwork, more than mere passing mentions, those could be the basis of a Wikipedia article, and some background could then be sourced to the autobiography. See WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST for relevant guidelines on the notability of such a subject. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable talk page comment from non-registered user

Hello, I'm looking for some guidance regarding a questionable comment left on a talk page that effectively amounts to gossip and unfounded accusations which also maligns the person the article is about, along with their family. Is this something that has to remain in place? I know that it could be archived, but it strikes me as problematic enough that there's room to argue for it's deletion. What's the best approach for kicking it out of immediate public view or am I off-base in thinking it should be removed? Thanks! --Dnllnd (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dnllnd. I collapsed the majority of it and responded with the correct course of action if they feel the subject is non-notable (although it's a pretty old comment). It's certainly not the worst I've seen, especially given that it's basically obvious personal opinion, but in future cases, when it comes to talk pages comments about living people, you can collapse, remove, or request WP:REVDEL in that order depending on the severity. If you feel uncomfortable with it, you are still free to remove the portion I collapsed, and I don't think anyone will take issue with it. GMGtalk 19:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support selected deletion I have revisited, reconsidered and have now deleted some content from the talk page, despite GMG's collapsing of the text. All of those comments are wholly unsubstantiated and quite accusative about a person who wasn't even the subject of the article. But as GMG says, it is a matter of opinion and not the worst we sometimes see here. I don't think they necessarily need to be REVDELed, but you could request this if you so wish. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits keep getting removed

Hi,

I have been tasked by the Director of my company to edit the wikipedia page for one of our programs and most of my edits keep getting deleted. He asked me to copy and paste information straight from our website and I did that and was citing the website when my edits were removed (this happened twice!). How do I go about making the changes without things being deleted?? The page is for the Student Spaceflight Experiments Program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmweimer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kmweimer. Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The short answer is, you don't. You have a conflict of interest, and ideally should not be editing the article on the subject at all. Certainly not to copy and paste copyrighted text, which is not just not allowed, it's actually illegal. You are however, welcome to contribute in areas where you do not have a financial or other conflict. You may want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, which has lots of articles you may be interested in helping to improve. GMGtalk 20:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how do edits get made to pages that have old info on them? I am new to editing in Wikipedia and we just want to be sure that the page about our program reflects the most up-to-date info. Thank you for your help. Kmweimer (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)kmweimer[reply]

Generally, editors with no personal connection with the subject will update them, Kmweimer, but sometimes out-of-date material needs to be pointed out to them. You can do this by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ. Please disclose details of your employer when making the request, as is required by Wikipedia's terms of use (see WP:PAID). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

posting the bio of a visual artist

Hi, What is the article I am trying to post rejected? Thanks, by Zlanaya

Hello @Zlanaya:, Wikipedia is not showing any other pages edited by this account. Did you create the bio under another account, or while not logged-in, or has it been deleted? Can you provide us a link to the article you are talking about?
And as a general rule, the page WP:Notability (artists) helps explain what an artist bio must have to be accepted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zlanaya: If you are referring to Draft:Amelia Jimenez, the draft was deleted as abandoned. Drafts may be considered abandoned and deleted if they have not been edited for six months. However, this isn't permanent; you may request that the draft be restored at requests for undeletion. Before you do, there will be a few things to consider. Many of the references in the article did not mention Jimenez at all, and those that did were just a name drop. To demonstrate notability, you'll need multiple sources that qualify as reliable and independent that cover her in reasonable depth, not just mention or name drop her. The fourth paragraph is also heavily promotional, and would need to be either toned down or removed, since articles must be neutral in tone and content. If sources about her as described above exist, make sure you use those in the article and stick only to facts they verify. If such sources don't exist at all, she's not an appropriate subject for an article and it would be better worth your time to find another topic to work on. Whether you work on that article or another, do remember that we don't use euphemisms, so it would be "death", not "passing", and for a person, we should refer to them by full name on the first mention and last name only thereafter to maintain a formal tone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

Why was Draft:Nick Jr. (Brazil) deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FayyadAllhassan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FayyadAllhassan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, it was not deleted, it was converted into a redirect in this edit. This was apparently done because we already have an article Nick Jr.. I understand that the draft was about a Latin American version of the channel. But the draft also said that the programming was almost identical, specifically it said Currently, the Nick Jr. channel features the same programming as the Nick Jr. block on Nickelodeon.... Do you really think that there is enough difference for a separate article on the Latin America version? Perhaps you caould add a section about that version to the existing article. If it gets large enough, it could later be split off into a separate article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to address a long overdue dispute that I did not initiate?

Trying to remove from the article Apache OpenOffice a commentary, as far as I know, not neutral, I have found myself in a previous dispute that I did not initiate. Several users have reversed my edits. Like added problem, I'm not a native English speaker. What can I do about it? --Entalpia2 (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Entalpia2: Answered at the Help Desk. Please don't post the same question in multiple places. RudolfRed (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music notability and Album Notes

Hello! I have been working on an creating an article for A notable record producer. He is quoted a lot in other artists wikipedia and I do feel he has enough notability for his own article. When I originally made the article (its been reviewed and not accepted twice) I used disogs as a source which I realize now it is not a reliable source but, I wanted to show he had composing, writing and producing credits for a lot of notable pop and r&B hits, including many top ten hits. My question is how would I go about adding the credits from the cd and album booklets? I have resubmitted my article without the disog cites but, I want to keep improving it. Thanks in advance!Ashlee444 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ashlee444, and welcome to the Teahouse. A track listing from the publisher of the CD or album would be a sufficient source for the credits. So would a listing from Billboard, which should list credits for items that charted. Many of these would be available online. Album reviews often include credits as well. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ashlee444. In all honesty, you are putting the cart before the horse. The draft in question is Draft:Johnny Douglas ( Record Producer). Your most important task by far is to demonstrate that this person is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) carefully. You need to provide references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Johnny Douglas as a person. Such sources would discuss his life and career in detail and in a biographical fashion. Your draft article has 90 references and none of them meet that standard. In addition, your draft contains an unreferenced section called "Early Life and Career" which contains lots of unreferenced personal details indicating that you may possibly have a close personal relationship with Douglas, which is a Conflict of interest. Your draft also contains lots of external links in the body of the article, which are not permitted. Much of the language in your draft violates the neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. In summary, your draft is very far away from being acceptable for the encyclopedia, and the issue of notability is the biggest challenge that you face. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 Hi! Thank you for your quick reply. I am fairly new to editing and very much appreciate the help. I had looked at notability and stumbled upon WP:MUSICBIO and under the sections for Musicians and also for composers I thought based on his works he does qualify for notability. For example, he has won a major music award with George Michael for writing a charted hit. He is the composer and producer for these pieces of music. When I look at the article for Reliable sources, disogs site which is basically an online music database for album but, it takes user submissions unfortunately so it was listed as not a reliable source. So, i have looked for reliable sources such as Billboard magazine articles to show he was a producer or composer on these songs. However, what I am in encountering is that what I thought would be considered the most reliable source the credits of his work on the album I can’t use because its not properly published on-line. Is there not a way to credit work that doesn't exist online? Like for example, how do editors properly credit movies? Would the work itself not be the best source? The external links I have used mostly link lead back to artists he’s worked with wikipedia pages. Are we allowed to link back to wikipedia? Can you make an article simply about a persons work, like for example a discography instead of a biography? As for conflict of interest, I do see what you are saying, however, I don't know have a close relationship with him or know him personally. Because of the research I have been doing for the article I now follow him on social media which is where I got the more personal info but, that's about it. I love music and have for many many years and get a little geeky with my music knowledge and research. I had seen his name mentioned a lot in the credited in the music I listened to as well as in other wiki articles and thought he qualified for one of his own because I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia directly about him. I have zero problem removing parts of and cleaning up the article especially that I can’t properly source or that are more personal and I very much appreciate your honesty. I tried to write in professional matter but, again thank you for pointing that out that it is coming off biased. Mostly, I am really wanting to be a wikipedia editor and started off writing about things I enjoy. I was trying my hand at writing an article but, it is proving very frustrating. I tend to be research a lot about things I'm interested in and I think in doing my research, I put myself between a rock and hard place. I do believe he is notable but, I don’t know how to accurately show it without using the album credits.Ashlee444 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Ashlee444. WP:MUSICBIO does not apply because he is not a musical performer. He is a producer, a person who schedules and manages the recording sessions and manages the mixing and the final presentation of the recorded music. Yes, producers can be notable but only if they themselves are the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We do not have discographies of non-notable producers.
As for the album credits, sources do not need to be online. But an album credit is not significant coverage of a person. It is the opposite of significant coverage, or what we call a passing mention. He could have a thousand album credits but unless the significant coverage in reliable independent sources is available, he is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Thank you again for your clarification and help! I have been doing some research on notability and record producers and found that this was discussed about a year ago on a wikipedia talk page. They were discussing wether producers are notable and the general consensus is unless there is a lot of reliable media coverage they don't meet wikipedia standards, even if they have won multiple awards, the song charted and the producer has co-wrting credits. I'm not exactly sure how many reliable sources one needs and what that actually would look like. For example I used billboard magazine articles as a source where he is mentioned by name and his works is talked about but, even that doesn't seem to hold up to the standards of notability. It all very confusing and disappointing but, it is what is I suppose. Like I said, your help has been very much appreciated!Ashlee444 (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insights Success

Hello Wikipedians,

We wrote the content about Insights Success on 29th Mar 2018. After sometime we found content wasn't approved. Kindly elaborate our pitfalls, so not to happen same mistakes in the future.

Thank You!

Manishbansal2018 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Manishbansal2018. That article about a business magazine was deleted because there were no references to independent reliable sources devoting significant coverage to this magazine. Accordingly, there was no evidence in the deleted article that this topic is notable, as defined by Wikipedia. Please read and study Your first article.
When you use the word "we", that raises concerns. Wikipedia does not allow shared accounts or group accounts. An account should be used by only one person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=833386722"