Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kgberg (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 10 December 2019 (→‎Noting COI on my user page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Tenryuu, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a 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.

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Page submission not accepted because it is deemed to be more of an advertisement.

Hi,

I submitted a page, made it factual (at lest I thought so) and referenced it to authoritative webpages. However it was rejected because it was deemed more of an advertorial, which is not the intention. No suggestion was made as to what needs to be changed, which I am more than happy to do so.

Can anyone help on this?

page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sal_Jobe

Kind regards

Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echezuria (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Echezuria: Unfortunately page reviewers and, generally speaking, commenters at the teahouse don't have the time to provide detailed advice and feedback on pages. The onus is really on an editor who wants to publish an article to read our policies, understand them, and write the article in a way that complies. We'll happily point you towards policies and advice, as the comment on your draft did, but that's probably all you can reasonably expect. To give you a bit more help here, just from reading through the first couple of paragraphs of your article, it's written in a way that comes across as more promotional than encyclopedic, for example phrases such as: "he turned his talent to acting", "Having a good understating of the sport, a sport he played from primary school," and "Miller was given the opportunity of his career" do not sound like language I would expect in an encyclopedia. The inclusion of unsourced information about his company is also likely to have flagged up to the reviewer as being potentially promotional. Hugsyrup 13:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you syrup - I did read and follow the policies (so I thought) :-(( Will take your valuable comments into account and re-draft. I do however think that if an article is rejected, highlighting why it was rejected does help, rather than being too generic in the response. Once again, thank you for your valuable help. Echezuria (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echezuria (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Echezuria: You're very welcome. And I understand what you're saying - it's a common complaint, but you have to appreciate that right now the backlog of unreviewed articles for creation stands at 3,449. If reviewers (all of whom are volunteers, remember) had to give detailed feedback on each article, we would not have a hope of ever keeping up with demand let alone reducing that backlog. We give general reasons for declining articles, along with links to policies and essays that have lots of helpful information, and we then rely on editors to do the work themselves in making changes and improvements. Hugsyrup 14:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Echezuria Note that the IMDB is usually not considered a relaible source (with a few limited exceptions) because users can change its content with limited oversight, and should not be cited as a source in Wikipedia articles or drafts. Note also that interveiws with the subject of an article are not independent sources. They can be cited, but do not help much if at all in establishing the notability of the subject. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DES. Will look for different sources. Having said that, the information is factual, nonetheless will look for another source. Still, I am very surprised as IMDB is an Amazon company. Echezuria (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Echezuria. Wikipedia's policies often seem strange to people who are not used to them. A central one is verifiability, not truth: what is crucial is that a reader should be able to the sources and verify everything in an article. This is necessary because Wikipedia, like iMDB, can be edited by anybody.(Unfortunately, many older articles do not meet this standard, but new ones do not get accepted unless they do). One approach to looking at your draft is to ask, for every single claim made in the draft, "Which reliable published source backs up this claim?" If you can't find one, you need to remove the claim from the article, even if you personally know it is true, or have unpublished documents relating to it. Furthermore, if the only published source for it is a source close to the subject - the subject's own website, for example, or an interview they gave, or a statement from their press office - then you need to take it out unless it is uncontroversial factual data, like places and dates.
Another way of looking at this is to say that Wikipedia has basically no interest in what the subject or their associates say or want said: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them.
Finally, about iMDB: as I indicated above, Wikipedia (in fact, almost all wikis} is also not regarded as reliable, because anybody may edit it. This has nothing to do with who owns it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) First of all, thank you for your assistance. I have removed and have employed an experienced writer to redraft the text, specially to remove all the puffery wordings as was advised. Therefore, the claims that you believe that should be removed, can you let me know which ones I should remove, and I will remove them. His acting career performance and reference to the iMDB are all factually correct, I am at a loss as to why that is not accepted, as it is the industry's reference, but again, I will remove that reference, all of the information there however are all factually correct. To that end, in relation to the actor's career what other prove can I send you to satisfy that requirement?

(talk) - I have just noticed that you made your comments after I have made the changes as advised on the previous comments. The only one I am struggling with is the iMDB listing, which are all factual and correct. I am looking for other, more reliable sources other than iMDB, but cannot find one that is more reliable than iMDB at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echezuria (talk • contribs) 11:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting a request for a new article

Hello I am wondering if anyone can help me. I am currently editing and adding to a draft article that someone else submitted which got rejected for not having enough source material. I think the addition of the article would be really good but I do have a conflict of interest which I have stated on my editor page and have read all the guidelines on conflicts of interest - I know the person that the article is about. I would really appreciate it if someone could check for any bias on my part and also before submitting it tell me the likelihood of it being accepted- I would hate to be banned from Wikipedia as an editor and so I am trying to be as transparent as possible. The draft article is called Lady Kitt. Thank you ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slikitty (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slikitty, it is recommended that you do not create or edit articles that you have a conflict of interest with. You can ask someone to create the article for you if you wish. Also, if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Does this help? Interstellarity (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Interstellarity thank you for responding. When I read the guidelines for writing an article about someone you know it said it was recommended that you did not do this but that if you did it was best practice to ask for help from other editors to check for bias and that it is a notable article. I have already edited quite a lot of the draft and was just wondering if someone could check it over to remove any of my bias and to check if it can be submitted? Does that make sense?Slikitty (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slikitty, I don't have the time to look over your draft for you since I am not an AFC reviewer. I recommend that you submit your draft and someone else will review it for you. Interstellarity (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you have declared a COI on your user page, I don't foresee a problem in you submitting Draft:Lady Kitt to AfC. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Lady Kitt.
Slikitty: I don't see any bias, but I'm not sure you have established the subject's notability by citing enough references to reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. Ref. 1 is to the site of a gallery showing the subject's work, and so not independent. 2 is to the subject's own web site, ditto. 3 reports what the subject said, ditto. 4 and 5 were written by the subject, ditto. 6 seems to me a good reference, helping to establish that the subject is notable. But 7-16 also do very little to establish notability, some of them don't even mention the subject. I'd encourage you to find and cite more sources like ref. 6 (and probably drop many of the others). If you submit it now, maybe it will be accepted, maybe it will be declined (it won't be rejected). Either way, here's no risk of your being banned, that's reserved for editors who repeatedly violate Wikipedia's rules, despite being warned. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maproom David notMD and Interstellarity thank you all for your input, I really appreciate it. I will look more into some of the suggestions you have all made and thank you for clarifying some points for me as well. Slikitty (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is very very unfriendly in its ways to anyone new, attempting to contribute anything what so ever to Wikipedia

Dearest Wikipedia,

The barrier of entry for newcomers, even professionals as myself, is too high. I am giving up. I have at various points tried to contribute to this otherwise great forum of knowledge with absolutely credible information.

Was it not supposed to be a forum, where one can contribute within areas where one possess knowledge? Was it not meant to be in such a way so that when someone shares something which is factual and proper - then it will become a part of Wikipedia's knowledge base?

Every time I have just been hit in the head with rejection of anything what so ever. There is no friendly guideline. No hint as to concrete examples taken from what ever one wanted to contribute.

The language you are using, seem to be deliberately hostile to any newcomer. I am not stupid in terms of English, however, any response and attempt to "Guide" us newcomers is filled with jargon, and even ways of using the language which is very uncommon. It may be normal for people who work with encyclopedia and written knowledge administration, but it is very very hostile to newcomers.

I have at times tried to sit with a dictionary to understand the words being used - and while I understand these words as in the words themselves - there is a thick layer of connotation and "business-usage" of the same words, and this too, is not friendly at all.

So, you can shove it. I have a certified and verified IQ - by the way - of 146 - measured by Mensa, who is one of the leaders in such measurements - and I have worked within plenty of areas where I would likely be able to share some 200 to maybe 300 expert articles on various topics. But my few, innocent attempts to start by sharing a few things I know a little about has been met with the "hammer method" - or the "mushroom harvesting method".

Wikipedia has therefore moved away from being a place where professionals can share their knowledge - to become an elitist group who largely sits and polish their own helios/glory by making the very entry of any content so complex so that the ones which this was meant for - have been left out.

Frankly - I am a busy person - and I guess many with me are. I would love to share with everyone here on Wikipedia, the way it was - but I do not have the time for this learning curve, nor the patience, nor the stamina to be mistreated - by administrative, almost Kafka'-like behaviours.

So. You good people - live long and prosper - I will instead post things elsewhere, where everything is more in touch with reality.

And if you want me and other experts in plenty of fields which you have not even started to cover, to write, then you who sit and guard your territory of gibbedigook self-inflated, with arrogant barriers, need to change. David Svarrer

Sincerely David T. Svarrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsvarrer (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidsvarrer: Sorry you feel that way, but I'm not seeing what led to it. Can you give us examples where you have "been hit in the head with rejection of anything what so ever"? Your edit history shows that you posted to Talk:Nucleosynthesis in 2017 (no response) and to Talk:Jumia ‎ in 2018 (no response). You have made edits to Lead–acid battery and Solar azimuth angle this year, and all of those edits are still in the articles. You tried to create an article in 2016 and it was rejected as not showing notability with reliable sources. The only posts to your talk page are the notice of the rejection with suggestions and links, and a follow up post. The draft was deleted more than 6 months later as an abandoned draft, so it appears that you never went back to it. Meters (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, as the notice at Draft:Unboss says, WP:REFUND applies, soyou have only to ask to have the draft restore if you wish to work on it. Meters (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Davidsvarrer. Some of the things you posted above about Wikipedia being a forum, a place to share information that is factual and proper, or a place where professionals can share their knowledge sort of indicate that you might slightly be misunderstanding the role Wikipedia is trying to play. Perhaps this will be clearer if you take a look at the following pages: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, and Wikipedia:Expert editors. Or course, Wikipedia wants people with expert knowledge about specific subjects to help improve the overall quality of articles, but all editors have to work within Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines when doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Davidsvarrer. Because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and editors are, in principle, anonymous, the encyclopedia is based only on material found in reliable, published sources. For that reason, anyone interested in 'sharing a few things they know a little about' has come to the wrong place, unless they have a citation to a reliable source to back up what they know. Wikipedia has evolved as a project and a community starting from a blank and empty file, through much trial and error, battles and discussion. It may sound harsh, but in all practicality, there is no way to make a usable encyclopedia via crowdsourcing without such a constraint.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davidsvarrer I think you have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is; Wikipedia is not and has never claimed to be "a place where professionals can share their knowledge". Wikipedia is not for posting our personal knowledge, whether one is an expert or not- nor is it merely for sharing knowledge. It is, as noted above, based on materials found in independent reliable sources. Experts in fields are welcome, but they must work with everyone else here in a collaborative manner. As noted by Meters, your participation has been asked for over the years but you have not responded and it's also not clear where you have experienced this poor treatment- which would be wrong if you did- please provide examples of this poor treatment. I do find it interesting that an expert professional is accusing us of being elitist. We're not elitist and are willing to work with you to help you, but you need to meet us halfway. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidsvarrer: You didn't mention a single page, editor, quote, time, or anything else which can be used to guess what you refer to. Are you by any chance referring to your edit [1] to the article wikisource:Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court? The edit was not to Wikipedia but to Wikisource. Your complaint at wikisource:User talk:EncycloPetey#Flavoured and non-factual article about Landmark Education is more recent than your Wikipedia edits. wikisource:Wikisource:About says: "Wikisource is a Free Library of source texts which are in the public domain or legally available for free redistribution. Wikisource is an official project of the Wikimedia Foundation and a sister project of Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." Wikisource republishes existing source texts and Wikisource editors should not change them. The top of the article gives the original author and publication. Rick Ross published it in Cult News in 2005. He probably isn't a Wikisource editor. Inserting your own writing in the Wikisource republication is like going to a library, pulling out a book, changing the text to something the author would disapprove, and putting it back on the shelf. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed the wikisource stuff. That may well explain this, although the issue was well explained at the time by User:Billinghurst. Meters (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably also worth explaining that to a standard Wikimedia Foundation user login that one can access all the sister wikis: Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikivoyages, Meta, WikiSpecies, Wikidata, Wikinews; then add in all the language wikis, now total about 800 wikis. Each of these wikis share resources, and the Wikimedia scope, though each has its own community, its own scope and purpose. If you have questions about Wikisource, then please come to our general help for users at s:en:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I have a certified and verified IQ - by the way - of 146" Citation needed for that. Which is the basic problem you seem to have here. You seem to think that Wikipedia should accept anything you say on no more authority than the fact that you said it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We have no way of knowing if you are David Svarrer. Or what your IQ is. Or what credentials you might have. You could just as easily be Mildred Q. Milquetoast of East Podunk, Ohio, who has never been more than 3 miles from the house she was born in and never went beyond the 3rd grade. And the same goes for anyone. So we require citations to sources. Books, magazines, journals, TV programs, movies, etc, that anyone can check. --Khajidha (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i need an advice for Draft:Martin Fayomi

I would be glad if someone guide me through my article Draft:Martin Fayomi This article is about Notability People


--Goldie19 (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Goldie19, you were asked to clarify exactly what makes the subject notable. You need to provide at least three WP:Reliable sources with WP:Significant coverage on the subject to claim that the subject meets the general notability criteria for people. Failing that, you need to show, supported by reliable sources, the subject meets one of the criteria of the relevant subject-specific notability guideline. For example: winning a national level music competition or a national level music award would be sufficient proof of notability for a singer. Currently, it's not clear to me what exactly the person does, and so exactly which specific criteria the person might meet. The reviewer linked WP:NMUSIC, one of the criteria of which the person might need to meet, in order to deserve an article on Wikipedia. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 14:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I would make necessary changes --Goldie19 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create Wikipeadia Page

Hello, I was wondering what roles or permissions I need to create a page without the process of staff having to look over it. Thanks, Owen — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeJedi (talk • contribs) 23:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AwesomeJedi: You do not need a user right to make a page. You can do it! I recommend using the WP:Article wizard. Before making one though, read the advice at WP:Your first article. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AwesomeJedi: When you become auto confirmed (your account is 4 days old with 10 edits) you can directly create articles on the main space. However, I strongly recommend you use the article wizard as the reviewers there will make sure your article is ready for the main space and give you help. Best, Taewangkorea (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Taewangkorea: Thanks for the help, AwesomeJedi (talk 23:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AwesomeJedi. There are no staff who look over articles: everything is done by volunteers like you and me. Once your account is four days old (it is about 13 hours old at present) you will be allowed to create a new article directly in mainspace. I would very strongly advise you not to do this, as you are likely to have a very frustrating time. Creating new encyclopaedia articles (not just "pages") that don't get deleted is much more difficult than most people realise. I wonder why you don't want "staff having to look over it"? I'm guessing that you are bothered about how long that may take: it is disappointing that it can take a long time for a draft to get reviewed; but we are a volunteer organisation, and people work on what they choose to work on. It is great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia; but I believe that a new editor can contribute hundreds of times as much value to Wikipedia by choosing some of our six million articles and making little improvements to them than by trying to create a new article before they have understood how Wikipedia works. If you are concerned with getting something up quickly because of some external deadline, then I wonder if you might be trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, which is not permitted. Please see there is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

categories

How do I sort categories on an article and how do I know what to assign it to? --ThereIsn'tMuchToTalkAboutButHere (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "sort categories"? —Tamfang (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Categories appear in the order they're listed in the page's source code. Finding the correct categories can be difficult, but you can usually find a related article and see which categories it is in. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Notability

Hello, I am about to write an article on Contopia (Container Utopia). Few sources on this topic are: https://www.eft.com/technology/loginno-reveals-details-long-life-smart-container-device https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/navis-and-loginno-collaborate-to-explore-impact-of-smart-containers-on-the-future-of-container-operations-and-container-movement-visibility/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/blue-ocean-contopia-shachar-tal/

I would like to know if I should drop an article on Contopia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarshiChopra (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HarshiChopra, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Making a new article is one of the hardest things you can do on Wikipedia. The requirements are very exacting and generally unforgiving. Taking a look at the articles, I would say that the topic you propose is probably not notable, i.e. we probably shouldn't have an article on it. Its interesting, but not especially encyclopedic as topics go, and would be very hard to cover neutrally, as all the sources you have right now are quite promotional. I reccomend you don't create this page, and instead edit existing pages that interest you. If you still would like to, you can start a draft by using the Article Wizard. Thanks for checking in with us first, very few editors actually think to check if a topic is notable before actually writing about it. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Goronok

Hello My article was recently declined. The main reason was in the references to Wikipeadia and Facebook. So I have corrected the issue and resubmitted the article. So I am wondering you could take a look at the article once again) Thank you DaniDani Ivanov (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Draft:Roman Goronok David notMD (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in the brown box on your draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,504 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dani Ivanov, you might want to revise it further. It contains unsourced claims of excellence and importance, which are never permissible, especially in a biographical article. There's also considerable other material there for which no source is given--biographies of living people require such sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flatbread article vandalism

The article on Flatbread has a problem with it under type it has written "PIZZA IS FROM ITALY =", just thought you should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:B10C:2600:88D1:8ED4:B7D6:404B (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up! It has been reverted. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck on the DOB format on the BLP article

It's a small error but a major issues on the BLP article. Please assist and guide me on rectifying the Date of birth on the article Heli Daruwala as birth year is not available on the Web. Hope to get the assistance and thanks for helping new editor. FascinateGuy (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FascinateGuy, thanks for your question. In this case, it is worth asking whether we need to include Heli Daruwala's full date of birth on Wikipedia. Part of our BLP policy (WP:DOB) suggests that, in light of privacy concerns, it is not always necessary to include a person's date of birth if the individual has not publicised it themselves. As far as I can see, we have a reliable source for Daruwala's birthday (ie. month & year) but not birth year - we might infer that she is happy to publicise her birthday but not the year. You have two options here - you could include just the day and month in the article (using the {{birth-date}} template), or you could just remove the DOB entirely, unless and until you unearth more reliable sources. Does that help? WJ94 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WJ94, thanks for your assistance. It really helped me to contribute and make Wikipedia grows. FascinateGuy (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hello, my article on kitchenshaming was rejected "because it is not sufficiently notable". As a social scientist I believe that it is notable. An articles on a practice of "eye-rolling" is on Wikipedia, I do not see why kitchenshaming is any worse. Please help, I would really love to positively contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alieneggs (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alieneggs,
For anything to have an article here, it needs significant coverage in reliable sources. This isn't a judgement on article topics, just that it would impossible to verify the contents of our articles without this coverage to check it against.
In your case, you haven't demonstrated this level of coverage in the article - we can't cite ourselves, and social media sites aren't reliable sources. The article that is left is more of an opinion piece that significant coverage. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Alieneggs. You cannot use various Wikipedia articles as references in another Wikipedia article. You may use those articles to find possible reliable sources. Please read WP:CIRCULAR for more information. You cannot use random hashtag searches on Twitter and Instagram as references in Wikipedia articles, because a large majority of posts on Twitter and Instagram are not reliable. Any such article must summarize significant coverage of "kitchenshaming" in reliable sources. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:Other stuff exists. —Tamfang (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cerise Moth

Need wiki to post info on The Cerise Moth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthra79 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panthra79, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have some sources that discuss the moth? What exactly would you like to add? Do you have the scientific name of the moth perhaps? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Panthra79. Are you thinking of Dryocampa rubicunda? If not, tell us more about this other moth. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Panthra79 might be thinking of the one that was recently doing the rounds on facebook, which isn't an actual existing moth but an artist's creation. Alternatively, Dryocampa rubicunda (the rosy maple moth), Deilephila elpenor (elephant hawk moth) and Deilephila porcellus (small elephant hawk moth) occasionally get mislabelled as the "cerise moth", "cherry moth" or "pink moth" on various social media. AddWittyNameHere 19:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of the Coldplay Band

Hi, I'm Bob Water Voltron, and on this occasion we would like everyone to work on the legacy of the Coldplay band. It would be very clear to do that. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Water Voltron (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Bob Water Voltron:, your query/request is unclear, at least to this native BrE speaker.
What is "this occasion"?
By "the Coldplay band" do you mean the band called Coldplay, or some other entity?
What would it mean for people at Wikipedia to "work on its legacy"? Do you mean you want a section entitled "Legacy" to be added to the Coldplay article, or something else?
What do you mean by "it would be very clear to do that"? This makes no obvious sense in the context.
{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the questions above, I must also ask, what do you mean by “we”? Please be aware that Wikipedia accounts may not be used by multiple people, nor must you give the impression that a single account represents multiple people. Hugsyrup 07:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent article on ADRC technology

Dear Sir, I would like you opinion on whether the ADRC Internet of Things technology created by Xped Limited is notable. I have done some internet searches and found more than 3 independent sources.

Best regards, Chris Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanticx (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alanticx, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Could you perhaps link the sources? And no need to say sir, we aren't all men and we need no such formality :) We're just average folks looking to help. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here are some links:

https://www.iotaustralia.org.au/2017/01/12/iotnewanz/home-gateway-maker-arcadyan-incorporate-xped-smart-home-technology/

https://www.iotaustralia.org.au/2016/07/09/iotnewanz/xped-goes-disability-iot-market/

https://www.afr.com/technology/iot-home-device-control-company-xped-to-backdoor-list-on-asx-20151027-gkj79n

https://www.wise-owl.com/stock-analysis/is-xped-ready-to-serve-the-internet-of-things-market

Regards, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanticx (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alanticx, If you would like, you could try creating a draft article using the WP:Article Wizard. But I caution that I find the notability to be marginal at best. I personally would not write an article about that subject, as it is too narrow. Instead I suggest you add a section about it on Xped, an existing page about the company. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Eek Thanks for the advice. I will do just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A002:D100:2C42:E886:9457:2CE0 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My article was not accepted by the reviewer from different reasons (including the policy against NEOLOGISMS)

Why the Wikipedia is reticent with neologisms?! It is a mistake! This why: if I am looking for the word „oak” I find it anywhere, I don't need an encyclopedia for that. So, if Wikipedia provides the definition for „oak”, its grade of utility is close to zero. But if Wikipedia provides a definition of a neologism such „Picture Performance Index”, then its utility is maximum because nobody else provides a definition for this expression and if a user wants to know about this expression he will be very happy to find an article related to this expression, especially in Wikipedia, the first place where he will look for. Avoiding neologisms is like avoiding utility. Everybody will praise Wikipedia if the encyclopedia is able to spare few hours from the user's time dedicated for Google search about an obscure term, is it? Am I right or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristi Lavin (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cristi Lavin, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia does not cover everything. We have standards for inclusion, which are what we call notability. Neologisms generally have a high bar, as many are not widely used, and thus poorly defined. Draft:Picture Performance Index would need sources that show widespread use. If we allowed just any neologism, we would have a very large bank of very short articles that could not possibly be expanded further. Your article could yet be approved, if you improve it. You will need to find more sources that cover it. You will also need to write in a formal encyclopedic style, as the current style is overly casual. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cristi Lavin: In addition to the above, if we take your example, the article oak is not a short stub "oaks are trees with wobbly leaves", but it contains lots of other information, for example that certain oak species are deciduous and other evergreen (and many other things). The utility of an encyclopedia entry is not in giving the definition of a term, but in giving details, context, history etc. of a concept. The problem with neologisms in that regard is that usually they lack such backstory and the associated sources that we require (partly because once it starts to accumulate some history, it stops being a neologism anymore). TigraanClick here to contact me 07:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cristi Lavin, nobody comes to Wikipedia for a dictionary definition of "oak", but rather for our encyclopedia article Oak which provides a comprehensive overview of approximately 600 species of oak, supported by 60 references for more in-depth study. We set a high bar for articles on neologisms, because they come and they go, and they are far too often the subject of promotional editing by people who coined a term or are actively engaged in promoting it. If the term is truly notable, then it will be discussed in detail as a concept by independent reliable sources. If so, then an article is appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CaptainEek: High bar means smaller content. Of course, we should keep in mind that quality is more important than quantity, but if you include all neologisms you don't consume paper, so don't be afraid to put more than necessary. The web page supports everything, including junk-words. Nobody is God of linguistic to decide which word has a future and which one doesn't. You must give a chance of life to each one. For a word to be very well defined is a process, not a status. A word which is now „poorly defined”, as you accuse, could be tomorrow in a different position, a better one. I used a casual style because I am NOT so familiarized with TV field (or with advanced English). Somebody with more experience should perform a better job with my article, if it is too rudimentary. Cristi Lavin
    Cristi Lavin Wikipedia follows the sources, it does not lead them. It does not try to predict which words might become well defined, it notes words which have already become both well defined, and notable in that they are widely used by independent reliable sources. Neologisms which are not yet notable have their chance of life in the wider marketplace of ideas -- if generally adopted Wikipedia will pick them up in time. And no articles here should use an overly casual style. A notable topic is one which should have a permanent article here, which ephemeral topics should not. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DESiegel: Wikipedia (and, on another side, Wikileaks) leads the world, so don't tell me Wikipedia does not lead the sources! And about your point that my neologism (which, by the way, is not mine) has its chance only in the wider marketplace of ideas but not in an encyclopedy... well, nobody has time to search marketplaces, that why you should take out this from the discussion. It is here or nowhere. But in spite of „poorly defined” status, my article has a big utility... I will try to elucidate that once for all. Somebody from here told me: „If the term is used only by three companies, and defined differently by each of them, it's not a standard; so who cares?” My reply to him: Yes, it is a problem of standard, but not just that. Something is more annoying. It is a chaos among TV manufacturing companies, but it is also a chaos in linguistic field, since we don't have the same definition for the same expression. So, from Wikipedia point of view, linguistic point of view should be more important than technical one. After we establish the absence of one and common definition for the expression, which makes communication impossible, we should wonder why is still useful to skip the theoretical requirement and proceed to publish my article. I tell you why. Because when a company says about its TV that has 5100 PPI you think automatically it is about Pixel Per Inch. But 5100 Pixel Per Inch means a TV which wasn't yet invented, something very good. But if you found out (from Wikipedia) that PPI may refer to something else, not at Pixel Per Inch, you suddenly realize you are not close to buy a very good TV, but an ordinary one. So, it is not important what „Picture Performance Index” means, but what doesn't mean.Cristi Lavin
    No, we follow the sources (or at least try to). See WP:NOTABILITY, among others (which was already linked earlier in the discussion). You are right that other sources copy us, and that's actually a serious threat to our way of doing things (see those known incidents where entire facts were made up because of it). As for the argument that without a Wikipedia mention the term will not become widespread, that is actually cited as a reason to delete articles in the first sentence of WP:NEOLOGISM. Please read those links before you keep arguing how things are (as opposed to how they should be).
There are ways to argue for the rules to be changed (Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposals), but to be honest following rather than leading the sources is such a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that I do not think you have the slightest chance of having it changed. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh, and Wikileaks has nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever, by the way. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Pixels per inch exists as redirect to Pixel density, no WP:OR or WP:NEO required here (let alone allowed). I needed that info some years ago to grok "pels per meter" vs. Dots per inch in the BMP file format. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is a NoDerivs License Allowed on WikiPedia?

I have access to some images from the State of Maryland that are licensed as follows: Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-ND 3.0). This license would not allow the images to be uploaded to Commons because of the noderivs clause. (I think. Please correct me if that is not the case.) If I wanted to use the image in a specific Wikipedia article, would it be acceptable to upload the image to Wikipedia?

FWIW, it's a high-quality image of the Maryland State House during the legislative session. I can go and photograph the State House when it is not in session but I don't think members of the public are allowed to take pictures when it is in session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandGeoffrey (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MarylandGeoffrey. I'm pretty sure you're right that Commons won't accept that licence. The conditions under which you can upload non-free material to Wikipedia are set out in NFCC, and they must all be met. I think it's very unlikely you could use that picture, because, as you point out, it would be easy for you to get a free version by taking it yourself (criterion 1). You suggest that that is not the case for a picture of the congress in session; but then you would have to argue that this had contextual significance (criterion 8): you might be able to make that argument, but I rather doubt it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Read This Risible Request

Never thought that I would ever be posting anything ever again on a Wikipedia page, but I am choosing to respond to this request for a monetary donation.

REALLY?!

Even if I DID have the money to spare (and I don't) I would not donate for two reasons:

1. Wikipedia allows anonymous accounts; and anonymous accounts are a (possibly "THE") reason that allow internet/web trolls to exist. Personally, I think that www.quora.com has a better policy regarding this issue than Wikipedia does.

2. Dunno if this is STILL the case, but when I stopped expending energy and effort to contribute (non-financially, of course) to Wikipedia there were rules in place that resulted in a de facto prohibition on people with knowledge/expertise in any given area from editing articles that they had knowledge/expertise in.

Anyway, this rant is moot because I don't have any money to give in the 1st place. Gotta say, though, I was quite surprised that I still have my L/i|P/w still stored on my computer; I'm also surprised that I STILL actually care enough to type up this rant, because I know that nothing will change. It's been years since I last posted anything (I haven't even looked at my own user page or the affiliated "Talk" page).

C'est la vie.

"And so it goes." -- Linda Ellerbee

<br. />—NBahn (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NBahn This is not the place to post rants; you are free to work to change the above concerns you have. There is no prohibition against expert editors; there is a prohibition against any user posting their personal knowledge, as Wikipedia exists to summarize what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Nbahn. The Teahouse is really a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia; it's not really set up to respond to posts like yours or address complaints about Wikipedia. If you'd like to comment on a particular policy or guideline, then you can do so at the corresponding talk page for that policy or guideline. If you'd like to just express some general concerns you have about Wikipedia, then you can trying taking a look at Wikipedia:Contact us or maybe asking at one of the noticeboards listed here. For example, your concerns about allowing unregistered user to edit has been something which (I believe) has come up many times before and the consensus always seems to be that restricting the ability to edit to only registered accounts would be contrary to the spirit of the goals of Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing; moreover, an IP account is actually less anonymous so to speak than a registered account because the IP is visible for anyone looking at a page to see and can be geolocated where as the IP of a registered account is only visible to administrators or others who have special user rights. In addition, while it's true that IP accounts are used for vandalism or other types of disruption, such as trolling, such problems are not limited to only IP accounts as explained in Wikipedia:IPs are human too. There seems to be no shortage of people trying to doing such things who actually register for an account to specifically do them, perhaps because they feel they will be less likely to be noticed by others.
As for your comment Wikipedia there were rules in place that resulted in a de facto prohibition on people with knowledge/expertise in any given area from editing articles that they had knowledge/expertise in, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Expert editors. Wikipedia doesn't have a ban against those with knowledge or expertise editing articles in their respective fields or areas of specialty, it just asks that such editors do so in accordance with the same rules and guidelines that apply to all editors and not expect to be be given special treatment or deferred to simply because they do possess such knowledge or expertise. It's unfortunate if something happened during the course of your editing that soured you on Wikipedia, but unless you your willing to provide more specific on such things, it's going to be hard for anyone here at the Teahouse to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

Illegal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.72.130.145 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia, or how to make an edit request? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albums

≪<ref><ref><ref>{{WikiProject Albums|B-Class-6=}}</ref></ref></ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.199.213.107 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, IP editor, it is not at all cleat what your question is. Did you want to do something with Project Albums? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

I think there is some kind of bug that is hindering the episodes data to be not shown under the heading "Episodes" on the page MasterChef India (season 6). Kindly Check! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.13.234 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table is displaying correctly, but currently has ten blank rows. My guess is that one of the editors who've been working on it recently plans to add more data. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this diff I could see the error. But now it appears to be fixed. OkayKenji (talk page) 07:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

creating a new article

hello i'm Alex and i'm new to Wikipedia. i'm just wondering if it is worth writing an article about someone named Deborah Gail stone who was the first staff member to die at a Disney park and i'm just wondering if she is notable enough to make one of her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dernoncourt8 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, welcome to the Teahouse. We have a policy here about people notable for only one event, which generally discourages creating articles for people who are only known for a single event, and to focus on covering the event rather than the person. Although this guideline leaves plenty of leeway, it's fairly well-established on Wikipedia that when someone receives press coverage only because of them dying in an unusual, tragic or otherwise newsworthy way, they usually don't need a standalone article. The event itself might get an article if it is especially noteworthy (i.e. 'death of Deborah Gail Stone') but even then, we are not a news website and not every newsworthy event needs an article. In this case, I think the event is better covered at other articles, and indeed it seems to be well-covered here America_Sings#Deborah_Gail_Stone_Incident. That is about the right balance in my opinion, and I would discourage creation of additional articles. There is also already a redirect from Deborah Gail Stone to America_Sings#Deborah_Gail_Stone_Incident, which is entirely appropriate. I hope that helps. Hugsyrup 09:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to How do I responding to an editor threatening to block

David notMD I have been told by David notMD that the below insertion I made into Elhaik's page cannot be inserted because it is 'opinionated':

'The paper by Das et al employs his so called 'Geographic Population Structure' (GPS) algorithm which, like much of the quantitative methodology used by Elhaik, has now been statistically refuted and transparently shown to be completely flawed by Flegontov et al.'

I get the feeling that this is amounting to censorship, howvever, I will rephrase and insert this sentence instead;

'The paper by Das et al employs a so called 'Geographic Population Structure' (GPS) algorithm which was statistically refuted by Flegontov et al 2016 in their section 'GPS is not Suitable for Inferring Ancestry'.[1]'

Anyone: Does this achieve the 'objectivity' evidently required by Wikeipedia rules?

Elbeavo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbeavo (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/7/2259/2467022
Courtesy link: Eran Elhaik.
@Elbeavo: While not quite as flagrantly point-of-view as the first version, your new proposed text is also not neutral and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. As another editor mentioned, last time you posted about this at the Teahouse, a better place to discuss the subject would be Talk:Eran Elhaik. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Elbeavo: Requiring a neutral point of view and writing articles in a balanced way is not the same as censorship. Your new proposed line is still not balanced. The two biggest issues I see, without knowing anything about the topic or the sources are:
  1. use of a term like 'so-called' is deliberately inserting your own viewpoint, and is not impartial.
  2. Linking the two papers in a single sentence and stating that the first 'was statistically refuted' by the second is also potentially not impartial, as this appears to be you putting your interpretation on the two papers and is a type of subtle synthesis. Does the second paper explicitly claim to refute the first? Or does another reliable source state that the second paper refutes the first? If so, just say that. If not, you as an editor should not make that claim, no matter how obvious it might seem to you.
I hope this helps. Hugsyrup 10:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elbeavo. EDITORIALIZING may also be helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, raised by other editors in August and September, was that the content you want to add or amend in the article Eran Elhaik is worded in a way that it is read as original research and opinion. All I did was point out that persisting to make the changes when being reverted by other editors is considered 'edit warring,' and can lead to a temporary block of editing rights. I am not an administrator and do not have that power. The best path forward is to work at the Talk page of the article to reach consensus with the editors who disagree with what you want to write. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Identifying independent sources

A new article on this artist has emerged. Can I request verification on this? https://asai.co.za/self-as-ghost-lizza-littlewort/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simbasounds (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've only skimmed it, Simbasounds, but that looks like a good source to me. It covers her in depth, and as far as I can see, it is indpendent and the source reliable. The only question that came to my mind is whether Littlewort is closely involved with ASAI: I have no reason to suppose she is, but if she is, that might compromise the independence. --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting speedy deletion of AnyChart page I created as it looks like vandalism

Hi everybody, please help me as I have just faced vandalism or at least huge unjustified mistake from someone. I created the AnyChart article and User:Jaclar0529 taggeed it with the G11 based speedy deletion nomination and in just a few moments or minutes this article was deleted by User:RHaworth and I did not even have time to finish my claim contesting that speedy deletion nomination according to the rules. I created this article just recently (among several other articles I created about JS libaries and other subjects these days) as and consider it to be a legitimate article which cannot be subject to speedy deletion in particular on the basis of G11. The article cannot be considered exclusively promotional, for example, and moreover, it definitely describes the subject from a neutral point of view (I do not have another point of view here as in any other article that I have created so far, only neutral, and I believe I managed to implement this neutral point of view when describing this javascript library) and, in particular, G11 says that "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." So User:RHaworth and User:Jaclar0529 (by the way, Jaclar0529 have multiple warnings and vandalism claims oh their talk page) did not even let me even contest the speedy deletion nomination. I am close to considering the deletion of AnyChart vandalism or error (Update: I am terribly sorry, did not mean it is vandalism, just was afraid it could be, but I am not thinking even like that anymore thanks to additional research, thinking, and kind explanations from other editors. Please accept my apologies if that hurt somebody of you guys.Avbgok (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)). Please help with restoring the article as the nomination for speedy deletion and deletion itself are unwarranted. If you guys or someone else feel any edits are needed, let's work on improving it together, because that is what Wikipedia is all about as I understand it. I put efforts in this article, and the subject is notable, and the article was written from the neutral point of view, and we can improve it, of course, then. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to disturb you everyone here but I am upset and hope someone can explain and help. For your information, the user who initially placed the G11 tag on the AnyChart article has just replied on my talk page: "The article has already been deleted. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator, which in this case is RHaworth, as I cannot assist you further. -jaclar0529 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)" - could you please look into this issue with deleting the AnyChart article and restore it? That user jaclar0529 even has been warned with "Final warning" on vandalizing Wikipedia on their talk page, so the nomination is likely to be just another vandalism attempt from them. I left messages on RHaworth's talk page but see no replies. Am I doing something wrong? I really want to do things right. Please help me understand the situation right and solve the issue. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Volunteers may take a while to get back to you; so I would say be patient. Just because you've left a message on someone's Talk page, does not mean they are likely to respond to it immediately. It's good that you've left a message to ask for feedback, but only some users (admins, I believe? I can't remember) have permissions to view deleted pages, so unfortunately I cannot give feedback on exactly where you went wrong.
However, based on what you've said, I'd say your issue was undeclared Conflict of Interest editing, and that what you consider to be an implemented "neutral point of view" likely wasn't. Again, I can't actually view the deleted article, so I couldn't say for sure, but "I created this article just recently (among several other articles I created about JS libaries" speaks to me that you potentially have personal involvement in these subjects. You need to declare this on your userpage if so. --12:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineffablebookkeeper (talk • contribs)
Hello and thank you, but no, I do not have any conflict of interest here. I do not understand how my words can mean anything like that allegedly I have one with some subject at all. I heard about JavaScript libraries and what they are, of course, but I just recently learned about the existence of AnyChart, Highcharts, Chart.js and some other similar subject I worked on these days just recently. And you can see in my contributions I also made articles about other completely different subjects and not only from the software field, come on. I have no personal involvement in these subjects, sorry. I am trying to become a good contributor to Wikipedia as I like it and I am just trying to be helpful. Sadly it appears to be quite nervous to write something which then gets deleted for nothing and then get accused of conflict of interests or anything else like that when I need to try to convince someone I am just trying to be helpful to Wikipedia... Well, I hope other editors and admins can help. At least I am ready to learn. But I just see no reason in deleting that page by that or basically any other reason. Improving - well, maybe, but like everything else on Wikipedia, of course, that was only a draft, not a finished article by any means... And yes, I understand no instant response should be demanded, but who knows, if one user tagged it (wrong) and then immediately another user deleted it (wrong), can't they be connected somehow, I don't know, or what if they do not reply at all... Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that I'm connected to RHaworth? -jaclar0529 (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, I mean I said I don't know. Well, I had this idea come to my mind when I realized your actions happened just one after another, in an instant, while I was writing a contesting claim, and then I noticed your user page had been deleted by RHaworth by your request... But I do not insist, sorry if that is wrong or if that offended you somehow else. Honestly, I just think you were wrong with the nomination and deleting the page was also wrong because the subject has notability, the point of view is neutral (well, let's correct if you feel anything is not, but I was doing my best as a young editor to do it neutral, of course), and I do not have any conflict of interests with any of the subjects I write or edit articles on here (Ineffablebookkeeper asked me above), so I hope for the community's help in figuring out the situation. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that this discussion probably isn't going anywhere very useful right now. @Avbgok: you have done the right thing by approaching RHaworth and you now need to be patient and wait for a reply. When that happens, RHaworth may be able to tell you more about why your page was deleted or, in the unlikely event they have made a mistake, they may undelete it. More likely, they may be willing to convert it to a draft so you can work on it and improve it before releasing it to mainspace. In the meantime, a different admin may come along here who can view the deleted page and give a better idea of what was wrong with it. Until one of those things happen, no one currently contributing to this thread has much else they can do to help, so continuing to argue the point is a little futile. Hugsyrup 13:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, understood, waiting for undelete and maybe tagging it where clarifications are needed if that is the case or other things mentioned. Just if it was not deleted so fast, I am quite sure everyone including RHaworth would agree that deletion is not the way to go. Or if it is the case, then all other articles I created on different subjects need to be deleted along with edits I made to other articles as they are made in the same form... Well, waiting, right, thanks.Avbgok (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Avbgok. Admins who deal with speedy deletions, such as myself, and even more often such as RHaworth, tend to go through all the pages currently tagged (or as many as the admin has time for) one after another in close succession, taking just enough time to review one and then on to the next. Some, such as user requests and blatant advertising, take only seconds to review and delete. Other take longer. So having two pages deleted in quick succession by RHaworth means nothing at all. Note that "advertising" here on Wikipedia does not mean just commercial advertising, any page that seems primarily designed to promote the subject qualifies for a G11 speedy deletion. I just looked at the deleted article, and text such as AnyChart supports more than 90 chart types including variations of basic charts, Gantt charts, stock graphs and maps, flexible custom drawing, and multiple options to work with data. With developers claiming it to be a "one-size-fits-all" tool, it works with all major languages, frameworks and databases. is characteristic of the promotional attempts at articels we often get here. Souring the same sentence to 6 different citations is also something of a red flag, it suggests that the author is overly eager to seem to have sources, and often that no one of the sources is strong. of course, sometimes it is just a new editor trying hard to comply with Wikipedia policy. Also, in future, avoid he use of blogs as sources. Still several of the sources look very reliable. I think this deletion might be reconsidered. Please wait for RHaworth who tends to be a bit irascible but usually reasonable in such matters. If he disagrees theere are other options, his need not be the final word, but it must be the next word. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and this is clearly not vandalism. The tagging was reasonable, and the deletion not outrageous in my view. RHaworth has long and prolific history of contributing here, and is clearly attempting nto improve the project. I ahve disagreed with RHaworth at times, mostly on deletion issues, but I have no slightest doubt of good faith on that part of this editor. I don't know Jaclar0529 (it is a big project) but I see nothing here that even suggests vandalism. In future please be cautious in using that term. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DESiegel, thanks for explaining this and expressing your opinion. I am the creator of that article and I actually am a freshman here who joined just last month out of my long-standing interest to Wikipedia, now trying to understand better how it all works and to improve myself as an editor. I was not going (and am not going) to promote this subject or any other subject of any other articles I created so far. I am here for contributions, not advertising or promotion of anything in any form. That is why those accusations I saw quite touched me, but I understand a few people here know me yet.
As far as the number of citations for the same sentence is concerned - I just sincerely thought it would help to show multiple sources, because sources for notable subjects are required to be multiple. But yes, I have already received similar signals from other editors regarding my other articles (I acted the same way everywhere, to be honest), and now I seem to understand it clearly that multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage for the subject indeed must be present as such out there so the subject can be considered notable but there is is no need to cite all or multiple of them in the articles in support of one or another particular point. So I merely was confused with properly understanding this, and thank you for making me realize this, finally. I agree there are some very good sources anyway. I also understoot you about blogs. Well, good learning, and I just hope for your understanding and thank you for giving me this deeper understanding.
As far as the number of chart types is concerned - when creating Chart.js, for example, I found out that that library has 8 chart types available and when creating AnyChart I noticed that that library has so many chart types and thought it should be mentioned as an important thing. Other features were added to not make the article show that this library only exists but instead to add some more about what it actually is since it is notable as such. If that is excessive, can you please help me understand what to do in such cases? Or how to change it so it sounds better from the point of view of a Wikipedia article?
I understand that I need to wait for RHaworth's decision, yes.
Regarding vandalism - I did not state that (Update: I have just striked those words at all to not raise any confusion anymore.Avbgok (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)) I guess I wrote that I was close to thinking it was either vandalism or error. I am terribly sorry, I did not want to hurt anyone with any statement like this or even create such a feeling on anyone's side. I respect and appreciate Wikipedia and the community. Maybe I was too hasty and did not formulate myself clearly. I do not know personally neither the person who made the nomination nor the person who actually deleted, so I cannot judge, of course. Sorry again, I really did not want to hurt anybody and I promise to be more careful with words like these. Avbgok (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a photo?

Just like you can do an internal "Wikilink" to enable the reader to jump from text to a related article or section of an article, is it possible to link text directly to an image, either within a Wikipedia article or as it's found on Wikimedia Commons? I'm envisioning something like a photo that pops up as the reader hovers over text. What would be the markup for that? If this feature exists, I would appreciated being directed to an example. Thank you. – Kekki1978 talk 13:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kekki1978, if you put a colon before the image name - like this [[:File:Breaded Cat.jpg]], it produces File:Breaded Cat.jpg. Is this what you are thinking of? ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although using that in an actual article isn't done. It would cause big problems for people using disability access tools like screen readers etc. - X201 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across a few instances where there have been copyright violations and I have removed them. Do I then need to contact an admin to revdel the diffs where the copyright violations still occur? LampGenie01 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LampGenie01, Yes, there is a template to do this - Template:Copyvio-revdel, and a very useful script which fills out the parameters - User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Superb. I'll add that to my toolbox. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking that on, LampGenie01 and for pointing to the template, OxonAlex But I want to remind you both to double check. Not infrequently what at first seems to be a copyright infringement turns out to be "backwards" copying. That is, the other site copied from Wikipedia, not Wikipedia from the other site. This is not always easy to determine. One way is to look at the hsitory. if the content that matches the other site came in all in a single edit, that suggests a copyvio on our part. it it was developed piece by piece, especially over a period of months or years, that suggests backwards copying. Also, if the other site has a publication or copyright date listed, and the content was in Wikipedia well before that, it is very likely to be a backwards copy If it is the othe way around, not so much. If the othe site has no listed date, you can sometimes use the Internet archive's Wayback Machine to find an approximate date. If you are convinced that backwards copying has occurred add {{backwardscopy}} to the article's talk page with an explanation of your reasoning and evidence. This will save others from incorrectly flaging the page as a copyright issue. If you are unsure whether there is a copyright violatiuon present, list the article (or draft) at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, frollowing the instructions on that page, which are extensive and detailed. Again, thank you both. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, DESiegel, happy to help. Thanks to you for mentioning backwards copying (truth be told, I had never thought about it, so I appreciate you bringing it up. I'll be sure to be vigilant about that going forward. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

How should I deal with articles for which I am unsure what title to use? Should I tag it with a move template, list it under "possibly controversial moves", both, or neither? For instance, I have no idea whether this article should be titled "Vighnaharta Ganesha" or "Vighnaharta Ganesh"; the title uses one spelling and the article uses another. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWarrior9919, Well usually we use the name that reliable sources use. But this article has a mere two sources, which are of poor quality. Can you try to find some more sources that more firmly establish the title? Translation may complicate the issue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For movies I'd use the English IMDb title (without reference, IMDb is no reliable source) if the references offer no clearer title: {{IMDb title|tt8240188}} can go to an "external links" section for Vighnaharta Ganesha at IMDb. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to create an article

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm creating a new page for the dean of our school, but when I create a new article, it shows me as my username as the title. I'm wondering how to create a biography page? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayuri91 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sayuri91, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no contributions in its history other than this question here; did you try to create that page logged in as a different user?
Thank you for wanting to help us improve Wikipedia. Creating a new article is one the most difficult tasks in Wikipedia, and takes a lot of care and knowledge about Wikipedia's standards and policies. Editors who try to create a new one before they have learnt these often have a very frustrating time: I would urge you to spend a few weeks improving some of our six million existing articles (many of which desperately need some work!) before you plunge into this. But please read your first article to see how the process goes.
As for your specific questio: it sounds as if you were trying to create an article in your (or somebody's) User page. That is not what User pages are for: your user page is for you to share information about you and your activities as a Wikipedia editor, if you choose to. --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sayuri91 You cannot directly create new articles until you have autoconfirmed status(the account is four days old and has at least 10 edits); you can create your userpage, which may be where you are confused. However, even once you gain that status, it is still a good idea to not directly create an article at first, as it is more challenging than it seems. It is a good idea to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for an independent review by another editor, so you get feedback on the draft before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine, Thank you for your quick response. I have to create a biography page for the dean of our school as it's the top priority, and a part of my job. What are different ways I can get started with having a biography page for someone.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayuri91 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sayuri91. In that case, your Conflict of interest makes it even harder for you to write an article about them, because once you have located the reliably published sources, wholly independent of the dean and the school, which talk at some length about the dean, (these are an absolute requirement for writing an article), you will need to forget everything you know about the dean, and write a neutral article based alsmot entirely on the independent sources. And before you do any of that you will need to make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor.
If this sounds discouraging, well, I'm afraid it is meant to be, a little. Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind. Wikipedia doesn't care whether your dean wants an article about them or not (and it certainly doesn't care about getting it done quickly: see there is no deadline). If your dean meets the criteria of notability, then Wikipedia would certainly like to have a well-sourced neutral article about them - but it would prefer that it be written by somebody unconnected with the dean. If the dean does not meet those criteria, then no article about them will be accepted, however written, and if you try you will be wasting not only your own time but that of anybody who has to review your draft.
Having said all that, if you make the required declaration, then you may attempt to create the article (remember, it is an encyclopaedia article not a social media 'page'). I strongly advise you to use the articles for creation process to create a draft and eventually submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine Yes, the way you have explained me does sound discouraging, perhaps does not support the Teahouse Goal 2. I do believe in ethical writing and I use it meticulously.
Sayuri91 If you are doing this as part of your job, that counts as paid editing and you absolutely must disclose that fact on your user page, normally using {{paid}}. Please follow those links and read the procedure. Doing paid editing without the proper disclosure is grounds for having your account blocked from all editing, possibly permanently. Disclosure is a requirement of wikipedia's terms of use. Then you will need to use the article wizard and the articles for creation process, although review may easily involve several months of delay, as there are thousands of drafts in the review pool. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some steps which are often effective in creating a new article about a person:


  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, disclose your connection with the subject in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draaft when you thimnk it is ready for reviewq. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Igbo Congress

Attention: Darwin Naz. I am referencing our previous chat on 7 November 2019 regarding the creation of a new page on "World Igbo Congress." I am delighted to hear that you found it "notable" and that you have some practical help to offer. A family emergency had kept me away but I am back and ready to complete the project. Please let me know what books you found. I have finished the draft so I am ready to submit it for review. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darwin Naz: My "payback time" for a Teahouse lesson about the wonders of WP:PING earlier this year. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Obie Njoku. The following references include entries about the World Igbo Congress (I have included the pages for your convenience):
  • Albert Okechukwu Ikpenwa: Economic Emancipation: The Crisis of a Christian Value System and the Alienation of the Human Person in a Globalized Economy : Global and Nigerian Perspectives (ISBN: 978-3-643-90132-3), p. 89-90
  • Kalu Ogbaa: The Nigerian Americans (ISBN: 0-313-31964-2), p. 96
  • Nnamdi Ijeaku: The Igbo and Their Niger Delta Neighbors: We Are No Second Fools (ISBN: 978-1-4415-2546-8), p. 9
A cursory search in Google's News Category also lists relevant coverage. Later, once you set up the draft or published the article, I could check if I could contribute content. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obie Njoku. As was explained by —[AlanM1(talk)]— in the new topic you created, you can use this thread for your other related concerns. If you would like to write a new article, you can create your draft using the Article Wizard. Darwin Naz (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different Language Citations

Lets say I'm editing a page about a foreign thing or product. Like bon ice. And on that page there are no citations, but the only sources about bon ice are in Spanish. Can I cite those sources? Btw im Honduran so i know spanish. YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English sources are preferred, but it is OK use foreign-language sources. RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are using citation templates for your citaitons, you should use the |language= parameter to indicate the language of the source. You may use the |trans-title= parameter to provide an english language translation of the source title. See also WP:NONENG. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

inquiry draft article epidata

Hello friends, I'm a rookie in wiki and have made modest contributions in order to learn and collaborate. A few months ago I wrote this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epidata) that still awaits approval. I need to validate with you if the article is well meets the standards of the community to be published or needs improvements. Thank you very much.

--Nlepanto (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nlepanto and welcome to the Teahouse. I cannot asses the non-English sources, which are more than half of the cited sources, and so i will not formally review the draft. But the English-language sources currently citred would not support an article. The two Crunchbase sources are merely directory entries and contribute nothing to notability. The Nearshore Americas quotes one of the people behind the company extensively, but says nothing about Epidata. It should be removed from the draft, it contributes nothing at all.
Please be sure that all the non-english cites use |language= tpo indicate the source language. Please understand that the |website = parameter is for the Name of the site, not its domain, and definitely not its complete URL, Please be sure to provide an access-date for all website sources.
Frankly, unless the non-English sources are significantly better than the English-language ones, or additional and better sources get added, this will not be approved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians arrested in Turkey

Hi there, could anyone help me out? I created the category Politicans (instead of Politicians) arrested in Turkey. I'd like it to change the name to Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey but I can't move the page... Thank you.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: it looks fine to me now. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost my review? review of John Rennie Short

I have been editing/rewriting my Wikipedia article all day according to the recommendations of the Wiki editors. I uploaded it for review according to directions, but I think I lost it. Can anyone help or perhaps retrieve it?

Kathryn Kramer Ahjazzer (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahjazzer: I see your draft here, but not your recent edits. They may be lost if you didn't save (publish) them and can't click back on your browser. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, User:Tintempleton. So, can I retrieve my defective draft? I thought I could submit it as a draft in order to get help on it. If I complete it but it is still problematic, will it get rejected and "disappeared" again? Whom can I send it too for help with the correct format? Teahouse? Oye.

User:Ahjazzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahjazzer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ahjazzer, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry you seem to have had a problem with editing today. You can see the total list of edits that you made and saved at Special:Contributions/Ahjazzer and it doesn't include any to Draft:John Rennie Short since 5 November 2019‎. Nor did anyone edit that draft today, so it wasn't you editing logged out. Nor was the draft ever deleted or hidden in any way, according to all the logs, and as an Admin i cna see pretty much all article logs. I can only guess that you did not click the save button, which is labeled 'publish changes' some people find this confusing, thinking it moves a draft to the main article space. It doesn't. It is only called that because anything saved to any Wikipedia page is publicly visible to anyone (aside from deletion and suppression).
In any case the draft is present, and you are free to edit it. Drafts may be declined for lack of content, but help on any formatting issues should be available -- in fact I have given lots of such help myself. Note that a decline says "This isn't ready yet, but you are free to try again", while a "rejection" says that the reviewer doesn't think there is any chance of a valid article.
Please do feel free to continue working on the draft, and I advise you to click the "publish changes" button after each small change. Ther is no downside to saving often -- I usually work that way.
Do impolement the suggestiosn of DGG who revieweds the draft -- i agree with all of them. Do try to make the tone neutral and factual. Read Referencing for Beginners on how to format citations, but if you dind that a problem, ohers can and should help, including myself. Do not cite Wikipedia articles as sources, and do find relaible and independent sources that discuss short in some detail. I hope this helps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other topic

Hello @Naz Darwin, I am excited to know that you have information to share and that you are willing to add content to the page once I go live. Now that you are here, could you please send me a link to the right sandbox where I can post the content that I have generated so we can get to work. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Obie Njoku: Note that, in order for the notification of Darwin Naz to work, use {{Ping|Darwin Naz}} (which creates the linked "@Darwin Naz:" and notifies them). Note you must also sign your post by adding a space and four tildes ( ~~~~) to the end. Also, please add any new comments about the same subject to that existing section instead of creating a new one. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music vs. spoken word albums

I was wondering if there is a guideline to differentiating between music albums and spoken word albums in Wikipedia discographies. I was under the impression that if an artist, for example a poet and songwriter, releases both music albums and spoken word albums that they should be placed within different tables/lists. Some argue that the distinction is unnecessary. Is there a Wikipedia consensus on this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCanDoBetter (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@YouCanDoBetter: You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Taxonomy Section (Scientific Classification)

Hello, I would like to know if you could please provide the steps for me to edit the scientific classification of a plant I am working on. I found a reliable source for the Phylum and Class for the plant species. I am not able to edit it directly, it is saying that the access for editing is denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djenki12 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be successful in editing Annona aurantiaca. Is your problem with a different article? David notMD (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Djenki12: It seems unusual for a plant article to be protected, but the normal process is to present your suggested edit at the article's talk page. It's best, when asking a question on a talk page, to be as specific as possible; i.e., which article is this about? Also, when posting to a talk page (like this one, or any page with "talk:" in the title), please add a space and four tildes ( ~~~~), which will be translated into your linked username and a timestamp. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djenki12: I suspect that what you wish to update is the green "box" on the side of the article? If the article involved is Annona aurantiaca as linked above, that one uses a {{Speciesbox}} template (part of the WP:Automated taxobox system, which is somewhat complex to handle for new editors. @Plantdrew: Any chance you could guide this editor in how to handle the automatic taxobox system? I would do so, but you're much better on the plant taxonomy side of things than I am. AddWittyNameHere 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the taxobox draws the information from Wikidata, Djenkil2. If you pick "Wikidata" item from the sidebar, you can edit that: you'll see that one of its properties is "parent taxon", and you can follow that up the tree to the place you want to change. If it is a matter of reassignment to a different existing taxon, you just edit the property; but if you need to add a taxon which isn't already in Wikidata, it's a bit more complicated, and I advise asking for help at d:WD:CHAT. --ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources - Acceptable Use?

I’m a new user here and I have a question about the use of primary sources. I’d like to use an example to clarify my question:

The wiki page that I have started to help edit is Mullvad. (Mullvad is a virtual private network (VPN) service.)

The following maintenance template message appears at the top of the page:

Indeed, of the 17 references in the article (as of this writing), it seems to me that 9 of the 17 could be considered to be primary.

However, the page Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources notes that primary references are not automatically "bad" or unacceptable. In that page's section "Primary sources should be used carefully", the paragraph “An article about a business" states:

"The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities."

Applying that criterion to the 9 primary references in the Mullvad article would seem to indicate that 8 of the 9 primary references are acceptable and one primary reference is questionable, i.e. the reference for this sentence in the “Privacy" section:

"Mullvad emphasises (sic) on its website that 'privacy is a universal right”\' and claims that their VPN service allows users to keep their 'online activity, identity, and location private.'"

Please help me in interpreting the guidelines for primary sources relative to the Mullvad article and the relevancy of the template message at the top of this article about too much reliance on references to primary sources.

Thanks! Jimmac05 (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jimmac05. I am not an expert on software notability but I know a lot about the "red flags" that often pop up in articles about fairly new tech companies. In my opinion, primary sources should be used only for utterly uncontroversial information about a company, such as its founding date, the name of its current CEO, and its headquarters city. Any claim that hints or implies that "this company is really good" must be cited to an independent, secondary source.
In this case, primary sources are used for a claim of a "partnership" between this company and Mozilla. Since Mozilla is a better known brand name (although I thought it had faded away long ago), that is a promotional and evaluative claim that should be cited to an independent, secondary source unconnected with either Mozilla or Mullvad. Who says this partnership is important? Mullvad saying so is not acceptable. We need an independent secondary source to say so in a Wikipedia article. The same standard should apply to all the evaluative content now cited to primary sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cullen328, Jimmac05. Yes, it's OK from the point of view of reliability to say that '"Mullvad emphasises on its website that 'privacy is a universal right”\' and claims that their VPN service allows users to keep their 'online activity, identity, and location private.'", but every VPN service is going to say that or something very like it. It is simply not encyclopaedic for that reason; and therefore, putting it in the article makes it look promotional. By the way, "emphasises" is a perfectly normal spelling in British English, and doesn't require "sic" (see ENGVAR). --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

I want to know about the necessary syntax to repeat some text several times (in a template). For example, given text "Lorem ipsum" and number n, it produces n copies of "Lorem ipsum". Please help me. 數神, the Lord of Math (Prove me wrong; My contributions to the world in numbers) 05:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

數神, Module:String#rep appears to offer this functionality. Eman235/talk 06:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eman235 Okay, I want to insert a table into Module:String#rep. So can you pls help me with the formatting? Thx. 數神, the Lord of Math (Prove me wrong; My contributions to the world in numbers) 06:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I used this code: {{#invoke:String|rep| {| class="wikitable" |+ Caption ! Header cell !! Header cell |- | Content cell || Content cell |}|3}} 數神, the Lord of Math (Prove me wrong; My contributions to the world in numbers) 06:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing about editting and warnings.

Because I've never edited anything on Wikipedia in my life, and this IP address is mine and mine alone, so getting WARNING and FINAL WARNING is a bit odd to see when I've never done anything to begin with so what's the big deal? I don't very much appreciate being threatened for things I did not do, and would like an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:72 (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses get reassigned from time to time, some more often than others. You happen to have currently been assigned an IP address that was previously assigned to someone who used it to vandalize Wikipedia. Those warnings thus aren't meant for you, but for the previous user(s) of that IP address. AddWittyNameHere 08:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that you can remove the warnings from your own talk page yourself, if you wish. See WP:OWNTALK. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't wish to get warnings meant for what other people did, you should create an account. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding articles

Subject: Ezelle Poule

My aunt Ezelle moved to Hollywood from Ola, Arkansas, changed her name and worked in film and television from the 30s through the 60s.

She played a photographer in the original "A Star is Born" with Judy Garland.

She was on The Twilight Zone and did skits with Jonathan Winters and was on several other shows.

Internet Movie Database: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0693587/


Does Wikipedia create articles or do I have to submit one myself? —Thomas Lynn Pool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Lynn Pool (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thomas Lynn Pool. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to help us improve Wikipedia. All Wikipedia content is written by volunteers like you and me: you are welcome to try and write an article on your aunt;
But, writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and people who try it before they have spent time editing existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating experience. Moreover, if you work on an article about your relative, Wikipedia will regard you as having a conflict of interest, which makes it even harder.
The problem is that this is an encyclopaedia, and all articles should be based in their entirety on reliable published sources, so that a reader is able to go and verify anything in the article. Unpublished information is not acceptable; nor is information from user-edited sites such as iMDB, or Wikipedia itself. To write an article on Poule you will need to find several places where people who had no connection with her chose to write at some length about her, and were published in reliable sources such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. Then, having collected the sources, you would need to forget everything you knew about your aunt, and write your draft article wholly based on these sources. Then you would submit your draft for review. (It's not compulsory to do so, but it's advisable for new editors, and strongly recommended for COI editors).
My advice would be to give up on your aunt for the time being, and get familiar with editing Wikipedia. Then if you still want to, and you can find suitable independent sources about her, read Your first article and get started. --ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naming vs. Consistency & Constant updates & EL

Originally posted this on the helpdesk, but I've had no reply, and it looks like this is the place for more in-depth questions than there :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to lump 2 questions in here, there's probably no complete consensus, but if someone can help summarise best practice (and point to any policies/guidelines that clearly answer them, I may have missed something).
  • I saw a move request at Talk:Pedro_Carlos_of_Orléans-Braganza and found WP:NCNT which isn't too clear about royal families that have no kingdom anymore (Brazil would be an empire, and 'prince' wouldn't be the monarch, although 'prince imperial' would). The problem is that we now have various articles about the family titled prince so and so (compounded by the fact there appear to be two different branches) whilst others (per WP:COMMONNAME) don't use 'prince'. A sub-question is if there is any specific WP:N rule for 'royalty', as some of these people don't have WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:N, at least not in English WP:RS.
  • Another question that has cropped up has to do with updating information (e.g. youtube hits, song sales, etc.) Take for example Team_Trees which has a daily-updated table of how much this project has raised. This seems to head too far into WP:TRIVIA, but I'd like to know if there's a hard and fast policy/guideline/consensus.

Thanks all. (not watching, please ping) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Hmmm, another one:

  • Partly to do with the question about updating, what about links to videos (e.g. for music) and itunes/amazon/shops throughout articles? From what I understand, they serve as references to themselves (although not preferred), but what about other situations? music videos on songs, for example? references to people's dates of birth? Any help/consensus? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

article deletion

Sianka The article you created was redirected to an existing article about the same subject. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sianka Please ask follow up questions by editing this section, instead of creating a new section. Your article was made a redirect because it duplicated the already existing article. You are welcome to edit the existing article to add anything you feel is missing that you have a reliable source to support. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We want to Appearing in Wikipedia

We are a US cargo airline ; 21 AIR LLC , we would like to appear in the Wikipedia , just as other airline Atlas , Air , Cathay Pacific , etc etc How do we achieve this ? Do we create a page and send it , do we send the info and you put it in the template? I much appreciate if you can give me a hand on this , directing me to the right person , application or Wikipedia area. Best regards Rodrigo De Narvaez 21 AIR LLC www.21air.us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.5.213.242 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a business directory where any and all businesses can be listed. This is an encyclopedia; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about businesses that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wants to say about itself, or in enhancing search results for your business. Other businesses meriting articles does not automatically mean your business does too, even if in the same field. You have what we call a conflict of interest and are a paid editor; please review and comply with those policies(the latter is mandatory). 331dot (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting COI on my user page

Would someone mind checking my user page to confirm that I've correctly noted my COI with the correct template and at the right location? Thank you! Kgberg (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=930150431"