Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

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.

ns12

ns4

Page to coordinate a narrow topic

Where is the most appropriate place to create a page for coordinating a narrow topic?

I just created a portal for a rare disease. It was immediately tagged for speedy deletion. Is there a better place to coordinate? Project page? My user page? POIS22 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

On Portal talk:Postorgasmic illness syndrome, you wrote "there is only one main article". If this is true, neither a portal nor a WikiProject are necessary. Talk:Postorgasmic illness syndrome is the right place to discuss the article in question. If you want, you can post various things somewhere in your user space (any page starting with "User:POIS22/", or "User:POIS22"): you could list useful sources, tasks you want to do or anything else that helps you improve the article. But for just a single article out of 4.9 million, usually the talk page is the only page needed to discuss Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.--ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please fix URL title

I cannot figure out how to fix this URL title (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Polytechnic_College_of_Engineering_and_Engineering_Technology). See, this former university (Southern Polytechnic State University) has somehow been changed to this new name (Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology). However, SPSU exists historically as a formerly-existing university with alumni. The new "college" name is specifically a school INSIDE of a new consolidated university called Kennesaw State University. The article about Southern Polytechnic State University has mistakenly been connected to the new school. Though the new school is named IN MEMORIAL of the former university, it is NOT the former university. Sirkevinalot (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(UPDATE: I think I figured out how to repair it. Looks like a redirect was not completely undone. I believe I repaired it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirkevinalot (talk • contribs) 14:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sirkevinalot: Actually, you tried to make matters worse by requesting to have the whole history deleted. If you think the article title needs changed, you need to discuss it at Talk:Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology; you'll probably need to go through the WP:Requested moves process also. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"tried to make matters worse" sounds a bit mean to me; they were clearly trying to help.

As C.Fred says, changing the title of an article should be discussed at the article's talk page. In this case, things are complicated by the existence of redirects (you can't simply move the page), but copying and pasting content without proper attribution is not something appropriate in any situation. Per the terms of the CC BY-SA license Wikipedia uses, attribution needs to be given for every edit made. This is usually stored in the page history, but if someone copies and pastes material between pages without proper edit summaries and/or talk page notices, it removes this attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all. It has been a while since I edited and yes I guess I mucked it all up. SOMEONE tried to connect the university with this new school and it shouldn't have been. I can't figure out how to undo their redirect. The history looks like it did have it fixed, but the name way up top is NO WHERE ELSE in the article except a one-time reference for the honor/memorial connection. I'll research how else to further revert the article to its proper SPSU name. Any advice (or help) would be greatly appreciated.

Notablity?

I have submitted this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_TEAK_Fellowship) countless number of times now and it keeps getting rejected either for reliable sources or the most recent reason, notability.

I don't get what I'm doing wrong. I have at least 3 really good sources that I'm referencing. Wikipedia also doesn't like that I reference the program's website which is where I'm getting most of my information. How do people write Wikipedia about themselves if they can't reference themselves?? Judtrap (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"How do people write Wikipedia about themselves" – They're not really supposed to. If that draft is about an organization you are involved with, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia has to be neutral and does not serve to promote any person, organization or cause. Most of our articles are written by volunteers who might have an interest in the subject but aren't really related to it.

There's nothing wrong with primary sources in certain situations (WP:PRIMARY says they should be used "with care" and explains when to use them). But they don't establish notability. "Notability" on Wikipedia means that other reliable sources unrelated to the subject have taken note of the subject.

Sulfurboy is the one who has rejected your draft; you can ask them if you want some more feedback or an explanation on their talk page. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Userpage

How do Users design their own unique Userpage?Arindam Skywalkar (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Arindam Skywalkar and weolcome to the Teahouse. For making your user page look nice, see: Wikipedia:User page design center. You can also "clone/borrow/steal" the code from someone else's user page. Just ensure that you change it enough that it does not look like you are trying to impersonate the other user. Wikipedia:User pages is a good guide as to what kind of things are appropriate in user space. And when you use the work someone else has created, in the edit summary please attribute the work to them by naming the user you copied the content from. If you want to add userboxes you can start here: Wikipedia:Userboxes. There are also many, many customized userboxes floating around on user pages in the Wikipedia, if you find one you fancy just copy the code from the page. If you are further interested in defining yourself and your style there is also the Wikipedia:WikiFauna. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Single?

I'm wondering if a single can be considered an album's single if it's included on it as a new version. I'm talking about Drown's new version on That's the Spirit. Anonpediann (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

New Story

How do I start a new story, given worldwide headlines about the person?Chasdflynn (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dont Delete my page

Dont delete my page. because now am constructing the page G Raj Narayan (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: user has been banned for suspected sock puppetry and the article in question has been deleted, not that this is the right place to contest a CSD tag anyway. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what's wrong within this article's format (below)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:D%27ORA 86.13.120.89 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the formatting for you with these edits. There were a couple of problems you were having:

• Firstly, section headings are written using equals signs. An article has a lead, with no heading, and then a "level 2" heading, with two equals signs on either side, like this: == Section title ==. If you want a subheading within that section, you can use more equals signs (e.g. with the "Music" and "Release" sections in that draft).
• The table of contents is created automatically if you do this; you don't need to write one yourself.
• The <ref></ref> tags are only used for "inline citations" (small references above a certain piece of text like this: ).
• In the lead, there was a '''Bold text''' and a ''Italic text''. These were presumably accidents created using the toolbar at the top of the edit menu.
• The categories are written in an article like this: [[Category:Category name]]. But because your article is still a draft, we don't include the categories yet. I've changed them to things like [[:Category:Category name]], which just links to the category instead of including the page in it. Don't worry about this too much. They can be changed to normal categories if the draft becomes an article.

There is still a big problem with the draft, though: phrases like "This is a highly story-led awareness film, driven by a strong female character" and "An honest, compelling feature film" are opinion. Wikipedia must be neutral; it's not an objective fact that the film is compelling, for instance, so we can't say that. If you find a review of the film that says this, you can write "Person X from Reliable Source 1 said that the film was "description"." or something similar. But you can't put your own opinion into the article. I've not read the entirety of the draft so there may be other issues remaining as well. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Declined Article

Hi experiences editors, I have submitted my first article for review and his been declined twice. Can someone please help me publish the article?

Please find the link for the article below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Innovation_4_Impact_Competition

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFG (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi IFG
Can you show that the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the topic - if so, you must cite these in the article.
If not, you should read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability", to understand why your article will not be accepted.
It may be that the subject will become notable in the future, but it is currently too soon to have an article, as there is no significant coverage to meet our notability criteria. - Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I lose Autoconfirmed Status?

I was reading the User access levels page and I came across this: "Autoconfirmed or confirmed status is required to move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file." The use of the word required has confused me, do I have do all that stuff just on a regular basis just so I can keep the right to do that? AncientAryan (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello AncientAryan! I've never heard of someone actually losing their "autoconfirmed" status once they got it. That sentence that you've quoted just means that you need that autoconfirmed right to be able to do those things, not that you have to be active to keep it.

(On a somewhat unrelated note, admins can lose their tools temporarily if they have been inactive for quite a while.) CabbagePotato (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Autoconfirmed" refers to an account with 10 edits that is at least 4 days old. There's no way to lose it. It's just a way to prevent vandals creating accounts and immediately causing damage by moving pages etc. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Improving draft:All power labs

I am creating an article on a company that I have begun to work for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:All_power_labs. I had previously followed their work for years and believe I can in good faith create a formal, neutral and well-cited article about a project I respected before I became employed there. I have addressed the comments made by a series of editors following their rejections, and feel it now meets wikipedia's standards for formality, notability, neutrality.

Given my respect and involvement I may not be able to fully eliminate my personal biases, and so would appreciate any review that might point out specific ways in which it violates standards that I might be missing. Nesdon (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nesdon. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest when asking your question. I recommend that you set up a user page where you also disclose that you are employed by this company.

When I read your draft, I perceive an overall promotional tone, which may be difficult for you to perceive since you are involved with the technology. One symptom is the use of promotional jargon. Another major shortcoming of the draft is that most of the references are bare URLs, which are difficult for reviewers to evaluate. These references should be "fleshed out" into complete citations. Referencing for beginners is worth reading and following. As a general rule, six or eight solid sources are far better than two or three times as many marginal sources. There is some strange syntax including inappropriate use of italics. An effort to comply with our Manual of style is time well spent. I hope my comments are useful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As a specific example, please consider these sentences: "Inspired by this experience with do-it-yourself (DIY) power, Mason's original vision for APL was to expand this community into a larger, power-hacking culture, analogous to the one that had grown up in Silicon Valley with the development of personal computers and the internet. He hoped this culture would be able to help create, in a similarly disruptive and agile way, novel renewable energy strategies." That is promotional marketing-speak, more appropriate to a company brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. All such promotional language must be removed from the draft article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Memphis Depay

Now that Depay plays for Manchester United should the picture in the infobox be of him in a United shirt? (there is one in the article I could use) Or is it best to leave it as it is? TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The lead photo should generally represent the subject as current (unless there is an image that is iconic relative to their notability). So a free use photo of Depay in his current Manchester United jersey would generally be most appropriate for the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

But image quality is also a factor. I don't think File:Memphis Depay - July 2015c.jpg is well suited to an infobox and I doubt it's a normal expression for him. File:Depay PSV 2011.jpg isn't optimal either but better. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

In the edit section it say encyclopedic information must be verifiable, now easy to do if using Wikipedia online, but how is information placed in book encyclopedia's verified, is it by the publisher? and what if information changes? Any help appreciated in this matter. Thank You TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @TeaLover1996: - while free, online, reliable sources are preferred, any reliably published source can be used, even if not free or not online. It just needs the appropriate information in the citation so that the source can be properly identified.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello TeaLover1996. If I understand your question properly, you are asking about the editorial processes of printed encyclopedias that predate Wikipedia. The publishers of high quality printed encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Brittanica had respected editorial staffs and retained academic experts to write their articles. Many such encyclopedias published an "annual", a supplementary volume each year that updated the reference work. Of course, not everything called an "encyclopedia" had such high standards. If you have a question about the reliability of a lesser known printed encyclopedia, I suggest discussing the matter at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

JPG Uploads

I'd like to be able to upload music album covers/artwork.Shadowarchitect (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Shadowarchitect:, your account has to be 4 days old and have more that 10 edits to it before you gain the autoconfirmed right to upload images. You have the edits but your account was only created today, so you'll have to be patient and wait another three days. Nthep (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shadowarchitect. As album covers are almost universally copyrighted, their usage on Wikipedia must be limited, in most cases restricted only to the article about the album in question. The image must be low resolution, and uploaded here on English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely licensed or copyright free images. Please read our guideline about use of non-free images. Item #1 applies to your question. Once you are autoconfirmed, you can proceed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Tracking....should have read up on a few of the specifics before asking a basic question, so thanks for the replies.Shadowarchitect (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Shadowarchitect. The purpose of the Teahouse is to assist less experienced editors by answering any good faith questions about editing this encyclopedia. Feel entirely free to ask such questions at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How to handle the buttons in the steps to create a new article?

I’ve got an article in my sandbox, User:Clockchime/sandbox, that I want to move to Wikipedia to create it as a new article. I have questions regarding the handling of a few buttons on a particular page. So, from the sandbox, I click on: “More”, a tag opens that says: “Move”, I click on “move” and now I come to a page that asks: Move page? and it offers many choices. I think the right choice is “Wikipedia”. Am I right about that?

Second question. Then on that page it says: User:Clockchime/sandbox. I should leave that alone? Am I right?

Third question: Then it says: To new title: ___ Now, at that point I’ll type in the title: Charles Hamilton (Handwriting expert). Am I right?

Then it says: “Reason”, and I think I can handle that one okay.

Thank you very much for any help on this. Clockchime (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Clockchime and welcoem to the Teahouse. On your various questions:

First: no do not choose "Wikipedia". Choose "(Article)". "Wikipedia" is for pages about how the project runs, such as this very page, not for actual articles.

Second: yes, that is the page you are planning to move. Do not change it.

Third: Thjis will be the title of the article. As there are several other articles about people named "Charles Hamilton" using "Charles Hamilton (Handwriting expert)" is reasonable.

however, you might want to review the page first. The formatting of the references could be improved, see Referencing for Beginners. (But that could be handled after the move. I would suggest using citation templates, but that is not required. Please do combine duplicate references.) The page needs more wiki-links to other articles. For example "graphologist" "US Army Air Corps", and the names of cities could be linked. Double check that all significant facts are supported by one or more references. Please make the tense consistent: use simple past, not a mix of past, past perfect, and present. I hope that these suggestions are helpful. DES ^(talk) 21:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

VERY helpful, -- all the advice -- thanks, very much. Clockchime (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Clockchime. Unless the creator of an article is very experienced, I would always recommend requesting a review: edit your draft to include {{subst:submit}} at the top (just as it appears there). This will put it in the queue for review, and if it passes, the reviewing editor will move it to mainspace. If it doesn't the reviewer will give reasons, and you can ask them for clarification. One of the reasons for recommending this is that sometimes articles are so incomplete that they get summarily deleted as soon as they are put in mainspace, though I don't think that would happen with this draft. By the way, I don't think you mean 'paleantologist'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice, it's much appreciated -- and you have a very sharp eye -- not least regarding paleontologist -- I meant paleographer! Thank you again. Clockchime (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

English translation/version of the wiki languages sidebar

Is there a setting to view the languages sidebar in English? The heading is in English and the languages are written in their local alphabet. I can scroll over the languages to see the English equivalent, but I would rather just see that directly. It would also allow searching by "control-F." Thanks.Lucas559 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lucas559, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "SidebarTranslate, changes the language links in the sidebar so their text is displayed in English". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks PrimeHunter that is exactly what I was looking for. (And such quick service!) Lucas559 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice on first article

Hi there,

I have submitted my first article for review and his been declined twice for :- "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."

However, I am unsure as to what the problem is and thought that I had done this. Would someone be able to point in the right direction and explain what I have done wrong? Many thanks.

The article is at :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Professor_Nicholas_J_Lowe

Many thanks Tim Tim B Haigh (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. It's important that medical claims are sourced. We have a rather more onerous requirement here, the details are at WP:MEDRS. It's also good to source any claims such as "he was the first..."

The reviewing editor will generally happy to explain what their specific concerns are, if you reproach them on their talk page,

Hope that helps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Although approaching them first before reproaching them is likely to improve response quality ;p --Elmidae (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing an article with two titles

I recently edited Richland Creek Reservoir. It turns out someone created this article under the title Richmond Creek Reservoir and realised that was a wrong title. I read somewhere that copy pasting an article to a new one and blanking the old one is the wrong way to rename it. I hope I haven't done anything wrong by editing one of the two versions. Should I now try to make the same change to the other article or would that just make it worse? Pretended leer (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing to do is tag the two articles for "mergeing". Let me take a look. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

OK I have redirected the wrong title to the right one (presumably this is a mistake that could easily be made by someone else, the redirect will land them in the right place). The original author had made a copy-paste move, but in this case it's not a problem: since no one else had (significantly) edited the old article, there is only the original author's attribution to worry about, and that is given by the first edit of the new article we are good to go. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! Pretended leer (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Data Removal and city/town template questions

My tiny contribution revolves around my hometown article. Information was posted by me from a resource citing crime stats and likelihood of crime. Someone edited that and added their own arbitrary stats that differed. Both are from sketchy sources so I didn't protest.

I have since added statistics from the FBI NCR and left the new sketchy stats. Am I right in removing these new sketchy stats given the FBI says not to use them in that manner as they can be twisted many different ways to skew the results?

Also, is there a good template to use for adding and organizing town/city information? I have been adhering to the setup of St. Louis since it is the closest fairly major city. Thanks for what you all do. Dirtvoyles (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Different organisations collect crime figures for different reasons, and from different sources, and categorise them in different ways. I have seen work in "respected" journals misuse these figures, so you are right they can be tricky. Some of them also need interpretation, for example, 17th worst means nothing unless you know out of how many. I don't know where the figures from USA.com come from, so making a judgements is tricky.
• {{Geobox|Settlement}} is a perfectly good template as far as I know, but most places use {{Infobox settlement}}.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

My Article declined

Hi Team,

I am trying to submit the article about Insync, but after so many edits, I am still unable to pass it to mainstream. The article is at Draft:Insync

Can you help me on this regard please.

Abhi2434 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

some subjects simply are not capable of "passing to the mainstream" if they have not been covered in a significant manner by third party reliable sources. Most of the "sources" appear to be PR regurgitation sites or merely business directory listings. You want to find actual content about the company written by somebody not involved with the company. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I change the heading of an article?

I've done some editing on-and-off for a while. My current project involves the history of defunct historic canoe companies. I did one for the B.N. Morris Canoe Company and discovered someone had begun one for the E.M. White Company, but it's titled "White Canoe". In an effort to be consistent with the naming of these articles (and to avoid confusion, as white is also a color), I'd like to change the title to "E.M. White Canoe Company"... or at least "E. M. White Canoe". I see the Old Town Company article is titled "Old Town Canoe"... but I think that also would be better if titled "Old Town Canoe Company"... the article is about the company and its canoes.

While I'm at it, I should mention that each time I've launched into writing an article, I find I cannot remember my old password and, after wasting a bunch of time, need to create a new "handle" and password as I am told "someone else" has my name. Is there a way to lump my current self with all my past selves? Under one of my previous identities I contributed to several things that I'm proud of. Thanks! Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While we strive for consistency in some ways, article titles should be the common name as used by the preponderance of the sources - for example DuPont rather than "E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company". As to user names, you can make a request to WP:USURP (one of) your previous user names.--ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If "someone else" has your old name, then your old account will have been moved to a different name. If you tell us the original name we can probably track it down quite easily. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

the "someone else" who has my name is me-- unless there are other women named Kathryn Klos who posted under that name. I did like using my real name. I posted under Kathrynklos too. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am an "old canoe geek" and the White Canoe is known within the Wooden Canoe Community as "E.M. White"... i.e. "I just got another E.M. White, and my wife wants to kill me."Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have answered you first question, Squirrelwhisperer: you change the title of an article by moving it. You should find 'Move' under 'More' at the top of the page. If you do move it, it will automatically leave the old name there as a redirect to the new one, which is usually what is wanted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But, don't move an article just because you don't like the title. Titles must follow the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines and if a page move is likely to be controversial, it should be discussed on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

citation needed

I am currently editing an article and it is saying that a citation is needed, please could you tell me if there is anywhere that I could check this out without using google. ie... somewhere on Wikipedia.Dominoooo's (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's, you cannot cite any information from Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

However, Dominoooo's, if you can find a relevant article already in Wikipedia, it is possible that that article will already have citations that are appropriate to what you are writing. I wish I could say that it will have, but there are many, many, substandard articles in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Declined Article: Revision Suggestions

I have submitted an article for creation that was declined... please see link below for details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roger_Allen_Kotoske I have taken care to write in a neutral point of view while focusing on key points that give credibility to the artist I am writing about. Before submitting the article I have read many wikipedia pages on artists from a similar era and genre of work and have made every effort to use a similar format to those examples. I have also included 12 references from online and printed sources. I would very much appreciate feedback on what can be done to improve the article so that I can resubmit with better chances of acceptance. Thank you for your time and assistance.TKTSFTKTSF (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@TKTSF: claims like "pushed the boundaries" need to go or be attributed to a notable critic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste of copyrighted text

Hi, I found text in an article that has just been copied and pasted from several websites. After reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I removed all the instances of copied text, added a copyright notice for each instance I removed, notified the user and added the page to the copyright problem list. How will the notices be removed? What to do if the user continues lifting copyrighted material? The article in question is Gatwick_Express. Thank you. Widy9 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You have done everything correctly. You should consider leaving a talk page message for the user who added the copyvio material explaining why it has been removed and asking that they not readd it. If they persist, it is a serious matter and grounds for a block.--ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Widy9 has already left talk page messages. @Widy9: there's nothing more you need to do; the user will hopefully see the messages and avoid making the same mistake in the future. If the user continues, try leaving a personalised message on their talk page, trying to engage them in discussion or, as a last resort, post on a relevant noticeboard (I think WP:ANI would be the right choice here although I'm not too experienced in these areas). But hopefully the user will just stop. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Query regarding deletion

Raghav Sood is the article I am referring to. I wanted to ask how can I list the article for deletion. I think it failes Speedy Deletion Criteria and any deletion discussion would be better. You can create the discussion it's fine. Durgamahajan (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Durgamahajan, This needs work, but not, i think, deletion. See my post on the article talk page. DES ^(talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DES, I do agree that CNBC is a reliable source. But the point of debate is that what the reliable sources write and what's written in article are different. Durgamahajan (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually, if the topic could support an article, but the current article is bad, a rewrite is considered better than deletion. Exceptions of course are copyright infringement and anything slandering a living person. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Date Vandalism

I've seen many cases of date vandalism. However, to check that this is vandalism one needs to search the event/person related to the date- but what sources of information is to be trusted? I've seen even official news sites having conflicting records before. Thanks in advance, Dakar (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Dakarias, If there are conflicting reliable sources we should say so. Changing a date to match a reliable source may be incorrect if other sources disagree, but it isn't vandalism. Changing a date to something no reliable source supports may well be vandalism. It isn't easy to be sure in such cases, sometimes. Check the sources cited in the article before the change, if any were, first, would be my advice. DES ^(talk) 13:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dakarias. If there is a serious question as to the pre-existing date, a conflict between sources, then treat that as its own issue and note that you can even do something like was done with the date of birth in Hadji Ali (see the date form in the first sentence and click on the note at the end). If, however, a date that is sourced within the article is simply changed without a replacement source and its not clearly just vandalism, refer to the section of the verifiability policy known by the shortcut WP:BURDEN – revert and I suggest leaving an edit summary something like Revert unsourced change in date. [[WP:BURDEN]] controls. Do not add back without citing a reliable source using an inline citation, and even then we need to work out issue btw conflicting sources. If there does not appear to be any reliable source for the date and it has been challenged, then it should be removed entirely, also under WP:BURDEN. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful replies! Dakar (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Found an External link that says something but actually links to a completely different thing. What to do?

Hello - I found a few external links stating that they link to a certain website and the URL is correct in the code, however when you click on the link it sends you to a completely different page. What do you do in this case? I assume you would flag the link and report it? But I am not sure how to do that! Can you please let me know the steps that should be taken to take care of this or lead me to an article that deals with how to approach this!

Thank you in advance! Kingoptimizer (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kingoptimizer: Welcome back! I suppose it depends on the situation. I'm guessing the URL is set to redirect to another domain. Perhaps the domain expired and someone else snatched it, or the website is simply old and gone. If the page you end up on is irrelevant, spammy, or otherwise inappropriate, then I'd just remove the link entirely. If you're still not sure and don't want to post the link here, feel free to email it to me and I can take a look. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that sometimes people refer to "external links" as just meaning URLs appearing anywhere, and not in the jargon we use, where we make a clear distinction between URLs used in footnoted citations, versus URLs used in an external links section, which is what we normally mean when we say "external links" (see Wikipedia:External links. The distinction is important because we properly are much more concerned and in general are willing to expend much more resources to fix links included those found to be dead in citations (rather than just removing them), than those appearing in external links sections.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @SuperHamster:. I can email you the page I am referring to and you let me know what you think. I will also email you what I think is happening there. @Fuhghettaboutit: I appreciate the explanation, but I am well aware of the difference between the two and I really meant an external link (as in a link that is placed in the external links section) :-). Hopefully SuperHamster will be able to help and let me know how to deal with this sort of issues moving forward. Thank you both for your reply!! Kingoptimizer (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Article

Hi Teahouse, I want to edit another users article to improve grammar and spelling, would like to know how I go about doing this.Dominoooo's (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's, welcome aboard. First things first - no-one owns articles on Wikipedia, so try not to think of it as "another user's article". You have as much right to make changes to it as anyone else. (The only arguable exception to this is if it's still in their userspace, in which case it would be polite to ask before editing). To edit an article, click on the "edit" tab at the top - this opens the page in editing mode so that you can make changes. Have a look at the tutorial for the basic process. Best of luck! Yunshui ^雲_水 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But please note that what may seem like spelling and grammar mistakes to you, may actually be correct in another variety of English:- US, UK, Australian, Canadian, Jamaican, Indian etc. Please see WP:ENGVAR for how the variety of English in each article is determined, and the (extremely) limited circumstances in which this should be changed. - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How can I retrieve the deleted article?

I am trying to create the first article on an organization - Financial Software & Systems (FSS). However after multiple rejections, the page was deleted under "speedy deletions" rule since it was termed as an ambiguous advertising. However, now I would like to fundamentally rewrite the entire article based on wiki's guidelines. I need your help and guidance in retrieving the deleted article.

Article name: Financial Software & Systems (FSS)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsstech91 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fsstech91. You can request the article to be undeleted at WP:UNDEL. However, if it was deleted as advertising, I doubt that there's very much there that is worth retrieving: it will probably require a complete rewrite from scratch. I note that your username suggests that you are part of the organisation: if so, please read Conflict of interest to discover why you are strongly discouraged from writing about it at all. If you decide to go ahead, you must declare your conflict of interest, and then I strongly advise you to use the articles for creation process, to get your draft reviewed before it is accepted. You would also be well-advised to assemble some reliable sources where people who have no connection with the organisation have written about it, forget absolutely everything you know about it, and write your draft entirely from what those unconnected people have written. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I proceed after an article has been deleted?

How do I proceed after an article has been deleted because of copyright issues? I had created an entry about a American political activist named Paul Stanford, and the article was deleted because of copyright violations. Some of the text I used for the Wiki entry was copied off the subject's own LinkedIn profile, with the subject's full permission to use anything I needed. After the article I wrote was deleted I proceeded to get the subject to send a creative commons permission into Wiki, which he immediately did. He also requested that the article gets undeleted. As far as I know he hasn't heard anything back and I think that was about a month ago.

I have decided to try this process again, although I am frustrated I do understand that Wiki needs to be very careful about copyright issues. I re-created the article and rewrote all the text so as not to violate any copyright issues, even though Wiki should now have permission (and I have it as well) to use text from the subject's LinkedIn profile.

Is this the right way to proceed? I don't think I'm violating any copyright issues at this point. Is there someone else I need to contact about this, or should I just wait in line to see if the article gets approved?

Also, I noticed there is no submission box at the bottom like there was before that tells you approximately how long it will take to get the submission reviewed. Am I missing a line of text or code that should be at the beginning or end of the article that would submit it for approval? Maybe this is because the first article I wrote with the same name was deleted. Not sure if the re-write I just did has been formally submitted for approval.

Here is a link to the newly rewritten article;

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

Any help and advice is appreciated.

Thank you!

Sacredcocreation (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sacredcocreation! I'm sorry to see that your draft has been deleted once. Unfortunately, I don't see where the Creative Commons license is (it appears to be copied off [1] as far as I can tell, which has a copyright symbol on it). Even though he's given explicit permission for it to be used on Wikipedia, this isn't enough; since all our content is freely usable (i.e. CC-BY-SA 3.0), we can't have material around here that isn't, and since the site's content appears to be copyrighted, we can't accept it. I suggest you have your subject look at WP:DONATETEXT, and have him follow one of the two methods there: either put a CC-BY-SA license on it (or freer, but not stricter; we can't take the NC or ND clauses), or privately contact Wikipedia at the given e-mail address and follow the instructions. Gparyani (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sacredcocreation. Here is my personal opinion: It is a big mistake to try to use the text of a LinkedIn profile in a Wikipedia article, even if copyright issues have been resolved. A LinkedIn profile is not independent, not reliable, and is inherently promotional. It has no professional editorial supervision. A Wikipedia biography should summarize, in neutral language, what reliable, independent sources say about the person. A LinkedIn profile is of very limited use when writing such a biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am only using key pieces of information gleaned from the subject's LinkedIn profile (like he was in the military) and his website. I have listed a ton of newspaper articles written about the subject and cited them as sources for most of the information on the article itself. In regards to facts like the subject being in the military, is it required that this type of information be taken from independent news sources as opposed to another source like a LinkedIn profile? Should I just remove this type of fact since I can't find a newspaper story that mentions the subject being in the military? I'm not trying to copy text from his LinkedIn profile or website, as much as I'm trying to use the relevant factual information from those sources that will help create a Wiki page. If you read the Wiki page I'm trying to create I don't think it is promotional as much as it is factual. I know that sometimes this isn't a clear, bright line, but in this case I think the Wiki page I am trying to create serves the purpose to be factual and not promotional.

The issue seems to be that I am violating copyright issues even though I have full permission from the copyright holder (he has submitted a permission to Wiki that I am allowed to use text from his LinkedIn profile and website) to use this content. I don't think there is an issue about the article I'm creating being promotional. If there is an issue with this then this is the first time I've heard about it.

I'm trying to resolve copyright issues. I seem to be going around in circles with this. Since I have formal permission to use information from the copyright holder himself I don't understand why this continues to be a problem.

Thank you for any help you can give.

Sacredcocreation (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sacredcocreation. I know that it is hard to write your first Wikipedia biography, and I hope that frank comments by an experienced editor will be useful. When you call the subject a "Canna-businessman" in the first sentence, you have begun the article promotionally. That is a strange promotional neologism which is not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. The draft article has a promotional tone, in my sincere opinion, and includes many unreferenced assertions and evaluations. Every one must be cited to a reliable source or removed. A biography such as this should include nothing of substance that isn't backed up by a reliable, independent source. The military service details do not belong in the lead, in my opinion. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article. He is not notable for military service, as far as I know. The copyright problem was a result of extensive quoting of his LinkedIn profile, which is inappropriate in any case and in any biography. So don't copy text from the LinkedIn profile (or anywhere else) and all copyright problems disappear. Getting permission for inappropriate copyrighted content is not necessary, as it will not be included in the encyclopedia anyway. I suggest a major rewrite and trimming, removing every trace of promotional or unreferenced content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You appear to be misunderstanding the copyright position - copyright is complex, but to put it very simply:-
It is not you that needs the permission - the permission has to be for anybody to use the information for any purpose whatsoever, including making a profit and altering the information for their own purposes. I think people need to understand what releasing information on a CC-BY-SA license means and consider it carefully before issuing it.
As stated above, the text of someone's Linked-in page is highly unlikely to be the neutral point of view that we require, and furthermore, this is not a reliable, independent source. The easiest thing would be to ignore the Linked-In page and just use the information from reliable third party sources. - Arjayay (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I'm trying to understand the path towards success, and it's subtle which makes it difficult. Plus I don't really have experience with these types of copyright issues.

Should I just remove everything from the article that's not backed up by a news source? Is this the path forward? Can I just keep trying to create the article on the same page until I get it right? I don't want to keep wasting my time or anyone else's. I should be able to trim the article down to only include things which have originally been reported from news sources. I'll give that a try.

Sacredcocreation (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and done some major revisions to the article and removed everything that wasn't verified by an external news source. I think the article reads alot better now.

Can someone please take a look at this current revision and let me know if there are anymore copyright issues or anything else that needs to be addressed? I'd really appreciate it. Thank you all for your time.

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

Sacredcocreation (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How to remove "see tfm" link

In almost every educational institute (college, university) I have came across here, there is this little "see tfm" link beside the "colors" option in the infobox. Why it is there and how to remove it?

Rami.shareef (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Rami.shareef: Welcome to the Teahouse! You're seeing that link because the template (Template:Color box) is undergoing a deletion discussion. You can view the discussion here. When a template is under discussion, the "see tfm" link is added so that anyone who comes across the template will know that a deletion discussion is going on, and so that they can contribute if they wish. These discussions typically last 7 days, after which consensus is determined; once that happens, the template will either be deleted or kept. Either way, you'll see the "see tfm" link removed then. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @SuperHamster: Rami.shareef (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice on draft

I'm currently working on this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:International_Academy_of_Electrochemical_Energy_Science This has been rejected a few times, even after I added some external references.

Please pardon my ignorance, but may someone please list some suggestions on how I may improve on it. I would also greatly appreciate anyone willing to invest some time to help improve it directly~ :) Would adding a section: giving a short blurb (a sentence or 2) on the founders with external references add to the credibility?

Thank youSerubbabel (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What it needs most is references to reliable independent sources, to establish that it is notable. I don't think it has any at present. Some of the current references are to its own material, and therefore not independent; and some are independent, but only establish that it exists, not that it is worthy of mention. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Making many edits to an article in a short period

Is it considered bad etiquette to make many small edits to an article and saving them, instead of doing all the edits at once? I may have made a mistake here (look at the history): Daxophone MDaxo (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@MDaxo: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that some editors care, but they are a small minority. Lots of long time editors and admins use that style of editing so I wouldn't worry about it. Feel free to edit in whatever style you would like. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is just my opinion, but while it can be a tiny bit annoying for other users, there's nothing wrong with doing things in small chunks if you prefer to do things that way. I can still see the entirety of your changes here. Maybe it's better to save your progress as you go so you don't lose anything; maybe you suddenly notice another problem after clicking submit; maybe you make a small mistake in your original edit. There's no rule against editing a page multiple times in a row but if you can try to stick to as few edits as possible, that's probably best. That way, you don't clog up the edit history too much or constantly notify people with the page on their watchlist. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I always save work in progress. I am interested in the overall end result, not really what others consider to be good or bad etiquette. Whatever works for each editor is fine. We have more rules and guidelines than would sink a battleship. Lets; not add to them. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally edit in small chunks dealign with one small isue at a time, then saving and moving on. OI think it makes the purpose of each edit clearer in some case, and lets changes be separately undone if someone objects, but mostly it is easier for me, and the end result should be the same. If anything I prefer that style by others as well, but each editor must work in whatever way he or she chooses, within very broad limits. Now making many edits within a very short time to many different articles with an automated or semi-automated tool can be dubious, depending on the nature of the edits. DES ^(talk) 23:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I, too, often make a lot of small edits, explaining each in an edit summary as I go along. If anything, I believe that is a more transparent, open style of editing than making more sweeping changes in one or two edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Good thing about editing in small chunks is that it will increase your edit count and other people will think that you are an experienced user by seeing your edit count. But I prefer to edit at once if possible, at least you can edit one section at once. If you do sectionwise multiple edits then its fine. But if you are keep on editing same section multiple times then still its not bad etiquette. When I was new I used to do multiple edits, but now I preview my edits and try to execute things in minimum edits. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I speak only for myself, Human3015, but my my edit count is the furthest thing from my mind when I am working on expanding and improving an article. Improving the encyclopedia comes first in my mind, and making the intention and purpose of my edits clear to other editors is always important as well. Edit count? Who cares? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Frankly speaking my comment was not for you, I have not even read all above comments carefully, I just commented here on lighter note when I saw this thread. My comment was for Mdaxo. Why I would criticize any of above editor? Me too don't care edit count but for new user it maybe useful for getting some "special permissions(rollback, pcr)" as it requires some 200/500 odd edits in mainspace. etc. I or anyone other can have different POV regarding small edits, it should be welcomed. It is not good to take on each other in front of new users on teahouse. Cheers. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

prodwarningBLP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Murphy_(artist)

Hello! I received a warning regarding adding references before I had the chance to do so. I added a few now, and I was wondering if I was able to delete the notification template right now. Thank you! 184.75.102.250 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think you should. It is possible that the third reference Portraits of a Town might qualify as an independent source, but it reads very much as if it comes out of an interview with Murphy; the John Patten article is certainly an interview. Interviews with the subject of an article are regarded as primary sources: they can be used to support uncontroversial factual information, and the fact that the subject says something about themselves, but are not regarded as reliable sources for anything else. You need to find some places where people who have no connection with Murphy or the Academy have written about Murphy, and had their writing published in reliable places. If there is no such writing, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about him at present, and you should not try (the Wikipedia word for this is that he is not notable). --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-ordering the contents of a page?

I want to re-order the sections to keep technical together, and non-technical with... and move a section up to make it the intro.Xo-whiplock (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Xo-whiplock:. The Table of Contents generates itself. You would need to edit the page and then move the sections (identified by their headings marked with ==Section title== ) into the order you want. If this is your first major restructuring of an article, I suggest you copy the entire article to your sandbox and play around till you get it right, then copy it back to the actual article page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll check out the sandbox. Yes, first ever. :)Xo-whiplock (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Article speedy delete

Hello :) I am a Video Director and editor. I watch wikipedia page of gippy grewal (Punjab singer) but there is no any page of director who create them and their status in public. I am a video Director and i create enough videos. But when i create an article on myself it delete again and again. I want to know how to edit an article on myself. Sourav08saini (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not create articles on yourself or anything you're involved in. See WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

okay, thanks... can i create an article on other senior directors in Punjabi music industry.All i know about them. even they have public identit and status.Sourav08saini (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia only summarizes professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources which are independent of the subject but still specifically about the subject. It does not rely on user knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice Regarding Draft

Here is a link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjane214/sandbox

Please let me know how I can improve it! Sjane214 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to cite professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but independent of it, and as many as possible. You've also got a bunch of overly close paraphrases in your draft of the CHI website and other sites you've linked to.

The article reads like an advertisement at the moment. Only stick to what other sources have discussed about them to decrease that vibe. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Source problem

Hello :) I am writing my first article about a politician I know in real life. I found several articles and sources on the web and I have a problem here . My article is written in english (and if I can , it'll be translated in French and Arabic) but the sources I have are only in arabic, will it be a problem for the review ? Like I said, I know the person, how can I prove he gave me informations. Kushi-tolom (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kushi-tolom: Welcome to the Teahouse! English sources are preferred, but if they're not available, reliable non-English sources may be used too. See WP:RSUE for more details. Since you are writing a biography on a living person, note that all information in the article should have a reliable published source to verify it.

Also note that, since you are close to the politician you wish to write about, you appear to have conflict of interest with the subject. You mention that the politician gave you the sources to use. Wikipedia articles are based on all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, so you should not be limiting yourself to certain sources that have been given to you. In addition, Wikipedia's sources need to be published - so internal documents that aren't accessibly in some way by the public shouldn't be used.

Since you appear to have a conflict of interest, you're encouraged to not directly create an article about your subject. I strongly encourage you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft. Once you have created a draft, you can submit it through the Articles for Creation process, which involves an experienced editor reviewing your draft and letting you know what needs improving (if anything). Remember to write your article based on what reliable sources have to say on your subject. You may also find this guide to your first article helpful. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

help with submitting

I have submitted an article twice but it has been rejected, i do not know what changes I need to makeJulie kitchen99 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As was explained when the article was rejected, it does not meet our notability guidelines for articles on people, because it lacks references to verify anything in there]].

In other words, you need to cite some professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject but still specifically about it. Blogs, social media sites, or other self-published media are not acceptable sources. Please cite these sources using <ref>ref tags like this</ref>, providing at least the source's title, the author's name, the source's publisher, the date the source was published, and the specific pages cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Writing an article on open source software

Just like to ask for some aid the revision for the draft Gazebo_simulator.

My goal is to keep the article short and factual similar in style to existing example open source articles:

• Bullet_(software)
• Player_Project
• Robot_Operating_System

If you have detailed specifics on this matter, or know of an editor knowledgeable in the subject, please do not hesitate to inform.

Thanks Ruffsl (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

moving draft from sandbox

Hi, I am a new user. I created my first article about Walking Men Worldwide, which was approved and seems to be going in the right direction, however, I also tried to create a 2nd article about Maya Barkai (4 days ago) and I've had a problem moving it to the draft space since. I did submit it for review, and got this message on my sandbox - "Warning: This page should probably be moved, but a page already exists at Draft:Sandbox." The statues hasn't changes since, and since it is in a sandbox, it keeps getting cleaned, and I'm not sure how to proceed. Does anyone know how to continue?

Thanks in advance! Alonhadas (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alonhadas. It looks like you have been editing recently in Wikipedia's main sandbox, which is accessible to every Wikipedia editor, and is a place for short term experiments. That is not a good place to draft an article as it is emptied out regularly. Far better to work on your draft in your own sandbox or a draft page that you create specifically for this article in progress. You can recover your previous work by using the history tab at the main sandbox and access the version when you last worked there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Feedback & assistance requested on my first article

I just started the article and would appreciate feedback on what parts need to be iteratively fleshed out... this is linking together several related terms to coin a new phrase/concept: The Global Cascade

Muirhejs (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Muirhejs:. Note that Wikipedia specifically prohibits content where editors " linking together several related terms to coin a new phrase/concept" . Unless you are able to establish that reliably published third party sources have specifically discussed the subject of the article in a significant manner, the article will be deleted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)

Hello @TheRedPenOfDoom:. I've updated the article referencing the reliable source who first used the term. Thank you for the feedback.

I also believe I have made a Credible claim of significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muirhejs (talk • contribs)

Creating new article about the company I work for.

I work for a large natural gas pipeline company and have good citable information on the 100 year history and current operations of the company. I noticed we have no article, and given our size (one of the largest in North America), I found it surprising. My question is, am I allowed to create an article for my company? Or am I considered too close to the subject, being an employee? Thanks!Mountaineer ME (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mountaineer ME, and welcome to the Teahouse. As an employee, you have a clear conflict of interest, and are strongly discouraged from creating such an article, or even editing it directly (aside from removing blatant vandalism or correcting clear factual errors on no-controversial matters) should some other person create it. Please read WP:COI. If you wish to go ahead after that, you must declare your conflict of interest on your user page, or on the talk page of the article, or preferably both.

I strongly urge you, if you do go ahead to use the article wizard and the articles for creation process. Read the basics needed for an article and Your First Article. Be sure that you have the third-party independent sources needed to establish notability as specified in our guideline on corporate notability. Then write based only on what can be reliably sourced, avoiding all expressions of opinion or value, except what is contained in a sourced and attributed quote or paraphrase of a quote. All opnions must be attributed to a person or entity, not be presented in the editorial voice. DES ^(talk) 17:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I feel that I could draft something that is very neutral and then let outside sources check it to be sure. I will think about it. Thank you for the help. Mountaineer ME (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, a neutral article starts with only outside sources. That you're having them check after the fact is a problem, along with your employment by the company. Articles require sources independent of the subject to exist at all. The most you should be involved in is making suggestions on the article's talk page, not in its creation, expansion, or eventual rewriting. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Trafficking in Person Report TIER 3

According to latest US Trafficking in Person Report Thailand stands on level "Tier 3" during 2014 and 2015 (lowest possible ranking). According to you Wikipedia and related statistic list of rankings, Thailand stands on level Tier 2? Please, kindly make needed proper, corrections.91.158.24.214 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Br, Turkka91.158.24.214 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Br, Turkka. If you have an improvement to offer to one of our four million articles, especially if you have a reliable published source for the information, you are very welcome to edit the article. Alternatively, if you are not confident in doing so, the article's Talk page is the best place to suggest a change., --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Formatting footnotes, references, & external links question

I am working on a draft for Amazingrace Coffeehouse. The article has Footnotes, References, and External links. Is it OK the way the auto-formatting made them come out, or do I need to re-format/revise to avoid duplication or any unintended confusion? Thank you for any suggestions. VerySeldom (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A few points: Headings should not be in all caps. We use sentence case for headings - take a look at WP:MOSHEAD. You probably need a proper infobox in place of the current lead paragraph, maybe {{infobox restaurant}}? When you remove that text, you will need a proper lead paragraph, see WP:LAYOUT. All minor stuff, but important.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

archives - date of contributions

Hi there, there are these bots that archive talk pages after 3 months of no activity in a thread. How can I as a user see when contributors posted their comment on a talk page? (This question refers to when they forgot to give a date - especially in Wikipedia's early days, editors did not sign their comments properly or add a timestamp). Thank you Elisanne (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elisanne: I think the page history contains the information you're looking for. For instance, I can use the page history of this page to see when your post was made. In theory, all edits should be either (a) signed by the user or (b) signed automatically by a bot, but if neither of these is true then the page history will contain the time of the post. However, if the page you're looking at is an archive, this won't work – for instance, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 366 only shows one edit made by a bot. You'd have to look at the original talk page the archive was from to see when a post was made.

If this doesn't answer your question, could you please post a link to the page(s) you're looking at? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Question

I tried to submit a draft but it was not approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjane214/sandbox

Before I re-submit it again, I want to make sure that it has been already reviewed by the editors at Teahouse and learn how to better edit this article myself. Sjane214 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the content you added to the sandbox, because it was copied from several other sites. Such copyright violations are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please have a look at this page for information on creating your first article, and note that if you have a conflict of interest regarding the CHI (i.e. if you work for them) then you should not be creating an article on this subject at all. It is a bad idea to draft articles in the general Wikipedia sandbox, since (as per the message at the top of that page) it is regularly blanked by an automated script. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response, I have found new words, phrases, and sentence structure so I am not copyrighting any website (I believe, please let me know if I am so I can fix it). How else can I improve this draft? Sjane214 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two problems with the current article in your sandbox. First, it contains several external links to the organization's web site in the body of the article. External links are only permitted in the External Links section. If you wish to use information from the organization's web site in the body of the article, you must rewrite it in your own words, so that it is not a copyright violation or close paraphrase. Second, you do not provide secondary reliable sources indicating notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Help for New Article

I need help with my article because it has been deleted several times for lack of sources and references. My article is about a well known company throughout the Americas that promotes services of valuations and appraisals for major companies and has considerable impact on the financial market and the stock exchange. The company has been asked many times about our background and our operation therefore I consider the article is of public interest. The company is registered with ASA - American Society of Appraisers, RICS - Royal Society of Chartered Surveyors, Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc... . Our services are described on wikipedia, as: appraisals, valuations, software, therefore we have valid links in the article. So, I need help to construct the article in the way wikipedia will not delete the article again. If anyone can help it will be highly appreciated.Joao Carlos Papaleo Mynarski (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict of interest here so you are strongly advised not to attempt to create the article as you will find it almost impossible to maintain the necessary neutral point of view and you will be very frustrated if you attempt to do so. "Public interest" is not one of our inclusion criteria. Please read the following pages for further assistance: WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:RS and WP:SPAM. Draft is located at User:Joao Carlos Papaleo Mynarski/sandbox --ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding for circleofcricket

i want to verify my circleofcricket wiki page can u help me Tsdcorp (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears Draft:Circle of Cricket has been reviewed but it was rejected because it looks like an advertisement and contains non-neutral language. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view and does not promote any company or business. Phrases like "COC is now putting its best possible efforts to highlight the roles and specialties of sports stars in front of the public" are not objective fact. If you have any affiliation with Circle of Cricket, please read our conflict of interest guidelines: it's usually best not to write about your own businesses, because it is hard to describe them without bias. If your company is notable, someone else may create an article for it. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure this organisation isn't notable enough for an article- I've never heard of them, if they were a notable cricket website then it's pretty certain I would have done. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Extraneous information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_and_Hugo on this page someone keeps adding stuff that I believe to be overly complex and unnecessary information. Some of it is true and interesting but some of it is just a massive rambling info dump. Could anyone have a look and see if I'm alone in thinking this? Not going to get into an edit war with a stranger! Granitoons (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The article reads more like a fansite or IMDB than an article in an encyclopedia. It needs some heavy editing (I have already removed the detailed, but completely unsourced and unnecessary, "Credits" section), the addition of some reliable sources and generally some TLC.--ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

An IP user has just added refs in the form of links to a number of episodes on YouTube. Such videos would appear to be copyright violations.--ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Shortening redundant information in references?

Thanks, again, for all the helpful advice last month about my first Wikipedia article.

Writing my second article has gone much more smoothly, but I'm still having template troubles with a few references for this article:

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

As you can see, References #1, 2, 3, 11, and 14 are all taken from the exact same book and page. Number 1 is fine, but how can I shorten References 2, 3, 11, and 14? I tried removing some of the template-generated text, but I then got a red-letter error message saying some fields were lacking.

Also, is there anything else stylistically incorrect that I should fix while waiting for the article to be reviewed? I'd like to see this article approved.

Thanks. EditWikiJapan (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The trick is to name references. Basically, the first time you reference the page in the book, you write inside the reference tag <ref name="some intelligent mnemonic"><nowiki> Then you can just reuse it by typing <nowiki><ref name="some intelligent mnemonic" /> without any content or closing tag. I have done it for you on the draft. Have a look. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

On other stylistic notes, first of all, the draft probably needs more links to other articles. Also, if you could break up the Life and Work section, that might make it easier to read. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, EditWikiJapan. The draft looks much improved. Additional 3rd party sources couldn't hurt, but I think there are enough. Translating titles of works and articles in the refs, and translating titles of the works in the Books section would help a bit, if possible. Are there any reviews of his books or films that could be cited and quoted? DES ^(talk) 03:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the references and for fixing things on the actual page.

The other suggestions are very useful, too. I'm making another trip to a nearby library this afternoon to track down a few book references, and I'll add what I find. EditWikiJapan (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rejection for notability (William B. Spofford (Bishop))

I need help figuring out why my article was rejected twice. The first time I understand; it was a misunderstaning on my part. The second rejection I do not. For one thing, in response to first rejection, I provided sources that by any standard I can come up with seem reasonable. Secondly, I used the articles for the subject's peers and colleagues as models and do not see any air between them and mine. See, e.g., Anson Phelps Stokes, a colleague of Bp. Spofford's. Indeed, if you were to click on any number of the names of the bishops at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bishops_of_the_Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America you will find, I think, that their pages are not at all dissimilar from my submission. That being said, I'm more than willing to give it another try or a couple but I require some guidance as to the defects. Thanks! Tspofford (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: I rereviewed and passed the draft since it had more references, and also because Episcopalian bishops appear to generally be notable. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Tspofford. Personally, I believe that Episcopal bishops are highly likely to be notable. However, it is your obligation as the writer of a draft article to demonstrate that notability conclusively. We have nearly five million articles, and experienced editors agree that many of them should be deleted. So, pointing out that other poorly referenced articles may exist is not a persuasive argument for accepting your article. It may lead to deletion of the other articles you mentioned. Instead, I recommend strengthening the sourcing of your draft. Let me give an example: One of your references has a title "Washington Post article about Bishop Spofford's appointment". This is not the proper way to cite a source. Instead, the exact title that the Washington Post used should be in the reference. You also use an obituary in the New York Times that shows all the signs of being a paid obituary submitted by family and associates, as opposed to coverage written by a staff writer for that newspaper. The Episcopal Church source may be reliable but will not be considered as independent by many editors. You need to emphasize truly independent reliable sources, and cite them properly. Surely, the solid and reliable newspapers and magazines of Eastern Oregon must have covered Spofford in great detail during his years there. Those are the type of sources that establish notability convincingly to a reviewer, especially when they are cited properly. Please read Referencing for beginners and take to heart its wise advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Doppelganger account

When should an editor create a doppelganger account, I have no idea. I know what a doppelganger is. TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, TeaLover1996. The idea behind a doppelganger account is to prevent impersonation. Let's say for the sake of discussion that some bitter hateful troll takes a dislike to you. Let's also assume that this particular troll is known to create Wikipedia accounts with names very similar to existing well-known user names, for the purpose of harassing or embarrassing people. You might be a bit miffed if an account called "TeaLover1995" started posting neo-Nazi propaganda. To pre-empt this, you could create "TeaLover1995" yourself, to prevent the troll from controlling it. That would be a valid use of a doppelganger account. The problem, of course, is that you need to claim every single plausible variation on your user name, and that is hard to do.

A month or two ago, a "hater" created an account with my user name, plus a string of insults against me. No way could I create enough doppelgangers to protect against this. Far easier and more productive to just ignore fools and trolls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Another option for dealing with fools and trolls who do impersonation/hater usernames is to report them to wp:UAA as they show up. From experience, it is a very efficient and drama-free process. I agree with Cullen, though, it's often best to deal with trolls as they come rather than pre-emptively. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Doppelganger accounts are usually only worth making if you're a very active user and/or have made enemies with a lot of trolls, and if there are a few specific variations of your username a troll would register names under. WP:DOPPELGANGER briefly explains what they are but in your case, it's not worth making probably one. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not only "protection from trolling", just potential confusion as well. For example, since I go by an initialization of my actual user name, I may want to register the initialization so that some other potential editor , say Tammy Roland Pearson of Dallas, doesnt try to make the account TRPoD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved TRPoD's comment to correct section — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why was my edit rejected?

I had said that there was an apocryphal story about my last name (Drown). I said it was apocryphal, so there are not going to be reliable sources. With that in mind, why was it rejected?Fr. Brendan, the Urban Monk 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frbrendan (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2015‎

Hello, Frbrendan, and welcome to the Teahouse. There may be no source to prove the truth of the story, but there mist at least be some source that shows that the story had some fairly wide circulation. If there is no source for it at all, it has no place in Wikipedia. Moreover, at the moment, that story is the entire content of the draft. (Currently the draft has no sources cited at all, to support anything.) Even if there was a source for this story, that would not make the name, or an individual with that name, notable. By the way, it is not yet clear what the subject of this draft will be: is it about the surname? or about a specific individual? In any case, this is far from ready to submit, and would have to be declined. You need to gather reliable sources about the subject you wish to write about, and base your draft directly on information from those sources. Content not supported by any source should not, in general, be included at all. DES ^(talk) 23:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Help!

I feel that a user on Wikipedia is bullying and demeaning me, and this has been going on for a really long time. Where should I go for help? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, YoSoyUnHamster. The place is WP:ANI. But, you should be discussing it with the person first. I see only two edits to a user talk page in your contribution history, both to User Talk:RHaworth#Hey, It's Me Again. FWIW, I do not see any bullying or demeaning - I see Largoplazo and RHaworth trying to get you to do the only thing that we do here - build an encyclopaedia - rather than apparently trying to do something that we don't do here - social networking. --ColinFine (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine. I think that they need to be a little nicer. I am not trying to turn Wikipedia into a social network, but I really just think that these two admins could be a little nicer and more understanding of newer users. I honestly have been thinking about leaving Wikipedia for quite some time, and if people don't quit acting like this towards me rather than trying to guide me, I will. Sound good? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

YoSoyUnHamster, if you stay here and help us improve the encyclopaedia, that sounds very good. If you decide that Wikipedia is not for you, and leave, that sounds good too. It's up to you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

my edit to the Joy (film) page is being rejected

I've made edits to the film page for JOY, but they are continuously rejected. Even when citing the film's official foxmovies.com page the edits I made are being removed. Is there something I am doing wrong? Would appreciate any feedback B4KD$$L (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @B4KD$$L:! Content from people directly related to the subject does not matter when establishing whether a subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for a stand alone article. What matters is that third parties with no connection to the subject of the article have found the subject worth covering in a significant manner. In addition, film projects have additional requirements .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@B4KD$$L: From your talk page, it appears that you were not "citing" but rather cut-and-paste copying. That is not allowed as it is a violation of copyright and would impinge on Wikipedia content being free for anyone else to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You said it perfectly for me, TRPoD. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

photo uploading issues

I tried to insert a picture from google image (but I also tried to insert it from another page), but I did'nt succeed. So, I'm editing the article and I click on the button insert picture, a small window pops-up and I have to fill : the file name and the caption... what do I have to put in the file name ? the link from google image or what ? and if I want to crop the picture before editing it ? Thanks for answer Kushi-tolom (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kushi-tolom, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way for Wikipedia (or any other Wikimedia project) to display an image from elsewhere. Every image must first be uploaded either to Wikimedia Commons or in some cases to Wikipedia itself. Unfortunately, because of the goal of making (almost) all of Wikipedia reusable by anybody for any purpose, we are very strict about the copyright requirements of uploaded images. In most cases, an image may be uploaded only if either it is in the public domain (usually because it is very old), or if the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a Creative Commons licence. The vast majority of pictures you find on Google (or anywhere on the Web) are subject to copyright which renders them unacceptable to Wikipedia. Unless you can track down the copyright owners, and persuade them to donate them to Wikipedia, you may not upload them or use them in an article - that is why so many articles, particularly of entertainers, do not have pictures. If you are able to take a picture of the subject yourself, you will own the copyright in that picture, and will be able to upload it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine, for the quick and complete answer :) Kushi-tolom (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

mistake

On Lamy#Ink, I accidentally removed a reference and I have no idea how to revert this on mobile. This question will probably also end up at the bottom, but I can't remember how to prevent that. Sorry. Thanks, Rubbish computer 18:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: It's fine. I've moved your question to the correct place, although I wonder: Shouldn't the "Ask a question" button work for you on mobile? I've never tried it on an actual mobile device before, so I wouldn't know about that...

Also, if I'm correct, I believe there isn't really a way to revert changes on mobile—at least for users who only have autoconfirmed permissions (like me). You might have to do it manually. I could be wrong. CabbagePotato (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@CabbagePotato: Thanks. The button works but places new questions at the bottom. Rubbish computer 19:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: That makes sense to me now. When I use mobile view on my desktop, clicking the button brings up the actual "New section" page (like the one you see for talk pages on desktop view) instead of a smaller "pop-up" box with a similar form (as it displays on desktop). I guess you'll have to add new Teahouse questions to the top manually on mobile using the "Edit" button for the "lede" (the one at the top). CabbagePotato (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fixed it. Rubbish computer 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

USS Phenakite

I see the article I changed was edited, so it's good to know the editors are minding the store. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia. I see the information about the ship's 1902 drawings was deleted; this is important to the ship's eventual restoration as it is evidence of restoration work which has no line item. If I find the link at the Hagley Museum for the electronic drawings would this be acceptable? Also, the ship's wartime commander is alive, 96 and has given speaking engagements. Basically, it has a Carnegie steel hull and the ship may still have a fighting chance if the owner got it into fresh water in time. It wasn't abandoned, they just didn't have money for much more than no trespassing signs. 148.108.39.34 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really care what is required for the ships eventual restoration. (And I hope to god that the ship's restoration is not depending upon content from Wikipedia!) Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia article collecting what other people have written about the subject, we are not here to be a buyer's guide or owner's handbook for some product. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

With regards to links, there are 2 kinds. One that is a reliably published source which is used to verify article content and is used as part of a citation. A link to a museum page could possibly be appropriate there. The other is an external link at the bottom of the page. It is also possible, but seems to me less likely, that a link to a museum page would meet those criteria -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with selflinks?

Hej, I wonder what to do in case of a selflink? For Example, 'Brannigans' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KP_Snacks&oldid=665157210) redirected to 'KP Snacks', while the article 'KP Snacks' included a link to 'Brannigans'. A similar example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(novel_series) , where 'Daemon' is both the title of the two-part novel series and the first novel.Yoshee (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) edit: I corrected the second link Yoshee (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yoshee
Help:Self link#Indirect self links describes the situation, but not what to do about it.
Leaving an indirect self link as a green-link (assuming your preferences are so set) is slightly annoying as the page reloads, but you are back where you started, and wondering what has gone wrong. I think the easiest answer is not to link at all, as with KP Nuts in the list in the KP Snacks article you are referring to.
Although clever, I am not convinced about your method of piping a link to the non-existent article No redirect, as if such an article is ever created (it could be the title of a film or book in the future) it will be far more confusing when clicking Brannigans to end up there. - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay, I found it confusing too to be linked "back". I changed it because if one sees a blue link one expects more information behing that link, but now that I found the other (Daemon) example, I wonder about the general rule... I fixed the link to the Daemon article above. Could you please have a look and suggest a solution? Should there be no link to the first novel at all? btw: green link== blue link ?Yoshee (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yoshee. I'm not a Teahouse regular but I was browsing and I saw this and thought I might comment. The thing about Daemon is that there is only one article, which is named Daemon (novel series) but appears to be primarily about the first novel. Compare Twilight (series) and Twilight (novel) which are separate articles. I recommend moving Daemon (novel series) back to Daemon (novel), and just saying in the intro that there was a sequel, Freedom™. There doesn't seem to be very much to say about the series as a series, so I don't think it needs its own article. If I'm wrong about the article being primarily about the first novel, and the "Plot" section is actually the plot of the two novels, then I would take out whatever is in Freedom™, because that will be in the other article (or if it isn't it could be merged in). Scolaire (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Yoshee. I see we have two articles; Daemon (novel series) and Freedom™, The opening line of Daemon states that it is a "two-part novel" not a "novel series". As Daemon (quite correctly IMHO) redirects to Demon (disambiguation) we cannot just have Daemon, so I agree with Scolaire it should be moved back to Daemon (novel), which then makes sense of the "Two part novel" description, and there is nothing to say about "the series" as there is no "series", just a two part novel.
Returning to KP Snacks I see someone else has removed the indirect self-link to Brannigans, but then someone else has added links to KP Nuts - to quote from WP:Red link "It is useful ... to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" I cannot see people rushing to create these articles, whilst the one article that did exist, on Brannigans, was deleted for lack of notability, so these redlinks seem to fail both criteria, and should simply be removed. - Arjayay (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

how to suggest new topic?

Axelgrinder (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the question? Do you want an article on a topic? If so, read WP:Your first article. If not, what is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

African School of Economics

I just revised the article "African School of Economics" based on suggestions for improvement. Could it be reviewed again for approval? Thanks. Ase cotonou (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ase cotonou The article African School of Economics was already accepted back in May, there is nothing to review. However there are several tags pointing out problems in the article that should be fixed. As each tagged issue is resolved the corresponding tag should be removed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I think the user was trying to say that they had tried to fix the problems identified in the tags and was asking whether someone could 'review' the article to decide whether the tags were still warranted, or can now be removed. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

<ref> ?

I represent a company that provides appraisals and valuations (economic sector). I would like to know what kind of <ref> should I insert ? regards, Joao Carlos Papaleo Mynarski14:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)~

Hello @Joao Carlos Papaleo Mynarski: . First things first: As a representative of the company you have a conflict of interest and need to declare your paid editing status.

With regards to references in order to have a stand alone article, the subject of the article must have been the subject of significant coverage by reliably published sources that are independent of the subject of the article - not press releases, not blog posts, not facebook, but sites with reputations for accuracy and editorial oversight, like major news papers, books (non-self published), or magazines and journals.

Once you have the third party sources, then the formatting is covered at WP:REFB. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How to Provide "Sufficient Context" on a complex topic?

Hi,

I am writing an article about a specific industry standard on configuration management. This is one of the most well know, and highly used standards for configuration management (CM). Unfortunately, there is very little thorough information about this topic online as it is a fairly complex subject.

I wanted to create an easy to understand wikipedia page detailing this topic, but my drafts keep getting rejected due to providing insufficient context.

Draft Title: "EIA-649 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management"

Could you provide me with a better idea of what is needed to make this article more understandable / approved? I want to make sure it is incredibly helpful for anyone needing to know more about this topic.

Thanks!!

71.68.124.112 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We cover what others have covered. If they havent covered it, it probably is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as TRPoD says, we only cover what other sources talk about. Now, these sources don't have to be online—if there are books that provide information on this topic, they can be used as references, but information needs to exist somewhere. Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so everything you say needs to be attributed to a source. If sources don't exist, this isn't the place for your article: maybe it would be better suited to a blog of some sort.

But your draft seems to have been rejected for other reasons: "insufficient context" is a different problem. You're probably best off asking the reviewers (Sulfurboy and Timtrent) for more detail on why they declined your submission. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm struggling with Draft:EIA-649 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management as my comment at the head says. I can't get past not being able to get to grips with what it is before even considering what others have said about it. It doesn't need to be a technical exposé on what it is in the lead, just needs to be framed so that the average bloke can understand it. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

For context setting, I would expect something like "EIA-649 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management is a configuration management process established in YEAR by GROUPSFORMINGTHECONSENSUS to govern the processes related to XXXXX". But I still have a hard time seeing how the standard would be notable. Were there major conferences discussions that led to the development? Were there any holdouts to the "consensus"? What do the expert analysts say have been the major impacts of the standard? What have been the majore modifications over the years? What are the most notable flaws that experts discuss? Without sources covering those types of questions, you don't really have an encyclopedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Overlink tool

As a regular FL nominator, my biggest weakness is WP:OVERLINKING, especially in references. Both times I've nominated a list for featured status, I have been scrutinized for my overlinking in references. My issue is that going over every single work and publisher parameter when there's over 200 references on a page is exhausting and takes far too long. Does anyone know of a tool that can detect link brackets and alert an editor that the same link is used twice in a page? Any help appreciated, Azealia911 _talk 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Azealia911. There is a script you can install: User:Ucucha/duplinks that does exactly that. It can be a bit faulty sometimes and to get every double link I open the page in the editing window and put the link I want to check in the seach box of the browser, with brackets, and this way you will quickly see if a link is made more than once. Best, w.carter-Talk 12:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

W.carter Thanks for the suggestion, I've installed it, but I'm not really sure how to use it, nothing seems to be happening on its own anyway, any instructions? Thanks, Azealia911 _talk 13:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: Look under "Tools" in the left hand column on the page you want to check. You should see a new addition there: "Highlight duplicate links", if not restart your browser. Click on that and the duplicate links should get framed by red lines. If not, reload the page and try again. I tested it on the Gotland page and got some hits right away. w.carter-Talk 13:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What kind of sources are allowed in Wikipedia and why Primary Sources are not allowed in Wikipedia?

I actually added a source which was a direct quotation from a Buddhist Scripture. 2 editors removed it by saying that it is a primary source. What is the reason that Primary sources aren't allowed in Wikipedia? Please help me. Terabar (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Main reason is if we overuse Primary Sources, Wikipedia wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a bunch of blogs. Galhalee (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on primary sources is that a *reliable* primary source may be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements, but care must be taken not to add any evaluation, interpretation or analysis of what the source says. WP:PRIMARY contains the policy itself, and the practical application of this policy is discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Our answers could be more specific if you provided a link to the edits in question. Galhalee (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Edits

Hi, I found in the Edit Count that one of the edit I did has been deleted. I don't know where to find the same. I want to know what happened or where did I go wrong ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peppy Paneer:, it was a minor edit you made to an article called Ashraf Abu Issa. The article was subsequently deleted which includes your edit so that's why you have a deleted edit in your count. Deleted edits are nothing to worry about. Nthep (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Nthep:, Oh yes! I remember...few days back removed one of the references from the article Ashraf Abu Issa because it was not supporting the statement and put tag with that statement. Its ok...no worry...I was looking to see if I made a wrong edit. Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Peppy Paneer. If an edit you make is undone by somebody, or the text is later changed, it will still show in your contributions and the history of the page you edited. Deleted edits are either edits you made to pages which have subsequently been deleted, or (I think) edits that have been oversighted for some reason. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• ColinFine Ok Thank you for further clarification. And if any user has 27(lets say) deleted edits, then can user view all the deleted edits at one place ? Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Peppy Paneer, only administrators can see a users deleted contributions. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Ok Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete my Draft on Ray Carr so I can get some help to FINALLY get it written the way everyone here thinks it needs to be to be accepted.

I wrote a draft for an article on Ray Carr - a local disc jockey, which was deleted in May WITHOUT NOTIFYING me in my e-mail. I have tried repeatedly to get advice on chat, and some help with rewrites, but, apparently, I never seem to get it good enough for Wikipedia to accept it. I'm told the man is "not notable", and I don't agree, and could add a lot more than is there now, if the page would be undeleted. I tried following the instructions on how to do this, and I don't know if it went through. Can someone PLEASE help me with this? I just want to get it DONE and PUBLISHED ALREADY. THANK YOU. Here is the code I used for my request: ==Draft:Ray Carr==

• Draft:Ray Carr · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | mfd ) · [revisions]

I, CVActor1, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. CVActor1 (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) .. CVActor1 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi CVActor1. You request has already been answered at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Draft:Ray_Carr; there are some questions there which are awaiting your response. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How can I change the title of our page?

I am the secretary for an international women's motorcycle organization "Women in the Wind". We found that a wikipedia page was created by a user named "Bridge Boy" a few years ago but the title of our organization is incorrect as he listed us as a Motorcycle Club (which we are NOT and can get us into trouble if "MC" is used). Past officers of the organization have tried to have the title of the page changed but it hasn't worked. I tried to contact Bridge Boy but he has been suspended. How can we change the title? My apology if this is the wrong department to ask this question. If someone can help, it would really be appreciated! The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Wind_(motorcycle_club)Witwsecretary (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Witwsecretary (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Witwsecretary: Hi, after reading the question, I just stopped by to check Women in the Wind (motorcycle club) and found "As a note, Women in the Wind is not a motorcycle club "MC" and it has tried to have the title on this page corrected numerous times." in the main space article added by you. It is advisable to keep all the discussions on the talkpage of the article. I already did the same for you. Some other editor will soon answer regarding Change of title Cheers! Peppy Paneer (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To change a page title, you need to be an autoconfirmed user (have an account with 10 edits that is at least 4 days old). The function is called "moving" a page.

I've moved the page from Women in the Wind (motorcycle club) to Women in the Wind (organization) at your request. Usually, articles don't need anything in brackets at all and we'd just call the page "Women in the Wind", but in this case there is already a movie by the name Women in the Wind, so we have to find a way to discern between the two pages. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Witwsecretary. The title of the Wikipedia article about your organisation needs something in parenthesis to distinguish the subject from other things called Women in the Wind. If you want to suggest a change, please do so on the talk page Talk:Women in the Wind (motorcycle club); but whatever it used is not claimed to be part of the name of the organisation, but simply a way that a reader searching can identify which article is which: perhaps '(motorcycle organization)' would work. Either way, you should not be editing the article directly (or moving it, which is how the title gets changed) because of your Conflict of interest. Please be aware that it is not your page, and you and your organisation have no control whatever over its content: you are welcome to make suggestions for changes to it (preferably with reliable published sources), but you should leave it to uninvolved editors to make those changes. (If it happens that there are few people looking at the talk page, so you get no response, please add the template {{edit request}} to the talk page, to put it on the list of articles awaiting edits).

One more thing: Wikipedia does not allow accounts to have names which suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation, or that they might be used by different people in a role. Please create an account which is personal to you (you do not have to use your real name, and you are free to have 'witw' as part of the name if you wish, as long as the name doesn't suggest that you are editing on behalf of the organisation). --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW the two pages Women in the Wind and Women in the Wind (organization) need hatnote links pointing to each other. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish someone had reached out to us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. We have had this come up many, many times, particularly with Patriot Guard Riders, and some other clubs. Mainstream sources call motorcycle clubs motorcycle clubs. If you're a member of the outlaw motorcycle club subculture, then there is a special politically correct set of rules describing MCs (outlaw motorcycle clubs), riding clubs, brand clubs, and "organizations". The only point of which is to respect the imaginary territory that outlaw clubs illegally assert control over. Some people imagine that if media like Wikipedia call Women in the Wind a "motorcycle club", the Hells Angels will come beat us all up. Or beat up the club. Or somebody. Nobody has ever presented a shred of evidence for this claim. Regardless, Wikipedia policy says we follow our sources without editorializing or adding our own spin.

Over at Talk:Women in the Wind (motorcycle club)#Motorcycle club I've listed 10 citations showing that they are called a "motorcycle club" by reputable books, magazines and newspapers, because those words describe, in plain English, what Women in the Wind is. The article outlaw motorcycle club does have a rundown of subculture jargon, but that jargon doesn't apply to the whole universe. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I'm having trouble getting an entry on a company I work for published. The reason quoted was that the article was not written from a neutral point of view.

It is stated in the rules of submission that if an author is affiliated with the topic they are writing about, this should be made obvious on the user page. I did that. I referenced reliable sources (academic papers, newspaper articles, etc.) and used a neutral tone.

I am willing to edit the article but, despite having consulted various entries on Wikipedia's guidelines for style, content, etc., I cannot find much fault with my article.

What did I do wrong?

Many thanks in advance

185.15.236.52 (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi 185.15.236.52, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you let us know what the name of the article is, so that we can take a look? I don't see any article edits in your contributions, so I presume that you were editing the article from a different IP address. Without knowing this, it's hard to say what you did wrong (if you did). Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, sure! The title of the article is Tyromotion GmbH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tyromotion_GmbH). This is my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TyromotionKarin I have also just received another note stating that the user who reviewed my article thinks the topic is notable but that I should mainly revise the products section.

Again, many thanks. I suppose it's quite obvious I'm new to all this...

185.15.236.52 (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Karin. Just a tip before I make any comments on the article, which is that it's best to sign in whenever you post something on Wikipedia, so that other editors can follow your posts from a single contribution history. Signing in also prevents you IP address (and therefore your location) being available for all to see. As for the conflict of interest issue, can I suggest that you first take some time to read the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? As you'll see, that policy strongly advises editors from contributing to articles about subjects they have a close relationship with, such as their employer. It may well be that you are completely neutral and able to write objectively about Tyromotion, but this sort of editing is very likely to cause other editors to question the neutrality of the article. It's good that you've declared your conflict of interest, though. What you could do is try to encourage other, neutral editors to look at the page content and ensure that it complies with Wikipedia's policies. One place to find such people might be Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics - you could try posting a request for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics. I also see that Sulfurboy, who reviewed the draft, has encouraged you to find more third-party sources on Tyromotion, which is a good suggestion. Sources such as the scholarly journal articles are exactly the sort that you should be using. You should also make use of the talk page at Draft talk:Tyromotion GmbH to discuss how to develop the article, and get views on whether your proposed additions are neutral. What some editors do when they have a conflict of interest is to only edit the article talk page, not the article itself, in order to make suggestions about material to add but to leave it to other editors to ensure that Wikipedia policies are met. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you've been extremely helpful!! I will definitely follow your advice. TyromotionKarin (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved in a dispute and looking for feedback

Please take a peek at Talk:Dependency_injection#Disadvantages_Section and let me know if I'm handling this well. Not looking for someone to settle the dispute. Just need someone to keep me grounded. Thanks. Galhalee (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please review my article? 'Smaller Plate Study'

I've made changes to my article, 'Smaller Plate Study,' please can someone review it and give me feedback? Roxydog13 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roxydog13, I gave it a quick once-over. The article's subject exists in that strange grey zone where a study itself rather than the subject of the study is the topic, hence what would normally be a secondary source (peer-reviewed paper) becomes a primary one, with attendant problems. So there is still a certain bias towards primary sources here; still, referencing looks good to me now. I did remove the two anecdotal-seeming result reports from Core Performance and MediFit, these being primary without the benefit of peer review, and rather advertorial in tone. Also jiggled the content of the "Criticism" section a bit. Good to go now, I'd say. All the best -- Elmidae (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

EL

Hi, if anyone can look at this EL An early sculpture of the article Sadanand Bakre. Can this be removed ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It requires a google login, which is free. What else is wrong with it? DES ^(talk) 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. I get "This blog is open to invited readers only" when I log in using my google account. Rojomoke (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi..."permission denied" is being shown in the tab when logged in with google account and "This blog is open to invited readers only" is displayed. When checked on wayback machine following is the message - "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt" What do you suggest ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Peppy Paneer, Rojomoke, That sounds like good reason to remove the link, as per WP:ELNO #s 6 & 7. I will do so. DES ^(talk) 12:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• @DESiegel: Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Permanently use desktop version

When I go to a Wikipedia article on my macbook, it frequently uses the "moble" version, which I hate. Is there a way to tell it to always use the "Desktop" version, forever, no matter what?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the URL you are using is en.m.wikipedia.org, which is the mobile version of wikipedia. I'm assuming you've only visited this version before, so all you need to do is remove the "m" from the address, which stands for "mobile" on almost every website that is compatible. Since safari (and most browsers) generally shows the most visited versions first in the search bar, make sure you type in the whole URL until the browser memorizes your preference. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 15:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So if you have the mobile version of Potato (no pun intended) the URL bar will show en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato, just change it simply to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato and it will come up the full version. --2602:306:BCE9:8AE0:FD92:CB74:610F:4CBF (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Really the question has not been answered. Is there any way to prevent the program (Safari or Chrome on Ios 8.2, in my case) from _ever_ going to the mobile version in the first place (ever). Then there wouldn't be a need to remove the ".m." repeatedly. Sometimes I have a link to a WP article and it will come up as the mobile version no matter what tge link says. In other words, Safari is _asking_ WP to send the mobile version. Happens with all sites that have mobile versionsdeisenbe (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

At the foot of the Wikipedia mobile page there should be a link to the desktop version. If you tap that, it will take you to the desktop version and, I think, make that version the default for all Wikipedia pages that you visit.--ukexpat (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The question now being asked is how do I change my browsers behaviour and that is a question to aim at the people who support the browser. Nthep (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)