Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224

???

Why are there like five pages of the main page? The garmine ^(talk) 19:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your question slightly clearer as I am unsure as to what you mean Edward1612 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Garmine: @Edward1612:

I believe the question being asked is about the existence of alternate main pages for dates plus or minus 2 days from now. The reason why is so errors on the main page can be seen before they actually show up on the actual main page, and I would presume the old ones are around to allow discussions to make sense the day after about content on the main page. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be about Wikipedia:Main Page/1 to Wikipedia:Main Page/5. For that, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are there so many backups of the Main Page? @The garmine: Please inlcude a link when you ask something about a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Ok, I will do so in the future. And you guessed right. Thanks! The garmine ^(talk) 21:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my article keep getting declined when it push it through for review?

I honestly see no issue when it comes to my article, with its sources or with what I've written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ski_Mask_the_Slump_God Just wondering if anyone can give me a serious critique before the review comes back. WolvesS (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has already been rejected twice because its references do not adequately show the subject's notability. What is needed is several independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. Which of the references do you believe qualify? Maproom (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what "independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject" is. I've provided 19 sources, several of these are what would count as "independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject" including the interview provided by XXL, the summary of how this artist is one of the prominent members of a new upcoming and popular style coming out of South Florida provided by both the New York Times and Rollingstone (which actually provides the notability of the page when following the notability guidelines, especially for musicians, mainly number 7 of the criteria which states "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city". These sources are all by credible publications which are very versed in music and are used on wiki pages for other artists of the hip hop genre such as Kanye West, Drake and The Weeknd. There are even articles with much less sources than mine such as Keith Ape and Ugly God which seem to have been approved/not slated for deletion ever. I'm wondering why double standards are existing right now for my article and not for these? WolvesS (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, reference 7 looks acceptable. But some of the others are based on interviews with the subject, and therefore do not help to establish his notability. Removing most of the interview-based references might help give a better impression to a reviewer. (And please note that most Wikipedia editors are aiming to raise the general standard of articles, and won't accept the argument that the existence of some poor articles justifies the creation of more. If you come across an article that you believe doesn't meet our standards, it's better to propose it for deletion, than to emulate it.) Maproom (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and copyrights

I have in my possession a rich material of pictures and intend to use a few in an article. The pictures are mostly private and taken between 1890 - 1926. The photographer is mostly unknown, mostly within my ancestors but impossible to verify. Others a studio portraits but mostly the studio has long since vanished or are untraceable. Most of the pictures are of course more than 100 years old and at least 75.

Now, can I upload and use these?

JohanHammar (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, JohanHammar. Your draft article has some serious problems that must be corrected. Many of your references are to private letters, an unfinished account in a family archive, and preserved lecture notes. I am sorry, but none of these are reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. A reliable source must have been published under professional editorial control. These unpublished documents to not qualify as reliable sources. I suggest that you read our core content policy No original research and an excellent essay, Your first article.

As for the photos, your description presents problems. We can only accept properly licensed photos, or those whose copyright is verified to have expired. But copyright hasn't even started on unpublished photos, and it seems that discovering the owner of the rights to these photos is probably impractical. We cannot accept photos without knowing who owns the rights and can never assume that no legitimate right holder exists.

I encourage you to continue working on your draft, but please concentrate on bringing it into full compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Feel free to ask additional questions here at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other problems with your draft, but I focused on what I see as the most significant issue. Anyone interested can comment on Draft:Josef Hammar. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Then a question. Not being able to use the references not published, would it still be possible to publish the article as it is? There is some references that has been published even if it can be hard to get copies. Or is there a way to publish the available material (I have all the source material at home, i.e. I have the Hammar's family archive containing the original letter, documents etc.). When it comes to the pictures they are between 91 to 118 years old. Where the photographer is known they've been dead for more than 75 year. In some cases I have the negatives. According to Swedish law this would be OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohanHammar (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JohanHammar, and welcome back to the Teahouse. It is primarily US law that applies to Wikipedia, since its servers are located in the US. As to publishing the sources, Wikipedia won't do that. If you can get a magazine publisher, or book publisher, to reproduce them, they can be used, but I suspect tht might be hard. Putting them on your own web site or your own self-published ebook would not count as publication by/as a reliable source. You might get a publisher to issue the unfinished account plus the diaries, I suppose. Without those sources, you have only the first three cites and the last cite, and that is pretty skimpy for an article -- unless you cna find additional sources. Old newspaper articles might work (if they existed and you can find them), even if not online. As for the photos, see <http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm> where you will find that for unpublished works, the copyright term is life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years from creation if the author is unknown. So Works from authors who died before 1947, or Works created before 1897 when the author is unknown, will be in the public domain this year. If you have some evidence of the dates of the photos, and the name and death date of the photographer (who is normally the author for copyright purposes) those might be usable. In such a case they would be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, I think the proper license tag would be pd-old. But if there is no article there is nothing to use the images in. (By the way, the comment above that But copyright hasn't even started on unpublished photos by Cullen328 is not correct.) I am sorry not to have offered more hope. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to news articles I have plenty of those but they are cut out of the paper they were published in so I suppose they are unusable too as I can't verify which paper they were published in (well not without spending an incredulously long time in archives anyway). It sounds like I should ditch this article and spend my time on better things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohanHammar (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Company Page Approval

Hi, I'd love some feedback on a company page I've been working on. The company is well known within our industry and I felt it needed some recognition here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'd really like to see this page become approved.

Thank You

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

MJOHN (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MJOHN. As it stands, I'm afraid that the draft completely lacks substantial independent secondary sources, without which an article cannot be accepted. Two of the references are patents, which are primary sources; one is by RA; and one is a passing mention. The first one (the study from the University of Florida) I am unable to open (it seems to want to download something in a strange format), so I don't know what it contains. But whatever "LPRC" might mean (you neither explain nor link to this term), it seems unlikely to contain substantial independent material about the company. What you need to find is several places where people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish substantial material about it, since almost the whole of the article needs to be based on these sources, and not on unpublished information or on information published by the company or its associates. (Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of any article says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with it have published about it).

Furthermore, since you say you hold the copyright ot File:Tag print.jpg, it would appear that you have some commention with the company. If that is the case, you need to read and follow the instructions relating to editing with a conflict of interest: if you are in any way paid to contribute to Wikipedia (eg if it is seen as part of your job) then you must declare this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank You for response.

I just want to clarify my position in this. I am Loss Prevention Executive who currently works for a Large Retail Organization. I have been involved with Loss Prevention, RFID and EAS for over 20 years. My relationship with this page is strictly professional and that of an observer. My interest in designing this page stems from their involvement and innovation within the industry.

I am familiar with most product currently being used by some of the largest developers. Some of which initially designed by some of the people associated with 'Retailers Advantage'.

Both the 'LPRC' and 'RFID Journal' have been fixtures since the early 2000's and are main staples within Loss Prevention and RFID. In my opinion I do feel these should be considered as substantial secondary sources.

The 'RFID Journal' references a hard tag designed by 'Retailers Advantage' and studies found. Author 'Claire Swedberg', frequent writer for RFID Journal.

I have removed any pictures that could be considered copyright. All remaining are my own property or already on the web.

Though not as large as a 'Sensormatic' or 'Checkpoint'. I do feel they deserve recognition for their continued contribution.

Please reconsider this page or guide me on further adjustments.

Thank You

MJOHN (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MJOHN, that page is not ready to be a Wikipedia article. I've moved it to Draft:Retailers Advantage, where you can work on it if you wish – the references and the overall tone both need attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MJOHN. The bulk of my reply still stands. I can see the LPRC report now, and I accept that it and the RFID Journal article are reliable. The problem is that neither of them says much about the company: they are focused on the product. (I am assuming this from the executive summary). These together may establish that the a3tag is notable, but not that the company is. You still need substantial independent reliable sources about the company.

I hear that you are not connected with the company; but I don't understand then how it is that you hold the copyright in a picture that is relevant to the company. (Note that "already on the web" is not adequate: most pictures on the web are copyright and may not be used in Wikipedia, unless the copyright holder has specifically licensed them with a compatible licence such as CC-BY-SA).

Your feeling that they deserve recognition of course has some relevance if you are in the industry, but Wikipedia's criteria for that is exactly what I mentioned above: that the subject has received substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia does not deal in "recognition": it is only interested in subjects which have already been recognised by independent source. See notability. --ColinFine (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want no problems with copyright pictures. I will remove those.

I've read all the criteria. There are many holes. My impression is most of this subjective and mainly at the discretion of the admin/s on whether or not a page gets approved.

I'd be curious if all your pages meet these criteria...

I would greatly appreciate if you could be specifics with what you are looking for.

Thanks Again & Best Regards,

MJOHN

MJOHN (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit top portion of page?

Hello,

New here and haven't a clue on editing so I apologize in advance for all if my dumb questions.

Here is my first, I would like to edit the top part of the page which I created because it is poorly written and I would also like to change a couple links to something more appropriate... for example would like the link the UCLA Bruin Wikipedia page instead of the UCLA Wikipedia page that I linked... the problem is I can't figure out where to go to modify that section.

Thank you, j Jaduh (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not a section, so you need to edit the whole page (the 'Edit source' button of the page menu). Dolberty (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaduh: Welcome to the teahouse. You can also go to your preferences (see the menu in the top right corner of the page) click on the seventh tab "gadgets", and in the "appearance" section check the first box which adds an edit link for the lead section of the page.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaduh. One more way: If you open a side edit link, and then change the end of the URL to 0 (zero), it will allow editing of the first section, e.g., &action=edit&section=1 → &action=edit&section=0 Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting First Article

Dear Sir/Mam,

I hope this message finds you well. I have created a page for one of my organization called Next Generation Magazine but it was later marked for deletion and deleted. The reason was ambiguous advertising or promotion. As I'm new to this community, I'm a quite unclear on what it was described as advertising or promoting, or perhaps is there any restriction that as I founder of the organization I couldn't start the article.

Is there any way I could start it as a draft and give it to the community to check first before submitting. Overall I would like to request some guidelines and if anyone is willing to be my guide on creating the first article. Thank you.

Regards,

Sares Saresselva (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saresselva. Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Use the Articles for Creation process for any future draft article about your magazine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi language spoken by others?

Are there any cultures in existence that speak Hindi other than those from India? I have a sentence that goes like this: ...is an Indian Hindi language television drama that premiered.... Is the "Indian" redundant? — Myk Streja ^(what?) 02:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Myk_Streja. According to our article Hindi,

"Outside India, it is an official language which is known as Fiji Hindi in Fiji, and is a recognised regional language in Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Suriname. Hindi is the fourth most-spoken first language in the world, after Mandarin, Spanish and English."

Accordingly, I do not think that mentioning India is redundant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That helps. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For interest, an additional relevant consideration would be TV and/or radio broadcasts to India (and elsewhere) in Hindi made by non-Indian entities, for educational and/or propaganda purposes. For example, the BBC World Service broadcasts TV and radio programmes in over 20 different languages, including radio programmes in Hindi. Voice of America seemingly makes current TV and radio broadcast in Urdu though not Hindi, but that could change. "Radio Sputnik", formerly Radio Moscow, aims to broadcast in 30 languages, which may well include Hindi now or in the future. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.89.162 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular instance, that is not the case. The program is Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai‎. Just as some shows are filmed in Hollywood and are totally English, this show is all Indian, likely dubbed for other languages. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't leaving something similar to saying "English English" (which is another way of saying "British English"). — Myk Streja ^(what?) 10:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles

Why featured articles are always shorter than good articles? And what is the diffeence between featured articles and good articles?Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Super ninja2. There is no reason why featured articles should be shorter than good articles. In fact, I would expect the opposite to be the norm. Compare Above All State Park with Banff National Park. The difference is that the standard that has to be met for an article to become featured is higher than the standard that has to be met for a good article. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria for those criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to tag text that needs "as of"?

Dr.Seuss § Adaptations has a paragraph including this text:

Four television series have been adapted from Geisel's work. ... The fourth, The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That!, produced by Portfolio Entertainment Inc., began on August 7, 2010, in Canada and September 6, 2010, in the United States and is currently still showing.

The obvious question is "'Currently' as of when'" I haven't got the time or spoons to research the answer, but that's the kind of reason we have {{cn}} and {{who?}} and many other templates that specify what sort of information needs to be added here. Is there one for "as of", or should I just use {{when?}}? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thnidu, it seems {{when?}} is the appropriate template for this case; {{as of?}} actually redirects to it. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding gallery to a page

Good day everyone. I have been trying to organise the images and add a gallery to this page National Rail Museum, New Delhi. However, I don't think I have been able to do a very good job. The page looks a bit messed up at the moment. Could someone help me out and let me know what I am doing wrong? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamLinker (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if someone could let me how to correct the formatting mess at the bottom of the page.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page for NGO

Hello,

I would like to add some valuable information about an NGO in South Africa. I've received a notification from classicwiki that the page does not comply to guidelines and cannot be created. I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Care_Foundation is an example of how an NGO can be added to Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions on how to go about getting a page approved?

Thank you!

Aliciamcarter (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to provide references to significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject to demostrate the subject's notability. Also, please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that respect, China Care Foundation is not a good example to follow. It needs significant work to bring it up to standard and if sufficient independent sources cannot be found, it might have to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aliciamcarter: If you are affiliated with the organization, you will have to abide by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Furthermore, if you are paid by the organization, you will be required to disclose your employment per Wikipedia's terms of use and paid editing disclosure rules. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@drm310 Thank you for the information. That is very helpful!

Aliciamcarter (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The American Recovery and Reimbursement Act

I have received several phone calls from someone claiming to be from the U. S. Treasury Department stating that I have a $9000.00 grant waiting to be released to me, for my use, that does not have to be paid back. I was given a grant approval code, and told to call a number. When I called this number, I was told that I had to go to a store and purchase a $200.00 registration card, and that these funds would be reimbursed to me as well in my grant transfer which was to go directly by my bank by wire transfer. Is this a joke, a scam or an actual transaction to people from the government Sharonbobson (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; the Teahouse is not for asking general questions, but to ask about using Wikipedia. The best advice for you though is that if you think it is a scam, it probably is. The government does not call people to hand out money. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

I don't know but I tried my best to put up an authentic content for ENZY Studios but still, my page has been considered in deletion process. Can I get solution & the exact reason behind it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbzdpvt.ltd (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tbzdpvt.ltd. Please see the explanation for the deletion at User talk:Tbzdpvt.ltd#Speedy deletion nomination of ENZY Studios. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are corporate promotions allowed?

are corporate promotions allowed ياسمين94 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No promotion is allowed on Wikipedia. If you find any, please report it, so that it can be removed. Maproom (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are pormotions and ads allowed

are promotions and ads allowed ياسمين94 (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. TimothyJosephWood 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why my page isn't publishing

I am a new user and I have finished my page (it's been finished for a month now) but it's still not published. I'm not sure what to do to get it to that point. The page is for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Memphis District Usace85 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Usace85. Looks like it was never published because it was never submitted for review. I have added the Articles for Creation banner to the top of the draft, and you can click the submit button whenever you're ready. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do newspapers count as independent sources?

I just wanted to confirm that newspaper entries were counted as independent sources because I have cited a few in my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Professor_Valentine_Joseph. I am trying to cite reliable sources so the article is notable enough, but I am wondering what is a more reliable source. Thank you, Anish Mariathasan (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anish Mariathasan. The reliability of a source is usually something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Although many or most newspapers will probably be considered reliable, some probably wouldn't be, and it really depends on whether they have a long standing reputation for editorial oversight and journalistic integrity. It's a bit like asking "are books reliable sources," because the real answer there is "depends on the book". TimothyJosephWood 16:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question of independence also depends on the individual newspaper article and topic, Anish Mariathasan. So, to give some examples, an article in a newspaper written by a journalist about a government policy is independent, whereas a newspaper op-ed written by a politician about a law that they have drafted is not. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Anish Mariathasan if you have any specific questions about the reliability of certain publications, the place to ask is the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard - and it is often worth using the search-box to their archive to see if the publication has been discussed before. In addition, you need to cite the newspapers properly, and insert them in the relevant place(s) in the article, not just have a long list at the end. Currently the article has 7 references, but as four of these reference the same piece of information, only 4 pieces of information in the entire article are referenced. I suggest uou break the 2 huge paragraphs up into smaller paragraphs, on specific topics, not necessarily with a sub section header. The ensure that each of those paragraphs has one or more references. - Arjayay (talk)

You say "I have cited a few in my article". But only one newspaper (The Sunday Times Sri Lanka) is actually cited. The others are listed as references, but are not cited within the article in support of the statements there. It should be fairly easy for you to correct this. Maproom (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External Links in my Draft

For my webpage it was denied because of external links i believe that i removed the problem but i want to make sure and that it is not something to do with the citations. Thanks Nmmoore (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that many of the citations are to "Web", with no URL supplied. That could be a problem. Maproom (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the link to the organization's web site in the opening sentence dealt with that issue. Maproom is correct that references to online sources should include a valid URL, not just the word "web". There is a matter of tone. Somehow this reads a bit like an advocacy piece, be careful to keep the tone neutral and factual. Using direct rather than indirect paraphrased quotes might help with this. Still I think you are getting close. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how do i prevent speedy deletion?

I had just started working on a page, and the next time I logged on it was speedily deleted. I want to put it back up but I want to prevent it from being banned/happening again. Any advice on how to do this? I really would like to follow the rules and there are third-party articles about the topic. Thanks!Adeleaustin (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adeleaustin, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article VectoIQ was deleted because it failed to indicae why the firm was important or significant. Moreover, it did not cite any sources. Articles on Wikipedia must be verifible, which usually means that they should actually cite independent sources. Also, such articles must not be promotional, as many new articles about companies prove to be. Here are some steps that can be followed for a good result:

First, review our guideline on notability, our specific guideline on the notability of companies. Consider whether the company clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you are connected with the company in any way Disclose your connection with the group in accordance with our conflict of Interest guideline. If you have been or expect to be paid for your edit, including making it as part of your job, disclose by the stricter standards in WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the firm in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop, an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital in this case. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anythign published by the organization itself or its affiliates. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the org in detail. But those significant sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in any case involving a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is rejected, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to bring attention to article update requests

Hello,

I've recently suggested an update on an article that I have a conflict of interest with (Kona Grill). I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on editing articles that you have a COI with, so I have made a request for unaffiliated editors to make updates. My question is, now that I've made the request, how do I bring it to the attention of other editors? Any help or advice is appreciated. And feel free to look into my suggested update on the page and provide any suggestions regarding my request. Thanks in advance Deswans1 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deswans1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that it has taken a while for someone to answer your question. Your request on the talk page has resulted in the page being added to Category:Requested edits, which brings it to wider attention. There is somewhat of a backlog though, so it might take a while for the request to be acted on. You could perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink to see if any of the participants in that WikiProject are interested in helping out. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry:Thank you, I appreciate your help. Deswans1 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to upload an image to my wikipedia page Shi (comics)Crusade Fine Arts (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello all, For the life of me, I cannot seem to load up an image to where it can be seen on the wikipedia page of my comic book, Shi_(comics)). I've tried multiple times but have yet to be successful. Thank you, Billy TucciCrusade Fine Arts (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Crusade Fine Arts. Your account has been blocked as usernames cannot represent organisations or companies, but to fix that you just need to request a change of username by following the instructions left on your user talk page. You can read about uploading images at Help:Uploading images, and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial will help you with adding images to an article. However, since you are editing an article about your own work, you should read and follow the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I suggest that you follow the advice there on requesting edits to articles on topics you have a relationship with, rather than making the edits yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I re-establish an article that got deleted.

Hi I am the owner of an architecture firm, and I just submitted an article to wikipedia, which got deleted a few minutes later due to copyright violations or unverified information. Can you please tell me how I can find out which items in the article were in question? Thanks, Ravi RaviGunewardena (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RaviGunewardena: Hello and welcome. First things first, if you are the owner of the firm you are writing about, you have what is called a conflict of interest. As such, you should really not edit about your firm directly. Regarding the page, it has not yet been deleted, but I suspect it will be as it is promotional in nature, which is not permitted. It needs to be written in an encylopedic style with a neutral point of view, and indicate with independent reliable sources how it is notable per guidelines. Please understand that Wikipedia is not social media where every business gets a page. If you think you have appropriate sources, you should visit Articles for Creation to create your page. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse, RaviGunewardena. Based on your description of what happened, I see three major issues: there was a copyright violation in the article (which is entirely unacceptable, see WP:COPYVIO), there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia-worthy notability (see WP:N), and you seem to have what is called a conflict of interest, where you have a close personal connection to an article you edited. I say this based on the fact that you prefaced your comment with "I am the owner of an architecture firm". Conflict of interest editing almost always ends badly, with articles edited in ways that are inappropriate to the goals of Wikipedia, such as adding long lists of irrelevant awards, or editing from a non-neutral point of view perspective. I just looked at the article as you recreated it, and there is still major problems. One of which is that the page reads like an advertisement, which is an explicit violation of WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. As a general guideline, a Wikipedia article should look like it belongs in the Encyclopedia Britannica, not as a popup ad on the Daily Mail website. Yours looks more like the popup ad format. The final problem, though, is that your company just doesn't seem to be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. After a quick Google search, there doesn't really seem to be enough independent, third-party coverage to prove notability. If you believe your company is notable, please link to several articles on "Escher GuneWardena Architecture" from independent, third-party sources. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Exactly. I am afraid that Escher GuneWardena Architecture is quite promotional, RaviGunewardena, and I am about to delete it. Phrases such as The extraordinary range of projects of Escher GuneWardena Architecture, reflects the broad cultural interests of the firm’s principals, the bold faced name dropping, and the geernal marketing-speak tone all weigh agaisnt it. The article, it it were to exist, would need to be supported by independent published reliable sources that discuss the firm min detail, and much of the content should come from what those sources say. Use the article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for creation project -- after you have those independent sources identified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Name

Is it better to use my real name as my user name, so that it can be verified? RaviGunewardena (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think you need to change it. See WP:REALNAME. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is normally no need to verify your real name, RaviGunewardena and on those occasions when there might be, simply having nit as your user name doesn't actually prove anything. I choose to edit under my real name, but many editors do not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio detectors

How do users know when there's a article that qualifies for WP:G11? I mean, how do they find out it's copyrighted material? The garmine ^(talk) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, The garmine. G11 is advertising/promotion; G12 is copyright infringement. Take a look at Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 and see if it answers your question. (There are links to tools at the at the bottom of the page.) If not, please post again here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Rivertorch. That gives me all the info I need. The garmine ^(talk) 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't an album based on a historical figure be on the page for the figure lol

Content dispute should be at article talk page. This is not going to help anything

so in the 80s Whitehouse released an album called Dedicated to Peter Kürten based on the murders. User:Kieronoldham seems to believed that the album is some sort of off-hand, pop culture reference and not actually based on the murders for whatever reason (he actually thinks mentioning music in any way will open the page to more edits or something idk what the hell he means by that lmao)

seriously though it's not an offhand or incidental reference the actual album is based on the Düsseldorf killings

Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo. It appears that the dispute you're referring to is at the article Peter Kürten. You were bold and changed the article—so far, so good. Someone disagreed with you and reverted—still so far, so good. You reinserted your change—not so good. The onus is on you to make the case for why your proposed change should stick, and the place to make that case is on the article's talk page: Talk:Peter Kürten. (See WP:BRD for best practice in these situations.) If you make your case well, you may gain consensus for the change. Until then, it's best to be patient, avoid edit warring, and stay civil. There's absolutely no rush. Good luck. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

: Editors should not attack or be dismissive to other editors in disputes, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo. This aside, and getting to the actual point of the dispute (and I shall be brief as this is for others to analyse and judge), what I see generally consensus-wise across articles of this genre on Wiki. (and certainly ones with a sufficient number of watchers and thus attention devoted to them) is that this fails notability, as besides from the fact this is a music album which, to Mychemicalromanceisrealemo's credit (although I haven't actually listened to it word-by-word), from the title at least, seems to be dedicated to the subject. Nonetheless, the vocal referencing upon a 1980s album if true fails notability for the subject himself. I've left my brief case for exclusion upon the user's talk page. Also the inclusion of the image fails Wiki's 'fair use' content criteria quite blatantly, despite Kürten being the sole subject of the album cover, if you look at the image rationale upon here. I'll obv. leave this for others to decide, but as I say, the broad consensus upon true crime articles for media states this fails significance criteria. I have referenced this on Mychemicalromanceisrealemo's page here, and the below text is across the header and footer of numerous true crime/murder/serial killer Wikipedia pages. The GA and FA articles (that I have looked at at least) do not include any form of music hearkening.

This is the text at the header and footer of many Wiki. true crime articles:

PLEASE DO NOT ADD SONG REFERENCES, INCIDENTAL THEATER PORTRAYALS, REFERENCES TO INCIDENTAL DEPICTIONS UPON ALBUM COVERS OR OTHER DEPICTIONS UPON TV SHOWS LIKE COMICS, ALBUM COVERS OR OTHER IRRELEVANT TRIVIA HERE. IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE AND WILL REMOVED WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. TRIVIA IS INAPPROPRIATE PER THE PROJECT GOVERNING THIS ARTICLE.

Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lemme show you something Kieronoldham

PLEASE DO NOT ADD SONG REFERENCES, INCIDENTAL THEATER PORTRAYALS, REFERENCES TO INCIDENTAL DEPICTIONS UPON ALBUM COVERS OR OTHER DEPICTIONS UPON TV SHOWS LIKE COMICS, ALBUM COVERS OR OTHER IRRELEVANT TRIVIA HERE. IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE AND WILL REMOVED WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. TRIVIA IS INAPPROPRIATE PER THE PROJECT GOVERNING THIS ARTICLE.

this isn't "peter kurten in the background of a beatles' album cover," it's wholly different

--Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kieronoldham and Mychemicalromanceisrealemo please do not argue the issue here, the proper venue is the article talk page. Please also stop SHOUTING. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the guideline on excessive emphasis. The use of BLOCK CAPITALS on the Internet (not just in Wikipedia, but everywhere on the Internet) is generally considered to be SHOUTING and is generally disapproved of. Certain other forms of emphasis, such as excessive use of bold face, are also usually considered shouting, but the use of ALL CAPITALS in particular is almost considered rude. In the case in point, to be sure, it was quoting from a previous banner, but shouting to repeat what someone else has shouted is still shouting and still considered rude. Please avoid the use of all capitals. (In one talk page exchange, one poster put the text of what he was shouting in a very large font, which is even more obnoxious than upper case because it interferes with the orderly display on a talk page. That was not only rude but disruptive. I will not demonstrate it.) Just because someone else is shouting does not mean that shouting is a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HAVE YOU CONSIDERED TURNING YOUR SCREEN DOWN? IT MIGHT BE TOO LOUD

--Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... wow. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New page question

When does a new page that has been created become active? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Updater500 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Updater500, welcome to the Teahouse. It depends where it was created, what it contains and what you mean by active. I guess you refer to User:Updater500 and want it to be an article in the encyclopedia. It is actually the user page for your account. I have added {{Userspace draft}} which links to Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft and has a submit button. Or did you only want it to be a user page but show up in searches? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A draft should never be on a main userpage, that page is meant to be about the uset. It's talk page is used to communicate with the user, moving it with a draft would be highly disruptive to the user. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page of company has been deleted

Hi team,

I joined an insurance underwriting company(Elseco Limited) recently which helps satellite, Space, Aerospace and other high end insurances. When I got the interview letter mail from the company, I first came to Wiki and searched for the same for some factual information. However, they don't have any Wiki pages yet. Hence, I decided to create a page after joining the company. Yesterday I placed little information about the company and thought of continuing to edit today. However, today it's deleted. Can we keep the page as it is high turn over company though the number of employees are lesser(Around 50 now)?.Faisal.pcm (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Faisal.pcm: Wikipedia is not a webhost. In order to be included in the encyclopedia, your company has to be notable in itself or have done something notable. I didn't get to see the original pages, but I'm willing to bet the information for one that you posted was pretty much an advertisement for the company. That won't work. Here's what you should do: search Wikipedia for a company similar to yours. If you should find one, use it as a model for the page you want to create. It's best if you use your draftspace to do this; the rules for new pages are more relaxed in there, but you will get warned if your page doesn't meet standards. There was a welcome message placed on your talk page. Follow the links provided for the information you will need.

There is going to be two issues however with your attempt at creating an article:

You will have a Conflict of Interest issue. Editors who have a close or direct connection with the subject of the article are discouraged from creating or editing an article due to the fact you may not be able to maintain a professional detachment from the subject, thus skewing the article from a neutral point of view.
It appears that you may have created more than one article, both of which have been removed for cause: one for a copyright violation, the other because it's about a company that has not proved it is significant in some fashion. The copyright violation is was a big no-no.

Review the information contained in the links provided on your talk page, ask questions here at the Teahouse, and try to maintain a calm, mannerly demeanor when things don't work out the way you hoped or expected. Since your company already has a pretty snazzy website. is there some compelling reason for you to place them on Wikipedia? — Myk Streja ^(what?) 07:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myk,

Thanks for the clarifications. I will go through some of the other companies' pages and will try to place the same way.

Faisal.pcm (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than picking any old article about a company to model a new article on, Faisal.pcm, I would suggest picking one that is listed at Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Featured articles. There are many poor-quality articles about companies on Wikipedia, which should not be taken as models. Furthermore, rather than creating a live article, which might be subject to deletion, you should create a draft for review via the article wizard link at Wikipedia:Your first article. Finally, if you are writing about your employer, the you are considered a paid editor and are required by Wikipedia's terms of use to declare this as explained at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry,

Thanks for your suggestions. I will check those good articles listed by Wikipedia and form mine in the draft version for review.

About being paid for writing this, No. I am an SAP Software consultant by profession and not being paid for my wiki contributions. However I am paid by my employer about whom I writing. Do I have to mention the same?.Faisal.pcm (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Faisal.pcm - If you are writing about your employer, it doesn't matter whether contributing to Wikipedia is listed in your job description: You are a connected contributor with a conflict of interest that you must declare. You are being paid by the company, even if you are not being paid specifically for Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at my draft?

Hi Teahouse! I posted earlier in the week as my draft had been rejected for not being notable and sounding too promotional. I've been back through it and added more reference and also removed a lot of text / reworded things to make it sound more neutral. Please could someone check over it (draft:DriveWorks) and let me know if it still needs more work? Thank you :) :) Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(It's not the draft that has been rejected as not notable, it's the subject.) "Needs more work" is an odd way to put it. This is an article about a niche software package. Personally, I doubt that any amount of work would suffice to establish it as notable. Maproom (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DanielleDriveWorks, your draft looks for all intent and purposes like a catalog listing. I'm going to mark it for speedy deletion as strictly promotional. An encyclopedia is made up of separate articles that summarize what reliable sources, totally independent of the subject, have discussed in detail about the subject. I cannot believe that exists. Wikipedia is not a place to publicize your company. When the above mentioned significant coverage of the subject exists, someone not connected with the company will write about it. John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

How can I add a reference to a Content? Agonga ukel (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Agonga ukel. You probably should check out our tutorial at Help:Referencing for beginners. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting a draft

Dearies, I am so glad you exist. want to resubmit a draft I have (hopefully) fixed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Renate_Kordon, but cannot find a "resubmit" button...something I have seen come up in the FAQs you post. How to resubmit? Thank you!Divanova (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Divanova. I have added the Articles for Creation banner to the draft and you should now be able to submit it for review. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Divanova. I looked at the draft and did some format editing. i also divided it into sections. Theere are still several issues:

The lead section should summarize the entire article. It needs more content.
The Work section needs more detail about what kinds of work she produces, and how, and perhaps the titles of a few of her more notable works.
The career section reads like a timeline or resume. Expand to full sentences please.
Two of the currently cited sources are dead links. Please fix this.
Please provide for each cited source such bibliographic detail as: the exact title of the work being cited, and the title of the containing work if any; the author if known; the publication date if known, the page number if a printed source, and the publisher if not redundant with the containing work.

One source is currently listed as "German News Article on Controversy" please give the actual title, along with an english-language version of the title if possible.

The draft says that she completed a master class in experimental design at Maria Lassnig. But Maria Lassnig is a person. Did she study with or under Lassnig, or at a school named for Lassnig, or what?
Provide additional reliable sources, particularly ones that discuss Kordon in some detail.
Has there been critical comment on or analysis of Kordon's work? A "Critical response" section, with sourced quotes of or refernces to such critical comment would be a good idea, and also help with the sourcing and the demonstration of notability.

It looks to me as if Kordon is notable, but the article doesn't firmly establish it. more sources and content will help with this. This is a good start, but it still needs work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a friendly place

Hello. I started here last month after I saw that articles on the actuarial and insurance profession were not well represented. I created an article on the Morris Review which had a significant impact on professional standards and training. I based some of it verbatim on the findings of the review, e.g. ‘a lack of scrutiny and audit of actuarial calculations’. I then got a warning that the article would be deleted because of copyright violation. I don’t really see the problem: it’s an official report, why can’t we include the main findings verbatim? In any case, I changed the verbatim bits so they were quotes, to make it clear they came directly from the original source.

I was also warned (see my talk page) that ‘persistent violators will be blocked from editing’. This is quite scary. I was unaware of precisely what the rules were, and I offered to change the article, but no one answered my query and half the article has been deleted.

I appreciate the management here has a busy task, but it would be polite at least to engage with users, especially users unfamiliar with the system. This has rather dented my confidence in helping with this project. Regards IFRS17 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IFRS17. I apologize on behalf of the community; it is true that Wikipedia is not particularly friendly to newbies. We try to improve that, but we are almost all volunteers like you; those who check out new pages often find material that is not acceptable for various reasons, and will use automated tools that leave standardized messages (templates) to patrol faster; those messages can feel impersonal and intimidating.

You left a message at User talk:IFRS17 (naturally, responding to the notice), but it is unlikely that it had been seen by any human. This is a talk page, but linked with your account for people to contact you. In the future, you should leave messages about a particular article on the article's talk page, in that case Talk:Morris Review. Anyways, I will answer: the short answer is "probably not".

The problem is that you cannot copy-paste a large amount of material from another source, even if quoted (attributed) or closely paraphrased (a small step away from a copy-paste), unless the source is under a license that allows you to do so (by default it is not the case, and here, it explicitly is not). Copyright violations (copyvios for short) will be deleted on sight, with a presumption to delete if there is a doubt, because leaving them in the open would expose Wikipedia to lawsuits. I cannot see the edits you made, but you should try to rewrite in your own words what the source says and put it back in the article, citing the report to source the claims. See WP:COPYVIO for more information.

Do not worry too much about persistent violators will be blocked from editing - clearly you are acting in good-faith and trying to understand what happens, so you will not get blocked unless you start reinstating the copyvio without discussing it first (and you coming here counts as discussion). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK many thanks, so nice to speak to a human! Can you just clarify whether it is OK to copy stuff using quotation marks? I would like to preserve the wording of the actual Morris review, at least in respect of the key findings. Note also that, ironically, the FRC material in question was itself sourced verbatim from the report itself, which as a government publication may be reproduced free of charge. IFRS17 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be acceptable, policy and legal wise to quote large chunks of an official government report if it were attributed to the government agency, however it probably wouldn't be appropriate. We are far more interested in what secondary sources have to say and especially their analysis of the material. So your best way forward would be to paraphrase the review. John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @IFRS17: In addition to what John from Idegon said: it is OK to quote small excerpts of copyrighted text, but not to lift whole passages. How much is a "small passage" is subject to interpretation depending on the case. You can also end up quoting a lot of small excerpts but each of them needs to be there for a specific reason (other than "I was too lazy to reformulate").

Beware that "free of charge" still does not mean it is OK to use. Wikipedia's aim is to distribute material with very little restrictions, but price is not the only restriction. See Gratis versus libre for the distinction, see WP:COPYOTHERS for which licenses are acceptable on Wikipedia. (Headache warning!)

Reading Wikipedia:Crown copyright, I believe recent UK government works are not compatible with our license, but I would not say I am entirely sure. If you really want an answer, try your luck at WP:MCQ where people are more qualified to answer. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for this help I will persevere. IFRS17 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is policy on whether WP articles are intended to …

present a global or more local perspective? E.g., are en.wikipedia.org articles intended to present a global or U.S. or some other perspective? Thx Humanengr (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse @Humanengr:. If I'm understanding your question correctly, I'd say that WP:Neutral would be the main guideline here -- keeping an article neutral ensures that it isn't unfairly balanced in one direction or another. What might be seen one way locally can be perceived completely different on a larger scale, etc. I hope this at least points you in the right direction. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Humanengr. I haven't found a policy, but see WP:NPOVFAQ#Anglo-American focus. Template:globalize exists for tagging articles that are insufficiently global. My suggestion would be that if the topic is not inherently relevant to a particular place (as many are), then it should either be an article called 'XXX in YYY' (eg Education in the United Kingdom) or should have a global perspective. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, @NsTaGaTr and ColinFine: My concern is that NPOV and issues of 'Anglo-American perspective’ are directly contravened by RS news media policy in international disputes. Is the best place to address this NPOV-RS conflict on the RS talk page or is there a better forum to help make WP global? Humanengr (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I follow, Humanengr. There's no expectation that a RS be neutral: many RS's are overtly partisan. A Wikipedia article should present all mainstream or prominent views, without attempting to draw conclusions. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media of U.S. opponents are considered non-'RS' (on various grounds such as controlled by state), hence WP is non-global. Humanengr (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [[1]] and Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, sorry for coming here and soiling the tea party but I really felt it should be pointed out that this is more then it appears.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFL talk

I have been trying to ask wiki template NFL and they still haven't responded, but no response.Vinnylospo (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinnylospo. I take it this is about what I suggested at #2016 nfl quarterback records above? That you ask the WikiProject? All I can say is, please be patient. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, who work on what they choose to work on. You asked for help here, nobody offered, and I suggested somewhere else to ask. You asked there just under two days ago. I don't think there's anything to be gained by asking again here (and if had not remembered your name and gone looking, I wouldn't have had a clue what you were asking about this time: I now realise you meant "WikiProject NFL"). --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make this draft into an actual article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ascentra_Credit_Union I had it as a regular article initially but it got switched at some point. How do I fix this? (It would move to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascentra_Credit_Union) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahRaso (talk • contribs)

Hello, NoahRaso. Velella moved your draft into draft space, because if they had not it would almost certainly have been deleted. If you were to move it back to article space now, it would almost certainly be deleted. Please read WP:42. In short: Wikipedia has essentiall no interest in anything which a subject says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it, in reliable places. Most of your references have either been published by Ascentra or (in the case of the last one) are clearly based on press releases from Ascentra. I repeat: you need to find reliable sources wholly unconnected with Ascentra which discuss it in depth, and base the article on those. If you can't find any, that would be a good indication that the company is not currently notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word), and no article about it will be accepted.

I have added a template with information about its draft status. If you get it to the point that you think it would be accepted, please submit it for review by pressing the "Submit" button (which is not shown at present, but will be once you have edited the page further". --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I publish my draft? Do I need to change something?

Hi, I've created a draft for the artist Peter de Cupere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_de_Cupere I would like to publish the draft so others also have the ability to add more information about this olfactory artist. Can you give me a tip how to do this? Is my draft ok or should I change, add something more?

Thank you and kind regards, Peterdc2 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First thing to improve: Do not use references, if you want to link something on Wikipedia, but Wikilinks instead.--93.227.111.31 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think 93.227.111.31 intended to recommend that you change the first two references (and other Wikipedia links) into Wikilinks. Wikipedia itself can never be used as a reference. Dbfirs 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peterdc2. First, your draft is already published, in the sense that anybody in the world can see it and edit it. People tend not to edit other people's drafts unless invited to do so, but that's no more than politeness. If you make it clear that you would like contributions (eg by posting at WT:WikiProject Arts), then people may well do so.

I take it you are really asking about making the draft live - you can do this by moving it to article space, but I would recommend that instead you submit it for review. I have added a header to the draft, so that once you've edited it, there will be a button to submit it.

As the comments above say, you should not have references to Wikipedia articles: you are encouraged to use Wikilinks, but references should be to reliably published sources (which Wikipedia is not) and mostly to independent sources. Looking at the draft, I see that the section "About the olfactory works of Peter De Cupere" is entirely unreferenced, and furthermore reads like the artist talking about himself. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them.

In fact, judging from your username, it would appear that you are de Cupere. If this is the case, please read about why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help checking for nobility

Can someone please take a look at my sandbox page and provide me with some feedback. What else do I need to add to move forward and publish my article. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dmjacobsen/sandbox 4.7.15.118 (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dmjacobsen. Please remember to log in before editing. The content has been removed from your draft article because it was copied from the organization's copyrighted website and pasted into your draft. That simply isn't allowed. You must write in your own words, mostly summarizing what reliable sources unaffiliated with this organization say about it. Please read and study Your first article, and follow its recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates havent all updated

I've updated the template for the alt-right, however even though I updated it, it's not shown to be updated on the other alt-right links in the template such as Alex jones, 4chan, etc.Vinnylospo (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vinnylospo. Pages are cached for performance reasons and there is a delay before template edits are propagated to pages using the template. The time varies a lot. See more at Help:Job queue. You can force an immediate update of a specific page by purging it but there is rarely reason to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk

The talk page of the main page is for improving the main page. Where is the talk page for improving Wikipedia in general, If any? The garmine ^(talk) 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Community portal and Wikipedia: Village pump are probably the best areas. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.250.149 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The garmine: The best place depends on the type of improvement. Do you have something specific in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: No, I was just wondering. The garmine ^(talk) 12:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

How can I see the amount of people who viewed a page that I created?

Niylesh (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Niylesh. The menu on the left side of every page has an option "Page information". Click that and scroll to the bottom where you will see the option "Page view statistics". That tool will give you the information that you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same tool is also linked at top of the page history seen by clicking the "View history tab". PrimeHunter (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can a copyvio be perpetrated against a Wikipedia article?

Excepting the infobox, this article, Rex (Police dog) (2012), is nearly word-for-word the same as this section from Inspector Rex (2004). Quite obviously a cut-and-paste. Is the first article then a candidate for CSD? If so, what category? Would a redirect be called for instead?

Thank you. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can Myk Streja. Most material from Wikipedia may be copied and reused for any purpose provided it is properly attributed. I looked in the history of Rex (Police dog), and there is no such attribution in the edit summary, so it is indeed a copyright violation. If the editor who copied it had said in the edit summary where they copied it from, it would not be (which doesn't mean that it might not be deleted for other reasons). See copying within Wikipedia.

I see that Maproom has now proposed it for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed on proposed article

Hi, I have drafted an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertjgray/sandbox about my father having noted that a number of the recipients of the French Legion d'Honneur have short articles about them.

First question then is does he meet the notability criteria?

Secondly is if so the content of the article appropriate?

This is my first article and it's harder than I expected :)

Thanks in advance

Robertjgray (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robertjgray. The French Legion d'Honneur has five levels and your father received the lowest level, the Chevalier, which has been awarded to about 75,000 people. Only receiving a country's highest award for bravery in combat, such as the Medal of Honor in the United States, creates a strong presumption of notability. So, it is how significant the coverage your father has received in reliable sources that is the determining factor, not the medal. Please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i want to learn how to make a best article

R. sir/mam i am vikas sharma i am happy to use wikkiedia and i want to learn how to make a article on wikipedia. so please teach me and provide me a better guidelines to creat wikipedia article. i shall e very thankful. Thank You Vikas Sharma (vikas sharma (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vikassharmasfd, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think a good way could be to start from our pages Help:Getting started and Wikipedia:Your first article – they list and describe things one should do (and things one should avoid!) when writing articles, as well as they refer to other, more specific guidelines ang policies ruling Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Please tell what should i have need to change on this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vikassharmasfd/sandbox vikas sharma (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first really big problem here is that you're trying to publish a page about yourself. That is a Conflict of Interest issue and a Webhost issue. Your page will have some immunity in the sandbox, but not much. One thing is you can't place images in it yet.

Every one of your references are primary (you are the source) or they are unreliable. Facebook is content created with no editorial management at all. Anyone can say anything and claim it's true. The MTV cite was a video of someone else. Blogs are the same as Facebook without the dubious benefit of community control. You would need solid third party references for any of that information to stay. Trade magazines, Like Billboard. Newspapers like the New York Times or the Times of India. Major magazines or books. Websites that are affiliated with reliable sources.

Before you can have an article in anybody's encyclopedia, you need to be notable. Have you had an international #1 song? Have you performed for royalty or national leaders? Those are just obvious examples, but the world needs to know who you are already. Wikipedia is not a magazine or tradepaper, and we are not a webhost to promote you. And if are noteworthy, you would still need to enlist a disinterested editor to write the article. You can post the original article in draftspace, as you have done, but the final article would need to be gone over and approved of by our editors when you submit your draft for review.

I've placed a Welcome message on your sandbox's talk page. Read it over and check out the links provided. You also have some information on your personal talk page you should review. No doubt you know about the Rony page, but the notices do contain some useful information. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 04:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have blocked Vikassharmasfd (talk · contribs) indefinitely for sock puppetry: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajanthegame. Mz7 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you submit your article ?

Hi There:
This is the first time I try to write an article in Wiki..... I am almost done with my article in the Sandbox and I am wondering how can I submit it for review or posting into Wiki.

My article is User:AntPeople/sandbox/Wang XiSan

Thanks for your help AntPeople (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I installed the sandbox tag on this article. It needs to stay there for two reasons:

A user's sandbox is allowed to bend the rules a bit, otherwise no articles would survive Wikipedia policy. It's understood that the article in the sandbox is raw and a work in progress.
Your sandbox in not indexed by search engines, such as Google. Outsiders can't find your sandbox page and the warning notice let's editors know what to expect.

You really should have created this article in your main sandbox and named it after it was ready, but I think you'll be okay as long as you leave that tag at the very top alone.

Now, to submit your article for review, click on the big square blue button that you now have. Don't lose heart if you don't pass the first review. Take their comments at face value and learn from them. Then get busy again. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with this being at User:AntPeople/sandbox/Wang XiSan rather than at User:AntPeople/sandbox, Myk Streja. AntPeople, if you submit this draft for review as it stands, it will certainly be rejected because it is not sufficiently referenced. You need to ensure that all of the material in the draft is supported by references to reliable sources, as explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you need help with learning how to reference, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody help me on improving an article?

I hope you are doing well. I would greatly appreciate if somebody could join me on improving an article I am working on. It is about a Dominican political Analyst who has been writing for several international mainstream outlets and been on TV giving his insights. He has been featured as public policy expert. Also, he used to be a government official back in his country, Dominican Republic. I feel like I need some support and guidance on getting this job done as I increase my knowledge of this wonderful platform and community.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Geovanny_Vicente_Romero

Thanks in advance!ComPol (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article reviews problem.

Hello Wikipedia administrators,my first article I published,i received a notification article reviewed but recent ones I have not yet seen any notification. Pls I want to know why and how long does it take for each article to appear when Google the subject. Thank you. Abanda bride (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greatings wikipedia administrator. I am glad to take part of this volunteer services. My first article i ever created, a notification alert message was sent to my account dashboard saying that"article review" I have created newly articles for some days now alert saying article review i did not see it.

I want to know why I stop receiving notification and also how long does it take for an article to rank top on search engine when a wikipedia subject or article is been search?

Thank you all, I am ready to learn from great guys like you.Abanda bride (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abanda bride, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that you had to ask this twice before receiving a reply. I have combined your two questions into one section to prevent duplication. The review notification you received is the outcome of the new page patrol feature. There is quite a large backlog of new articles that need to be patrolled. Note that "review" is rather a misleading word here, as the articles are only subject to some basic checks. If you want your articles to be reviewed more thoroughly, then I suggest creating them as drafts via the article wizard. I believe that your question about Google was answered previously, archived here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do do these codes

when doing a wiki page you have to do these codes like {,Red} or something like that that are used for the placement of the word and its location i think how do i use them and how much of them are there188.52.197.255 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a code saying {,Red} and your current IP address has edited no other pages so I don't know which type of code you refer to. If you mean code like {{Red}} with double curly brackets then it's usually a template and there are tens or hundreds of thousands of them. See Help:A quick guide to templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a page on wikipedia

Hi,i want to ask that how to create a page on wikipedia if it doesn't show a red link.I know that if a article has a red link then it can be created but how to create a page if it doesn't show a red link.For example, a new batman film is in production in DCEU but when i open that page it redirects to batman in film.It doesn't have a particular page like The Dark Knight.So how to create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Md.Yahiya Kamal. Please have a look at WP:Your first article. I suggest you use the Article Wizartd (as mentioned there) for creating any articles, rather than create them by picking a red link; because if you create a draft from picking the red link, it will go directly into article space, and be immediately subject to all the rules on article quality. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,thank you for your help.But i have an another question?what is the difference between visual editing and source editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i opened article wizard.But still i got nothing.Its first page has introduction,then subject,notability,sources,content and end.By reading this apge i understood that there is draft page and real page.But i can't find either page.Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric for COIs?

I note there are a lot of pages especially about women which have COIs on them. Looking at the editor history I see that these pages have a disproportionate number of male editors. Is this the reason for the COI - i.e. that 95% editors on pages about women is seen as a conflict of interest? While I understand the logic behind this I am also concerned that this might discourage men from editing women however. Also I read (on wikipedia!) that wikipedia is edited by 90-95% men anyway so it seems unfair to penalise women for this general statistic. Any suggestions gratefully received. Where there is no discussion of, or reason for, the COI, and no attempt to resolve or justify it, how long should the COI stand before it is removed? Many thanks Perry Bill (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Perry Bill. The {{COI}} notice should be put on only when an editor has a specific reason to think that an editor with a COI has been editing the article, and there should be an explanation somewhere of why they think that. (It may be in the edit summary, so you might have to trawl through the article's history to find it). I would find it strange if somebody put the tag on just because it was a man editing: I would call adding the tag disruptive in that case. While I can't categorically say this hasn't happened, I would be very surprised, and I would also be surprised if any men were discouraged from editing articles for that reason. I am also surprised that there should be a disproportionate number of COI tags on articles about women: where do you get that statistic from? --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting spelling errors in Wikipedia articles

How to shortlist all those Wikipedia articles having spelling errors? Aninda005 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are "bots" (automated programs) that go through articles searching for Commonly misspelled English words, but human intervention is always required to ensure that the correction is valid. It is much more difficult to identify mis-spellings that are not on the above list. If there was a way to identify these, then we would have someone going through making the corrections. If you find a spelling mistake in an article, please make the correction, but be very careful not to change British to American or American to British spelling unless there is a good reason to do so (see WP:ENGVAR). Dbfirs 11:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're up for fixing more than the odd spelling error, Aninda005, and are capable of copy editing, do take a look at Category:All articles needing copy edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dbfirs and Cordless Larry Aninda005 (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does Copy Edit means @Cordless Larry ? Can you please tell me thing or two about it?Aninda005 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article about it at Copy editing, Aninda005. It does require a high level of English-language ability, though, and without wanting to be disrespectful, you might be better off starting off just correcting obvious spelling errors. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia:Basic copyediting might be more useful, Aninda005 if you want to try such a task. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading pic if not original photographer

Hi Community. I just have a small question about uploading images of a person. In all my research, I’ve found that PERHAPS the only way to upload an image of a person, is to be the photographer that originally took the picture. Am I right there?

This tutorial video for example (at 0:59) makes reference to a message that says, “This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it”. Is uploading images only reserved for original photographers? What if someone had the photographer’s permission?

I’m learning. Thanks in advance! Consciencecreator (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Consciencecreator. You're mostly right: images must be licensed by the copyright holder, who is usually the person who took the photograph, but not always. For example, if the photographer is working under a contract that says that all the photos are the property of somebody else (might be the subject, or might be an agency), then they will own the copyright, not the photographer. Secondly, the copyright holder has to give permission, but it's not enough to give permission to use the image on Wikipedia, and it is not enough just to tell somebody that they may use the picture. They have to license it under a licence that meets Wikipedia's requirements that its material can be reused by anybody for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as it is properly attributed. And they either have to do this publicly (eg on a website) or they have to communicate the licence directly to Wikimedia foundation. See donating copyright materials for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A special thanks

Thanks sir for inviting me to tea house. I want to learn a lot as a member of Wikipedia.

Again a special thanks to all for considering me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhushan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about referencing sources

This question has been copied from the Teahouse talk page DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Team, I have two queries about reliable sources. Please clarify and help me. I am new to writing article.

1. I have few articles published in leading regional language newspapers. Those are still available on Web. The regional language is "Kannada". This is the scheduled, administrative official language of a state in India. More than 50 million people talk this language. "Kannada" has a wiki page. You can read more if you want. Can I create references to these articles?

2. There are some articles those were published in leading English news papers but those are no more available on Web. Because they are archived/removed. We have preserved those and published on our site https://sanchaaritheatru.wordpress.com. Can I create references linking to these sources? Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nagaraj Kolara, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You may use citations to sources that are not in English, including to sources in Kannada, or Hindi, or any other reasonable language. It is helpful if you provide a translation of the title of the source, and an indication of the source language. if you are using the Cite XX templates, such as {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, {{Cite magazine}} (and others, see Wikipedia:Citation templates) the parameter |language= can be used to indicate the source language, and the parameter |trans-title= can be used for an English-language version of the title. It can also be helpful to translate a short excerpt from the source showing exactly how it supports the statement(s) in the article, The |quote= parameter can be used for this purpose.
Sources do not need to be available online, provided that they can be found in libraries or public archives. Give the title of the work, the date of publication, the author (if stated), and the page number of the print publication. This is true for sources in any language. If an archive version is available online, you can give the link. Use the |archive-url= parameter if using one of the Cite XX templates. If you know when the site or page was saved to the archive, use |archive-date= to provide the date.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to chime in on the second question. I would be a bit wary of a source that's reprinting news articles on a blog. Have you heard of the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine? That's an archiving service that may have archived copies of the original articles, which you can find by entering the URLs of those articles. Given the choice, I would put a lot more trust in an archived version of the original site rather than a copy of the article on a different site. I hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article I created was tagged for deletion within a few hours. I found out only because I decided to randomly check it

Hello. Today morning, I looked at some deletion notices for transportation articles. There were many articles about bus terminals and each one was individually tagged for deletion. So I tried to combine and merge them and created List of bus stations in Singapore to save the content. In another discussion, someone had suggested to create an entire list of bus stops (instead of individual articles), so I applied the same advice here. I modeled the article after seeing List of former bus stations in Singapore along with List of bus stations in Wales, List of Greyhound Bus stations, List of Perth bus stations, List of bus and coach stations in London. I liked the table layouts but I don't know how to create a table, so I just pasted them in a list, intending to learn the table layout and edit the article later.

However, I just checked it right now and it is tagged with a deletion banner. I was given no alert or email. Is there a way so that I can receive an update when an article I created is tagged for deletion?

I am also a bit disappointed that my article will be deleted. I spent a lot of time trying to learn how to copy within Wikipedia and I also put proper attribution. There are similar articles about bus terminals and I tried very hard to follow all the merge and attribution rules. So I don't understand what I am doing wrong. I understand that the article doesn't have a lot of references, but many articles do not have references. There are lots of articles about New Delhi which still don't have references (even though the information is correct as per my personal knowledge). However, when I took one of them and searched a bit, I did mange to find some references as well. Perhaps all it requires is a bit of time.

I would be happy to receive some advice on how to proceed here. Is there any way I can improve the article so that it is not deleted? Thank you.DreamLinker (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article as it seems to fail WP:GNG, Some articles here do get sent to WP:AFD for various reasons and some cannot be nominated because of various policies,

As for the notification - You should've been sent a notification via Twinkle however Twinkle does occasionally play up so that's probably why you hadn't got one, –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to include but I indeed to apologise for you not receiving a notification, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi DreamLinker There are basically two things you can (and should) do: First, continue improving the article, particularly by finding more sources that discuss Singaporean bus stations in significant depth. The second thing you should do is to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore. Deletion is far from a sure thing at this stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You should comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore, DreamLinker and provide your reasons, if any, why you think the article should be retained. An AfD nomination only means that one editor thinks the article should be deleted. Other editors will give their views. At the end of the discussion, usually after 7 days, an uninvolved admin or expereinced editor will close the discussion and announce what the consensus was, to delete, to keep, or any of several other possibilities. You might want to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before commenting. As the given reason is that this list does not meet the General notability guideline the best improvement would be to find and cite additional sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, you are responsible for what you do with twinkle or any other tool, and should notify manually if automated notifications fail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel - I'm responsible for the edits I make with it - I take no responsibility if someone isn't notified, Sure I apologise if they're not notified however I take no responsibility if the notification doesn't work. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey2010, DESiegel and Dodger67. Thank you for your prompt replies. I just read the WP:GNG article and I will try to find references. I will also try to improve the article by copy editing, removing content which is too detailed and if possible I will also create a table to organise it like List of bus stations in Wales. I will read the guidelines you have posted and try to understand the process better before participating in the discussion. The 7 days is a relief for sure! :) Thank you so much for your help.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamLinker, No worries, ofcourse if you can find sources then I'd be more than happy to withdraw :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

What to do here I am new so please tell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhushan (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question on rejected article

Hi! I'm a first-time article writer. My reviewer stated that my article "read more like an advertisement" and that the "tone really needs work."

I just wondered if there's any way for someone to be more specific? I was careful to go through the tutorial, used at least 10 independent sources for reference and tried to follow the format of two similar subjects that have pages on Wikipedia (Broadway performers, in this case).

feedback greatly appreciated! LynnieGodfrey (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse LynnieGodfrey, Writing an autobiography is probably the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia and is STRONGLY discouraged. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects and has essentially no interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves, on Wikipedia we need reliable sources independent of the subject. See also the general notability guide. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know when an article has been reviewed

Hello,

I submitted an article for review on June 2, 2017 titled "Louis DeJoy". It has been over a month...How do I know when it has been reviewed? And then, how do I know when it actually becomes a "finished article" on Wikipedia?

Thank you very much for your help. 216.237.208.134 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse 216.237.208.134,Your contribution history shows only one edit namely this one on the Teahouse, I can find no article titled Louis DeJoy can you provide any more details? Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search of all namespaces found User:Hrmrlf17/sandbox/Louis DeJoy. It was created June 2 but not submitted for review until today. It was declined as the page shows. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Popejoy Hall

I cannot find in Wikipedia any article on Popejoy Hall. It's a performance hall built on the campus of The University of New Mexico. It's the only hall that can accommodate the major touring Broadway shows in New Mexico, such as Wicked, The Lion King, etc. As such, it serves as the performing arts center for Albuquerque and much of New Mexico.

The hall itself is now 52 years old. The idea to build such a hall in New Mexico began as early as the 1920s, but took another 40 or more years to realize. The story of getting it to fruition is an interesting story of mismatched priorities for such a hall, and how the man for whom it is named made it his personal mission to get it built. There are many references available on the construction of the hall, since it was built with public funds, as well as articles on what happened in the space in the intervening 52 years, mostly in local newspapers.

Would this make an interesting article for Wikipedia? If so, how do I go about getting it written? I work at Popejoy Hall, so I am not the most objective person to be its author. Suggestions?

97.123.7.111 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IP Editor:

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I would add, obtain a free account and use it when editing. This is not required, but is a very good idea. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A request for some input from an experienced editor.

Greetings to the Teahouse, I have recently translated and expanded an article and I got the "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information" flag. Can I get an experienced editor to bracket out the offending passages so that I can expand with information? (Dump the copy on my talk page?) I need some experienced eyes on it to help me out please. I can guess where the problems lie and I am comfortable that they can be addressed with longer explanations, but in some cases it will expand a short biography into a short course on microscope optics- what I was trying to avoid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Oberhaeuser Thanks in advance. MikroSammler (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MikroSammler, and welcome to the teahouse. That tag was added manually in this edit by Alphalfalfa, who could best explain the reasons why it was placed. Any editor may remove it if s/he sincerely believes it is not currently appropriate, or a discussion can be started on the article talk page (Talk:Georges Oberhaeuser in this case). I do note that the first paragraph of the Microscope and optics workshop section is unsourced, and doesn't really explain why this student model was successful. Sill i don't see any obvious puffery on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, MikroSammler, for proper copyright attribution, the talk page statement should include a direct link to the source article. Technically it is a copyright infringement without such a link. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag because I think that some of the language seems a bit subjective, and maybe a little bit unconsciously promotional. I have fixed some of it, and the rest is nothing a little editing can't fix. Please, if you think you have thoroughly addressed those issues, feel free to remove the tag. alphalfalfa^(talk) 00:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo CODE-NGOs article looks like an advertisement

Need help reviewing our article. I already made some edits after I got the notice. Thanks.

Iloilocodengos (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Iloilocodengos. I tend to agree with the editor who reviewed the draft—it looks to me more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article—but I think the problem may go deeper than that. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); this is the guideline used to determine if an organization or company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and is therefore eligible to have an article. In looking over your draft, I do not see evidence of notability as the guideline defines it. (This shouldn't be seen in any way as a reflection on Iloilo CODE-NGOs. It simply may be that Wikipedia's scope isn't broad enough to include such organizations at this time.) If you're quite sure the subject is notable, you will have to prove it by citing a sufficient number of reliable, independent sources that together offer adequate coverage, per the guideline. Please also read the conflict-of-interest guideline and the policy on paid editing; both are important, the latter critically so. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passive voice

How much and when should a Wikipedia article use the Passive voice. I am working on the article "Proto-Indo-European language" and I realized that it used a lot of passive voice instead of repeatedly using the word "linguists" as the subject of the sentence; Is this okay? Jackpaulryan (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jackpaulryan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting says: Some style guides advise against grammatical constructions such as passive voice, split infinitives, restrictive which, beginning a sentence with a conjunction and ending clauses in a preposition. These are common in high-quality publications and should not be "fixed" without considering the consequences. Changing a passive to active may inappropriately change the topic of the paragraph, for example.. :Our manual of style advises the use of the passive voice to avoid first person speech in article text. It suggests correcting Throughout the proof of this theorem we assume that the function ƒ is uniformly continuous. to Throughout the proof of this theorem it is assumed that the function ƒ is uniformly continuous. for example. This doesn't seem like a problem to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DES! Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complicate things, I will ask a question, although I am reasonably sure that I know the answer. Did the Proto-Indo-European language have a passive voice? (I know. It isn't relevant. And I assume that the answer is yes, since the proto-Indo-European language is inferred to have been highly inflected and complex, like the classical Indo-European languages.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British versus American English

If a page mixes British and American (or other countries') spelling and punctuation, should one standardize it? If yes, how does one chose which country's spelling to use? Jackpaulryan (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Jackpaulryan. MOS:ARTCON says While Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. Just below that, MOS:TIES says An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. and just below that MOS:RETAIN says:

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DES! It is quite helpful! Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

???

Is there a way I can change my name? If so, I would like it to be IQ_m. 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izaiah.morris (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hussain Manawer

I reviewed Draft:Hussain Manawer and declined it as not having a neutral tone, and commented that the draft appeared to be written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. User:Adzie asked me what parts I felt the page “failed on”. I said that the issue is the overall tone, not any one specific portion. Would other experienced editors please take a look and offer any comments to the author? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see Robert McClenon's point, Adzie. Such phrases as his Youtube channel Hussain’s House which featured stars... The mention of the underground street group while the subject was in high school, The tracks see Manawer using his unique world play to explore everything from school days, politics and life in East London, and Manawer's final speech which lasted three minutes was given a standing ovation from an audience of 1300 delegates all have a rather promotional tone. They include adjectives and terms of praise that are uncited, and in Wikipedia's editorial voice, not attributed to any named person or entity. They are not neutral. I think these can all be fixed with editing, although there might be a notability issue here also -- i haven't reviewed the sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating New Articles

Hi! I would like to create an article about a local business. I just wanna know if I am aloud to create one.

Thank you so much! WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WarriorsFan30112335, you are allowed to, But that is a hard task, and often ends with the new article deleted. Please consider the following steps:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WarriorsFan30112335: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question on reliable sources and news opinion pieces

Hello, I have been reading up on policies and have a question regarding what constitutes reliable from news sources. Must they strictly be editorial pieces from or can opinion pieces be used as well? Within this, is there a litmus test to determine reliability? Should the author be considered an authority on some subject for his opinion to be given weight? What if said authority pushes a controversial opinion or one that is generally not accepted? Is there another policy that addresses this? Thank you for your time. Uhtregorn (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why is this page a stub?

The page 'family tree of the Norse gods' has a stub tag on it, why? It has all the info it is supposed to, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings GrecoRomanNut and Welcome to the Teahouse... To improve the Family tree of the Norse gods article a number of those gods and goddesses in the family tree are unreferenced. Each of the two major sections could use an introductory sentence or two describing the content that follows. This would be helpful to a Wikipedia reader not familiar with the subject. Lastly, I did add another entry to the "See also" section, and two norse navigation box templates. Thankyou for your question & I hope my remarks above are helpful. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok JoeHedba, I will try to add some sentences. Do you mean on top of the whole chart, just saying 'below is a family tree of the Norse gods, a line between two shows partnership, the row under is their offspring', or something like that? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how do i write about commom sense in books?

I was editing 'tyet' and I added the fact that in the Kane chronicles, one of the main characters had a tyet amulet that she used to communicate with her mother. But there is not just one sentence that explains that. It is just kind of common knowledge for readers, so do I cite it or not, and if so, how?GrecoRomanNut (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 804: / Line 804: @@
 :Greetings {{u|GrecoRomanNut}} and Welcome to the Teahouse... To improve the [[Family tree of the Norse gods]] article a number of those gods and goddesses in the family tree are unreferenced. Each of the two major sections could use an introductory sentence or two describing the content that follows. This would be helpful to a Wikipedia reader not familiar with the subject. Lastly, I did add another entry to the "See also" section, and two norse navigation box templates. Thankyou for your question & I hope my remarks above are helpful. Regards, <span class="plainlinks" style="background: rgba(0,0,0,.05);">— [[User:JoeHebda|JoeHebda]] • ([[User talk:JoeHebda|talk]])</span> 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
+Ok JoeHedba, I will try to add some sentences. Do you mean on top of the whole chart, just saying 'below is a family tree of the Norse gods, a line between two shows partnership, the row under is their offspring', or something like that? [[User:GrecoRomanNut|GrecoRomanNut]] ([[User talk:GrecoRomanNut|talk]]) 13:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 == how do i write about commom sense in books? ==