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

Bloody Margaret entry

I have been criticised for not entering information correctly and yet do not know how to amend this. I tried to add a page for the cocktail "Bloody Margaret - aka Red Snapper" - a Bloody Mary made with Gin and not Vodka, but was told I had not done things sufficiently and yet was given no further advice or information how to "fix" things - I have autism , I would like to try to get this corrected, please, can someone assist? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsirius (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamsirius, Welcome to Teahouse and thank you for the question above. I believe you are referring to the the draft article, Draft:Bloody Margaret, that you had created and has been declined. Do note that the editor who declined you article did leave a message on the page, and if you find the explanation on the "grey box' within the "Salmon colour" box of the draft page. Since the rejection, another editor has added 3 sources. The reasons for the rejection was the draft article content was not provide independent, reliable source to gauge the notability is met under the guidelines of Wikipedia. To learn more, please visit Wikipedia:Your first article. Thank you for your contribution and do come back if you have any other questions. Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this still makes no sense to me whatsoever, being something of a Luddite. Can someone help perhaps please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsirius (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS TO WHOEVER HELPED WITH THIS !! APPRECIATED :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsirius (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A geographical search tool for Wikipedia

Hi all, I love Wikipedia and use it daily, thank you all for your devoted work. I hope this is the right place for asking this. If not please refer me to the right one.

I have created a site (a type of search engine) that can help search geographical information and places from Wikipedia. It basically lets users choose an area and a subject and get results on a map. Like "art deco architecture" in New York.

I would like to find a way to let Wikipedia users know about it. Is there a way I can do that through Wikipedia?

If you wish to see for yourself (it works best on a computer but mobile works too):

Examples: copernix.io/about

Search page: copernix.io

Omryv (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omryv - this is a very cool app you created - thanks for creating and sharing. There are some interesting applications. Is there a way to filter the results so only lists are displayed, as one option? In other words, exclude any results that don't have the word list in it? Items like State Capitals, Presidential birthplaces/libraries, NFL Stadiums, locations of mass shootings, etc. - are all items that are interesting to see visualized on maps. Three quick fixes I'd recommend - 1) add a reset button, which would reset the searches and take users back to the start page - it wasn't easy to change the search once I did the first one or clicked on an example, 2) change the second sentence on https://copernix.io/about/ to "Ever been to a place which you didn't know anything about?" and 3) don't have the "To see places from Wikipedia..." prompt keep popping up - it may be better and less distracting to have it in a fixed location on the side, or perhaps allow users to click a checkbox to suppress its recurrence? I think posting this here was the right way to promote it - and once it's fine tuned people will may save the URL and maybe even share it on social media. Have you seen these cool apps also? wiki.polyfra.me, wikiverse.io/ and listen.hatnote.com/? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to put it on your user page, and give some background on its genesis. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton - Thanks a lot for your advice. I have already implemented some of your suggestions. Regarding the question about the lists, if you just add list to the query line that should give a similar result by boosting up pages with the word "list". To clear the search you can simply refresh the page or delete the text in the search bar. I will have a look at these projects you mentioned. Thanks again. Omryv (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article editing during AfD debate

Hello! I literally tried to find an answer to this question: As per WP:EDITATAFD which states "if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article", am I allowed, as a COI contributor to Jasmine Directory, to edit the live article to improve its notability? I already made use of the {{request edit}} template however, with no response yet. To facilitate the request edit I created a sandboxed version which is the improvement to the live article. I am unsure if I am allowed to edit the live article or not. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robertgombos. This doesn't entirely answer your question, but I would point out that it's not articles that are notable or not, but rather their subjects. The easiest way to save an article nominated for deletion because of notability concerns is simply to demonstrate that significant coverage of the topic exists by posting links to that coverage in the AfD discussion. Updates to the article itself can wait until the discussion is over. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Larry for your input. I proceeded To be honest I've never been very active in AfD debates and I don't know what's the standard procedure when one policy contradicts itself with another. WP:EDITATAFD encourages to improve the article during AfD, however my COI with that specific article prohibits it. And I really don't want to get involved in COI fights nor to beat a dead horse. :) Robertgombos (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robertgombos, I'm an AfD veteran myself, and while improvements to an article at AfD bolstering notability are almost always welcome (any other improvements, with deletion pending, are premature), with COI involved I applaud your caution. Larry's advice as to how to handle it is good; COI or not, and however much I fall on the deletionist side of the spectrum, show me indepth coverage in reliable sources that I missed myself, and I change my vote. Ravenswing 22:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, I tried to find a fair consensus to my question and, as I do when I need an advice, I like to ask from those who know. In real life, the same rule applies. The sources are added in my last comments on the AfD discussion. I have not pinged you to avoid being accused of... pinging you. You will have to excuse my English, it will get better by reading and writing (sometimes). ;) Robertgombos (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robertgombos and welcome to the Teahouse.

COI editors are welcome to participate in AfD discussions as long as they are not hiding their COI. Entries at AfD do need to be based on policy. If lack of notability is the main reason for deletion, then presenting references in AfD that properly support notability is the best way to prevent deletion. Adding them to the article or talk page during AfD is not as effective, and adding them to the article as a COI editor would likely raise issues. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jmcgnh Thank you, respecting the policies is fundamental and when I feel that I need some help I always ask for it. Robertgombos (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my friendly advice to you, Robertgombos, as a veteran of thousands of AfD debates. Be brief. Be concise. Your tendency to wordiness is your enemy in a forum like that. Do you think that editors working on dozens of articles simultaneously want to immerse themselves in excessive detail? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I know Jim about my tendency to wordiness. I have been writing weekly columns for a Romanian psychology(-ish) magazine since 2007 and lately I write a lot about contemporary art. To get my BFA I needed to write "minimum" 50 pages thesis. Everybody wrote exactly 50 pages and a few adventured themselves totowards 60 pages. I wrote a 140-page long one. No one intrerupted me nor asked a question while presenting it. Now, I am curious how my dissertation will look like.

~~I'll try to remove from my comments in the AfD unnecessary phrases because I do not want readers to get distracted by unnecessary information.~~ - did it. Thanks for the advice. Robertgombos (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When to create a user page?

Hi, I am new to editing on Wikipedia, but I thought I'd share what I know about fragrances and essential oils. I assumed that it was good practice to create a 'user page', but hardly 3 minutes after creating a user page, and before I had a chance to even submit a first edit, my user page was marked for 'quick deletion'. I was somewhat surprised but I went ahead and created my first edit, but I am wondering now if I did the wrong thing by creating a user page? Should I wait to do this? Many thanks! Perfumehead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfumehead (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Perfumehead. The request for speedy deletion of your user page was declined by the administrator Seraphimblade, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. Someone seems to have been a bit overzealous in tagging it for deletion. Deor (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's allowed to start by creating a user page as long as it satisfies Wikipedia:User pages. Many users create a promotional or long off-topic user page and never contribute to the encyclopedia but User:Perfumehead seems OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfumehead Hello and First of all Welcome to Wikipedia! I am sorry but I was the one who tagged your page. It was my bad. Sorry about that,and I hope you are not upset about this mistake. I apologize. As an experienced editor I should have known better. Very sorry. I look forward to seeing you edit! Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publish a draft

Hi I created a draft - Draft:Canetic Advisors. There is no button allowing me to move this page to Wikipedia. How do I have it approved or move it? This was a rewrite of a draft that was not accepted and has been completely rewritten. Thank you TONYLAAD 00:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TONYLAAD (talk • contribs)

@TONYLAAD: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that you are missing the appropriate template to allow you to submit the draft for review; but I would tell you before adding it that your draft is a long way from being in shape to submit. It is very promotional in its language and nature, and it seems like you are attempting to spread the word about the company and its products. The links you offer as sources mention Canetic Advisors tangentially, if at all. Please review the notability guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG, which any organization must meet in order to merit an article. In short, they ask for in depth coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Routine announcements, brief mentions, press releases, or anything similar to those things does not establish notability. If no one has chosen to write about this company in depth(on their own), it is probably too soon for an article about this company. Wikipedia cannot be used to generate notability or spread the word about a company, it must already be notable.

I would surmise that you represent Canetic Advisors; if you do, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy and also the paid editing policy; the latter is required if you are paid to edit here(such as an employee editing about their employer). 331dot (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TONYLAAD. I agree completely with 331dot above. There is no chance whatsoever that your draft will be approved in its current form. Your draft describes the company's founder as "a passionate entrepreneur and energy industry thought leader with over 25 years of renewables, clean-tech and start-up experience. Canetic has set out a mission to disrupt the impact investing ‘intelligence’ space." Let me be frank with you. Phrases like "passionate entrepreneur" and "thought leader" and "disrupt the blah blah space" are examples of the worst type of promotional corporatespeak baloney, devoid of any substantive content. There are many similar examples of promotional startup jargon in your draft. That kind of language violates one of our core content policies, the neutral point of view, and is utterly unacceptable in an encyclopedia article. So, your first step is to comply with our mandatory (non-negotiable) paid editing disclosure. Your second step is to find reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this company. Then summarize what those sources say - no more and no less. Then, ruthlessly strip every single shred of promotional language from the draft, until it is the most boring and most rigorously factual thing that you have ever written. Once you have done all that, double check your work and remove any hint, trace or whiff of promotional language that remains. Finally, add this template to the top of your draft:

{{subst:submit}}

Save your draft, and you will see a button to submit. Click it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TONYLAAD: you should be aware that when normal readers (not PR people) read "a passionate entrepreneur and energy industry thought leader", they mentally translate it as "a self-promoting bullshitter and generator of vaporware". Quite apart from Wikipedia policy, you would create a better impression by sticking to facts. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted as G11 before, and so I've nominated it again as it evidently meets that criterion now (it is clear that "rewrite" did not do anything meaningful) Galobtter (pingó mió)

Rude!

Hi, I'd like to know about how to use Template:Uw-npa1. The text says: "Hello, I'm Example. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you."

I know how to put the template on someone's talk page. But are there instructions or a guideline that explains under what circumstances I can remove another editor's comment (or portions thereof) on a talk page, because it "didn't seem very civil", as the template says? The actual case is here: Talk:Münsterstraße_(street_in_Dortmund)#Notability. It's not really terribly rude, I mean there's no swearing... but actually it's rude! There is an AfD discussion about the article, and I meant to politely suggest that people should direct any relevant notability comments there, while it's active, instead of to the talk page. The reply from {{opingBash kid na (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)|Otr500}} seems sarcastic, provocative, and, well, uncivil. "Thank you for your improper instructions", "you do not have the authority, unless you bought the rights from Wikipedia, to dictate that article content", "if you did purchase this article, I will apologize in advance and refrain from future edits"...[reply]

I've been active on Wikipedia for more than a decade now, and so far have never had the occasion to want to use this template, but for some reason, these particular sarcastic and rude remarks toward me and, further on to another editor (You will have to enlighten the Wikipedia world as to the meaning of [your comments]", "Please also note during this editing 101 class that...]] and so on, have really pushed my buttons! Any advice appreciated, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IamNotU and welcome to the Tea house.

More a violation of AGF, I think. You could graciously ignore the comment, it's an easy way to go.

The warning templates are not magic. The wording has been worked out carefully to be civil, non-antagonistic, but firm. You could post your own admonition, based on the warning template, but omitting the "so it has been removed" phrase. But you should not remove any comments.

My reading is that Otr500 was making an overly sarcastic response to your advice. I agree with them that your advice was largely incorrect. WP:EDITATAFD says that even if an article is up for AfD, one can continue to edit the article (within certain limits) and discuss improvements on its talk page. There is no need to wait for the Afd discussion to conclude. Of course, it's a also good idea to get any notability advocacy into the AfD discussion as well, so you were partially correct.i just don't get the fact that the host of this article said rude but i do not see any thing relating to rude here . for me the imprecision is not a bad one

And if you watch the AfD, you'll see that it turns on rather fine points of policy; the consensus may see things Otr500's way or perhaps conclude, instead, that some aspect of NGEO or other argument for keep is more applicable.

So my strong recommendation is to leave everything alone and just use this incident as a learning experience. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (cont ribs)} 06:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jmcgnh, thanks for your answer. I guess they were deliberately trying to provoke me, and I guess it worked... but probably I shouldn't let it get to me. I'm still curious about the template, and why it says the comment "has been removed". I understood that you shouldn't remove other peoples' comments, so it seems odd. In the meantime I found WP:REMOVE UNCIVIL, which helps explain it, though not completely... I didn't suggest people shouldn't edit the article, I just meant to ask if there were additional arguments relevant to the AfD discussion, that they could go there, rather than splitting off into two separate threads and having to cross-reference each other. It didn't seem like a helpful idea to spill the AfD discussion over to the talk page while it was still active. I admit that saying "this page is about article content" is not really right. In any case, a polite correction would have been nice instead of uncivil sarcasm... I'll try to graciously ignore it, though it's maybe too late for that now, as it looks like you pinged the user who will come here and read this? I was kind of hoping to just get some advice before saying anything to them (or not)... Anyway, thanks again. --IamNotU (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IamNotU, I do understand how you feel for being treated for what you are not accustom to as what your background would deem a behavior is not acceptable/polite in social setting. You could visit this page for information on what constitutes personal attack. Counter vandalism team members,(or any other editor), we do revert/remove the personal attack edit and placing a "npa" (no personal attack) warning template on the said editor talk page and would continue to increase the warning level if the same type of edit continues. If personal attack edit is on user page / user talk page then it is constitutes "vandalism" edit and if the attack is particularity serious and extremely derogatory such as sexual/sexual orientation harassment, trolling with profanity, legal/violent treats we could report the editor to Administrator intervention against vandalism immediately. There are some differences between what is not a civil behavior vs personal attack. In Wikipedia, not respond to multiple requests on unexplained edits/ or not cooperative might consider not civil but editor has committed no personal attack here, and that would be the same for being condescending, patronizing, or silly name calling (such as calling editor an idiot even their behavior fits the term). I hope the above help. Cheers and have a wonderful day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Bash kid na (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why "award-winning" is peacock term?

Hello. I am korean wikipedian who trying to introduce Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch to kowiki. But I cannot understand why 'Award-winning'is considered peacock. Is it just neutral word told to "A subject win award"? I want to know if it is not, why.--Reiro (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Reiro:, Welcome to Teahouse! Content in Wikipedia should be written in neutral point of view. A peacock term is to use words show off the subject especially when adjective such as award wining is use as it has the connotation to puff up the subject in attempt to influence and appeal to an readers' emotions. Instead stating " Julianne Moore is an award wining actress', it is better to put the wording in a plain and factual manner - " Julianne Moore is an American actress and she won an Academy Award and two Golden Globes awards. Drop by again, should you have further question'. Have a good day. Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA:Oh, I got it. Thank you, CASSIOPEIA!--Reiro (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, we've clashed in our replies. But Reiro, here's a similar and somewhat wordier explanation I've just written for you: It's a sensible question. My interpretation of "award-winning" is that it never gives enough information, and sounds rather similar to saying they're a really great person because they've won some awards. It seems unnecessary to say it. It may very occasionally be ok to use that term in the lead paragraph, providing there is also a section on "Awards and honours" further down which details (with references) all the awards they have bestowed upon them. But the question you could ask is "why do I need to say someone is an award-winning person when there's clearly a section on awards?" A person is a politician, a musician, a sportsman, a K-pop band or a scientist, and our encyclopaedia needs to say that. Only later does the article need to say that they have won awards of one sort or another for doing what they do. Whilst the award may help make the person notable by Wikipedia's standards, we generally don't need to say it in the introductory paragraph as if it's trying to 'big them up' - i.e using award-winning in that way is just another peacock term. I haven't checked, but I would not expect an article on Usain Bolt to say he is a medal-winning athlete. I'd expect the article to specify which races he won, records he broke or to list all his the honours and awards in a discrete section. I realise this is a rather wordy explanation, and I might not have answered it very well for you, but I appreciate the question and hope I've helped at least a little in your understanding. Please let me know if this make sense, or have I confused you further? Regards from the beautiful^{[peacock prose]} and award-winning^{[peacock prose]} United Kingdom. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what CASSIOPIA said, Reiro: an "award" could be anything from second prize in a swimming competition to Best Actor in the Oscars. Mentioning a specific award makes that clear; "award-winning" doesn't. But if somebody actually has won an Oscar, people will more likely describe them as "Oscar-winning" rather than "award-winning". So "award-winning" covers a range that at first sight seems to go from bottom to top, but in practice probably doesn't go to the top, and so tends to inflate their achievement. --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My article was declined even after submission of solid proof

Hi All, I submitted a page for a film. I added references and articles that give you proof. But still, they are not accepting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vignesh.pichai (talk • contribs)

Is this about User:Vignesh.pichai/sandbox? There is some advice on in-line referencing on your talk page. Dbfirs 11:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vignesh.pichai: See WP:N. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uk election

Can all of you grow up and put back the graphical summary of opinion polls for the next UK election. Just because your supreme leader corbyn isnt leading should not mean you should move to censorship

Truley pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:270C:3B00:4C62:E8E7:4FDA:1F1C (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have comments about a specific article, you should bring them to the talk page of that article- and there could be any number of reasons that the table was removed other than "censorship" which you have no evidence of. Also, this is a worldwide project and editors are not necessarily from the UK or involved in UK politics, so please don't make that sort of accusation without evidence. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article in question. The IP above has no previous edits, but is referring to a table added by James-Smillie99 which was subsequently removed, on the grounds that it was a bold edit with no talk page consensus (consensus was to remove the graph in the first place), and added a graph to the (table-heavy) article. I agree with 331dot that claims of censorship are not justified, and that all grievances should be taken to the relevant talk page. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Music

How do I upload musical excerpts in ogg to wikimedia commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moetapeega (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moetapeega, I believe the instructions are here c:Commons:Audio and upload happens here: c:Special:UploadWizard. Do note the strict licensing requirements: c:Commons:Licensing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are our links removed as spamming ?

We have tried to add our link to those who are buried in either Key Hill Cemetery and Warstone Lane Cemetery in Birmingham Jewellery Quarter, Hockley. We are a voluntary group who researches the lives of the notable people buried in these two historic Cemeteries. We are the only group to maintain the cemeteries and graves. Such as Joseph Chamberlain , Joseph Gilliot (Pen Maker ) John Skirrow Wright ( Postal Order ) Plus many more. Our links have been removed as spam. We are not spamming. Other groups such as JQRT and the Hockley Flyer have links I see no reason why out voluntary group cannot also.

Friends of Key Hill Cemetery & Warstone Lane Cemetery  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grave-matters (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same question has been asked, and answered, at the Help Desk. Maproom (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning a product

This is the first time I am using this question page.

Decades ago I heard about and used a product called Vemma. I have since learned it is no longer available. However, I received an email about a product called Nutrabase which uses the same colors and print type extremely similar to the Vemma product. Can anyone find out if Nurtabase is related to Vemma? I'm curious because I received the infomercial via email and am wondering if it's the same Vemma product (that got in trouble) under different packaging and a different name. Personally, I have no idea how to go about investigating something like this.

Elteral3 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Thanks for any thoughts or information. ~EL[reply]

The Teahouse is, as it says at the head of this page, "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." For more general enquiries not related to editing Wikipedia, try WP:Reference desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing a Hebrew image file on English wikipedia (Left to right, vs right to left text)

I am trying to use this image file stored on the Hebrew Wikipedia, for this English article:

I finally figured out the unicode version of the url, but what is the proper way to figure this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In English Wikipedia, you can use images that are at Wikimedia Commons, and those that are at English Wikipedia. You can't use any that are at other Wikipedias but not at either of those two. You may be able to copy the image from Hebrew Wikipedia to Commons, and then use it in an article here. Whether you can depends on its copyright status: Commons is more fussy about copyright than most individual Wikipedias. Maproom (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should read questions properly before I answer them. Here's the wikicode that produces the image to the right: [[File:יונה קרמנצקי-JNF012553.jpeg|thumb|80px|Johann Kremenezky]] . Maproom (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate entries

I see there is an entry for William Cray Brownell and another for W. C. Brownell. They are the same person. What can I or you do to fix it?

Louis Kessler KKMI1740 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKMI1740 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, KKMI1740, you're right about that! I can't believe that went unnoticed for so many years - thank you so much for pointing that out. I've now turned the W.C. Brownell page into a redirect page pointing to William Crary Brownell. What this means is that if a reader searches for or clicks a link to W. C. Brownell, they will automatically be taken to the William Crary Brownell page, with a small notice at the top of the page saying "Redirected from W. C. Brownell." In the future, if there are two articles that obviously are the same topic and should obviously be the same article, replace the content of one of them (usually the one with the less appropriate title or with the lesser amount of content) with: #REDIRECT: [Other page here]. Make sure that if the article you're turning into a redirect has any content that is not mentioned in the duplicate article, that you make sure to include that information in the redirect target. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions, and once again, thanks for pointing this out!--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 17:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, and good catch. However, if you do copy any content from the article you are about to convert into a redirect to the other article, be sure to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. In my view, the best way to do this is by using {{copied}}. But other methods, including a link in the edit summary when copying the content, can be used. Please keep this in mind. @SkyGazer 512KKMI1740: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to avoid an 'edit war' - need help from an experienced user or admin

I have been using and contributing to Wikipedia for many years, and I have found myself in a potential edit war which I want to avoid.

The page Dave Min is about a current candidate up for election in California. The page has been edited recently by user BrittonBurdick, a paid staffer of rival candidate Kia Hamandachy (it's easy enough to confirm this information by searching for Britton's LinkedIn page; I won't post the link to that in the interest of privacy). I believe he has also been 'sock-puppeting' on this page as anonymous user 2600:8802:2101:2fa0:71ac:614e:db16:b2b2

I have made some edits to this page which I have referenced on the Dave Min talk page. "the article referenced is a fabrication" documents a dispute which I feel was resolved and edited by an admin. "The editor has attributed information not found in the cited source" is self explanatory, but this user made edits to the page reverting my edits without commenting on the talk page.

Recently, he removed this second edit I made (Min response statement) and commented on my person talk page as if he were posting from an admin's perspective, saying "I removed the Ballotopedia article because the consensus of editors and administrators Wikipedia that it does not meet our standards of reliable sources." The article I posted referenced his employer, rival candidate Kia Hamandachy.

If you look at all 24 of the edits since May 11, with the exception of my 3 edits 3 minor edits, they are all by him or the referenced anonymous account. The way the page stands now these paragraphs reflect only his partisan opinion, and he has removed all referenced to his employer.

I'm hoping that an impartial editor might look at these changes and make appropriate changes that would reinstate my edit. Or can I confidently go ahead and reinstate my edits (which he as referred to as BLP/Vandalism)without being accused of 'edit warring'? Could a more experienced person also comment on whether some remedy such as blocking this user might be applied? Gbonline (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gbonline. In my opinion, Dave Min fails our notability guideline for politicians since he is an unelected candidate for office. I believe that this article (and all similar articles) should be deleted. The best outcome would be rigorously neutral coverage of Min and all the other candidates at California's 45th congressional district or a spinoff article about the 2018 election in that district. As for your concerns about BrittonBurdick having a possible conflict of interest , you should discuss that at User talk:BrittonBurdick. If that editor is paid by a candidate, then a paid editing disclosure is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, Cullen³²⁸. This has been a great learning experience for me, and I'm glad I found the Teahouse. Gbonline (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with photos and getting rid of "grey areas"

Please can anyone help me?

I've been posting several photos just lately, and the images are not displayed correctly. Grey bars have appeared. See for example St. Nicholas Monastery Church, Mesopotam

Rob Sherratt (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob Sherratt, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem is also in the original uploads like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/The_Papas_of_Mesopotam_leading_the_dancing.jpg so the error is not introduced when our software scales them to smaller versions. Your uploads are exactly 5 MB: 5242880 bytes = 5 × 1024 × 1024. Something cuts off the images when they reach 5 MB. I don't know what it is but it's possible it's at your end. Others have uploaded larger files before and after. The limit is 100 MB. Do the images look OK right before you upload them? Are they above 5 MB? Can you try to upload with another browser or Internet connection? Or edit the images before upload so they are below 5 MB? You can use the link "Upload a new version of this file" on the pages with your existing uploads at commons:Special:ListFiles/Rob Sherratt. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PrimeHunter, thank you for your welcome and for your advice. The original images are 6,094,223 bytes, and they are perfect. I believe the software fault is in the Wiki image uploader, it is not a browser-related issue since I have tried with several browsers. However, I will reduce the size of the images and "Upload a new version of this file" to work around the bug. Rob Sherratt (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rob Sherratt rejected?

Hi, I just had my user page rejected by Dan arndt There was no explanation what I had done wrong, I was doing my best ... There seems to be little or no guidance on what is expected in a user page ... Rob Sherratt (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob Sherratt: The decline reason is "bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". Read WP:N and WP:BLP. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Rob Sherratt, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you created your user page using the article wizard. This is designed and intended to create drafts of articles that is, pages intended to eventually form part of the encyclopedia proper. Such a page needs to establish the notability of the topic, using citations of reliable sources (See Wikipedia's Golden Rule.) To this end the wizard puts {{Userspace draft}} on the pages it creates in userspace.

However, your userpage seems to have been intended, quite properly, as a user page, that is, a page meant to describe a person as a Wikipedia editor, giving some idea of the person's background, interests, and possibly his or her accomplishments and plans in editing Wikipedia. My own user page is at User:DESiegel, for example. User pages need not, and indeed normally should not, cite sources or attempt to establish the notability of the editor.

The matter seems to have been corrected, and should you wish to restore the short "about" passage that you removed in a recent edit to the page, you are free to do so.

I hope this explanation clarifies matters a bit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

generating custom lists of articles.

Firstly: Is it possible to generate a list of articles according to the following criteria:

Page has 1 or less watchers and
Order by page view frequency over the last year with highest number of views first

The idea being to search and monitor pages which are popular, but aren't getting a lot of maintenance
Secondly: Where can I find some general info about making custom lists of articles?
A further idea which my permissions wouldn't allow, but a bot/admin might find useful, might be to sort pages with n watchers and subtract from n, watchers who are users who haven't been active for more than one year. Does stuff like that happen already?
Last final thing - is there a better place to ask questions like this? Many thanks Edaham (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edaham, your idea is a good one, and this is the right place to ask about. Unfortunately the answer is no. If there were a way to find pages with few active watchers, ill-intentioned people would be able to identify and abuse those pages, for instance by adding spam links. (I can't help with your second question.) Maproom (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edaham: To answer bullet point #2: is [1] what you had in mind? However, I am not sure exactly if/how this can be used by bot.

For the first bullet point, I believe Maproom is mistaken. While personal watchlists are private (i.e. you cannot tell whether user X watches page Y) the number of page watchers can be seen via the "page information" link (for instance, as of my writing, the Main Page has 111728 watchers), though it will say "less than 30" rather than the exact number if it is low enough (which somewhat mitigates the "vandal searches for unmaintained page" effect). You even have a stat for watchers who visited recent edits but I could not easily find what this number covers exactly (that is not documented at Help:Page information). All that information can be retrieved by bot via the API (mw:API:Info).

Finally, any Wikipedia-related question is fine on the Teahouse, but you might get a quicker answer on more specialized venues. In the present case, I would say WP:VPT was the "best" venue (but again, asking here is fine). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account

This is an alternate account of my A 10 fireplane (talk · contribs) could you make sure I have done everything wright to avoid Sock puppetry thank you A 10 iceplane (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, A 10 iceplane. You should probably, mention your alternate account on User:A 10 fireplane, with a link. Otherwise I think you have done all that you need to do, except being careful not to edit the same discussions with both accounts, as that might seem to be attempting to count double in a discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello again DESiegel I'll make sure to do that, thamk you so much for all your help :) A 10 iceplane (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche Springs is a real place, and it deserves a Wikipedia page

I’ve tried unsuccessfully to write an article for Draft:Comanche Springs. I’m trying to understand why it was rejected. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The unrelated kinsman (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 May 2018 The unrelated (UTC)

@The unrelated kinsman: The decline message is quite clear, I think. A substantial portion of what you wrote was actually copied from somewhere else. We don't accept copyright violations. You will need to rewrite that part of the article, and all the rest of it, in your own words rather than copying from other sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The declining reviewer actually deleted the copyrighted text, The unrelated kinsman, which had been taken from http://www.forttours.com/pages/hmpecos.asp or from the historical marker pictured in the draft. I then revision deleted the versions of the draft that included the copyrighted text. Note that State historical markers are in fact subject to copyright, unlike US Federal markers.

Moreover, the current text and its cited sources is probably not sufficient to establish the notability of the topic, whoch will need to be dsone before the draft can be accepted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a few online sources won't be hard to find

I've left a copy of the above at the draft's talk page.

Edaham (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, The unrelated kinsman (cool username BTW): If this place is or was a settlement (city, town, village, etc), the proper title would be Draft:Comanche Springs, Texas. If it is only a geographic feature without an associated settlement, the title should be Draft:Comanche Springs (Texas). John from Idegon (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about talk pages

Hello again! Thank you for taking the time to consider my question.

The talk pages seem strangely empty to me, with talk pages for large collaborative articles only containing one to four sections discussing something. I'm curious why this is, and nervous that my current approach to volunteering information (presenting it on the talk page) is wrong, and that I am making a whole lot of unnecessary noise or otherwise being somehow uncouth. Can you provide me a little more insight into how the talk pages are usually used, and how they are meant to be used? Ignus3 (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ignus3: Often, older discussions that have run their course are archived to avoid the main talk page becoming bogged down with old, stale threads. But not everything is discussed on the talk page. It really is okay to just go ahead and edit the article, you don't need anyone's permission first. Of course, if anyone reverts you or disagrees, then it's time to take things over to the talk page and figure them out. It's entirely possible that editors on some pages just collaborated through their edits, and didn't really need to have extensive discussions on the article talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thank you for the response! I suppose I can try to be a bit bolder in general, but what about a situation where I think something should change but I'm not sure exactly how I think it should be changed, or I know of a resource but I'm not sure exactly how the article should use it?Ignus3 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that might be something to bring up on the talk page, but like you said, some aren't terribly active so not a lot of people might be watching them. If you don't get much that way, you can check the top of the talk page for relevant Wikiprojects that the article falls under; members there might be able to give you some advice. And of course failing that you can always ask here as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Abel Sierra Madero

I reviewed Draft:Abel Sierra Madero and declined it, saying that the references (added after the previous trip through AFC) were not in the form of footnotes. I was then asked by User:Pandoraperez04 to review it again. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I have looked at it, and I don’t have a strong opinion on notability. I do see tone issues with peacock language, such as “award-winning” and “extremely well-known”. Will other experienced editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClennon: Plenty of issues (bolding of headings, "award-winning" is an automatic no from me, "very well known", etc., laundry list of books/awards with in-text external links, etc.). It needs to be an article actually about him, not just a catalog of the stuff he's written. As it stands, I wouldn't quite G11 it, but I'd certainly decline it for inappropriate promotion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, do please note, Robert McClenon, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission says: Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons. That the references were not in the form of footnotes is not a good decline reason unless direct quotes or other places where inline cites are strictly required do not have them. In this case there do seem to be other reasons to decline, but perhaps a more informative message could have been left for Pandoraperez04? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seraphimblade, User:DESiegel - Did you notice that my username is blue in my signature and is red in your replies to me? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be removed from the menu of reasons for an AFC decline? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I apologize for the incorrect ping. I missed that.

I think that the reason should remain, but its description/message should be changed to say that inline cites (which need not be footnotes in the sense of using <ref>...</ref>) have not been used when they are required. The page linked to by the current message does say that, but the message doesn't. In the meantime, perhaps a clarifying comment would be a good idea. If that change in message cannot be made, then perhaps the reason should be removed. I will need to look into just where changes to the AfC templates can be proposed and discussed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Sorry about the typo, that's probably my fault for doing it first. I think the guidance, not the message, should be changed. "General references" are essentially worthless; they just say "Well, this source might support something in the article, somewhere...". Inline cites should be used to show specifically what the reference is meant to support. Generally referenced articles are essentially unreferenced. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I usually copy-and-paste a ping so as to get the spelling, sometimes of Indian names, right, and because I know that misspellings of Scottish names are both easy and annoying. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should change that, Seraphimblade but currently WP:V says Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. and WP:CITE says A general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations. WP:MINREF says that citations are required for Direct quotations; Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with ^{[citation needed]}, or any similar tag); Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged; [and] Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons and goes on to say that Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards. Material not supplied by an inline citation may be supported with WP:General references or sources named as inline citations for other material. Various other guidelines, building on these, say much the same, that general references are acceptable for anything but the 4 types of content where inline cites are required. Changing all of that would require a site-wide consensus, and be quite a task. Until we do change those policies/guidelines, I don't think we should hold AfC drafts to a higher standard than mainspace articles. Would you agree, Robert McClenon? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DESiegel - I don't think that AFC drafts should be held to a higher standard than mainspace articles, and I am aware that some reviewers, while agreeing with that statement, in fact decline drafts that satisfy NPP standards. Why do you ask? Are you saying that I should have accepted the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Robert McClenon, there were, I think, other reasons to decline in any case, although i didn't do a detailed review. In particular I am not at all sure that the sources were sufficient to establish notability. My reaction was largely to the decline comment which read The references are not in the form of footnotes. Please see Referencing for Beginners. If hypothetically, a reviewer declined to accept an otherwise acceptable draft solely because it did not use footnotes, then i think that would be incorrect. The decline reason and the comment seems to imply that this might have been done or might be done. I don't believe it actually was declined solely for that reason in this case, but the creator of the draft could well read it that way, and so might other reviewers. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The classic use for general references, by the way, was articles about non-contentious technical topics, particularly Mathematics articles, where the entire article could be sourced to a short section of a standard text or reference work, and providing inline cites to every equation, all going to the same source, seemed a waste of time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up

User:Pandoraperez04 - Can we please discuss the draft here rather than on my talk page? I brought the discussion here to seek the advice of other editors, and would prefer not to have to tell you on my talk page that other editors agree that "extremely well-known" is puffery and that "award-winning" is not useful, and tends to imply big awards rather than small ones. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Terufumi Sasaki

I reviewed Draft:Terufumi Sasaki and declined it. The only source was Hiroshima (book) by John Hersey, and I said that the one paragraph could be included in the article on the book. The author resubmitted the draft, and it was declined, again with the recommendation to include the information in the existing article. User:Boundarylayer has now asked me to review the draft again, saying that they wish to add substantially more material. It does now have other references. Will other experienced editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should have a biography of Terufumi Sasaki, one of the six main characters in a Pulitzer Prize winning book about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Not only is he a major figure in a very important book, Robert McClenon, but a quick Google Books search shows that he has received coverage in dozens on English language books about nuclear war and non-fiction literature. An encyclopedia that contains countless articles about fictional characters in animated cartoons, sci fi novels and video games should have room for a biography of such an important real world physician who treated the traumatized victims of nuclear war, and was described at great length in a major work of literature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328 - Are you saying that the current draft should be accepted, or that the author should expand the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article is in main space now, Robert McClenon. I do not believe that AfC reviewers should decline drafts about clearly notable topics. These drafts should be moved to main space with encouragement to continue improvements there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - Please don't back-door delete a draft while it is being discussed here. Some of us were trying to discuss whether a stand-alone article is in order when you redirected the draft, which was a back-door delete. If you really think that a draft needs deleting, you know where MFD is, better than some of us do. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do other editors think that the current draft should be accepted, or that the author should expand the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should wind up as a separate article, in mainspace. I think it should be significantly expanded. I would have been fine with that expansion occurring while still in draft space, but i see no serious problems with accepting the draft first and expanding it later. I think that this redirect was improper. While the editor had been advised to incorporate this content into the article about the book, there was nothing mandatory about that advice, and in fact i would have disagreed with it. The draft as it then stood was a perfectly plausible draft, with multiple cited sources, about a topic with at least a reasonable chance of being notable. Redirecting in such a case is in my view unwise and improper. The draft has now been accepted, and I see no reason to move it back to draft space. @Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Cullen328, and Chrissymad: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC) @Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Cullen328, and Chrissymad: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dumping on Reviewers

User:Cullen328 - I don't know whether to read your comment as a direct criticism. You write: "I do not believe that AFC reviewers should decline drafts about clearly notable topics." On its case, this reads like yet another case of dumping on the reviewers, which is just another illustration of a non-charming Wikipedia culture of dumping on some other group of Wikipedia volunteers. Are you saying that I should have accepted it the first time, when I declined it as one line that could be added to the article on the book, or a later version, such as when I asked for comments here? I don't think that an AFC reviewer should decline an article that, first, clearly paases notability, and, second, verifies the notability. I will decline a draft that says that someone played on a National Football League (American football) if it has no references, and will note that the guideline says that the person is notable, but that a reference must be provided. I declined the draft the first time because in its state at the time it was in my opinion not a useful addition to article space. If I should have read minds and known that the subject is considered notable, maybe we need AFC reviewers who can read minds of critics. It is very popular in Wikipedia to dump on a group of reviewers. It also isn't helpful. I also note that there wasn't agreement as to notability, and I think that asking other editors was a better idea than just guessing that other editors knew he was notable, and I think that discussing notability is better than dumping on reviewers about notability decisions that we have seen were not unanimous. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that my comments consisted of an assessment of notability combined with a good faith comment about what sometimes happens at AfC, Robert McClenon. I do not use mind reading to assess notability, but rather the standard types of Google searches that I have used thousands of times in assessing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328 - Maybe I am hypersensitive about dumping on the reviewers, but some Wikipedia volunteers are very eager to complain about other groups of Wikipedia volunteer editors whom they say don't do enough, or are not sufficiently welcoming, or are bitey, and I get tired of criticism of the hard-working NPP and AFC reviewers. I didn't think that you used mind-reading, but it did appear that you were saying that Z should have known that the subject was clearly notable, rather than having to ask here. As I said, in this case, there wasn't agreement as to whether the article was ready for mainspace, so I think that I was reasonable in asking rather than just acting. But some editors would prefer to dump first and ask questions later. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read my own comments about nine times, Robert McClenon, and still cannot see how I was "dumping" on reviewers. You asked for opinions on a draft and its review. I offered my opinion on the notability of the topic and offered no harsh criticisms of anyone. I simply pointed out that I believe AfC should facilitate the acceptance of drafts about notable topics. Is that controversial? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328 - First, I did say that I was sometimes hypersensitive about dumping on the reviewers. Second, to be precise, you did say that AFC reviewers should not decline drafts on clearly notable topics. That statement is true but not constructive, because it can be read either as a general restatement of the obvious, or as a specific statement about a particular draft, and I assumed that if it wasn't about a particular draft, it wasn't necessary. I declined the draft once, when it was one sentence, and the second time, I asked for advice. So you were either referring to my first decline, or to that draft at some point in its history, or making a general statement. Maybe it was only a general statement, but, if so, why repeat what we knew? You considered the subject to be clearly notable. There was reasoned disagreement. So your statement could plausibly have been a criticism of my action in declining it the first time, and I still think that it should have been declined the first time.

Third, just to belabor the obvious, I think that AFC reviewers may reasonably decline drafts about clearly notable topics if the draft does not establish notability or is otherwise not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, when you come to a place like the Teahouse to ask a question, (and you are always welcome here), please remember that this is not the AFC Reviewers Lounge, but rather a place where improving the encyclopedia is always the highest priority. Since I am not an active AFC reviewer, I am unfamiliar with your work flow. I looked at the draft in its form when you brought it here, and immediately did a notability check, as I always do in such cases. Takes about a minute. Then I gave my opinion about the notability of the topic and whether such an article belongs in the encyclopedia. If I believe that a topic is notable, then I am motivated to help get an article about that topic into the encyclopedia, and will express my opinion about notability. My opinion is not intended as a criticism of any individual or group, but rather an attempt to facilitate the process. I am sorry that you interpreted my remarks as unfair criticism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment

As I mentioned above, the one action that I do think was a mistake was back-door deleting the article by a redirect while it was being discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously missed the initial discussion but this person is absolutely notable. There are dozens of newspaper articles (I found several via newspapers.com) as well as content in several books, though I don't have access to those. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this has come up, I wanted to add a couple of observations. User:Robert McClenon has frequently used the Teahouse to ask about decisions he has made at AfC review that might more suitably be asked at the AfC talk page, where he is also a participant. As I understand it, the Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place for editors, particularly new editors, to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. WP has other venues for asking more advanced and more technical questions (though we do our best to answer them when they appear here). Asking questions about how to review AfC submissions and seeking additional attention to close call cases would seem to be outside the scope of the Teahouse.

The AfC project has been going through its own set of issues. One impression many people come away with is that the AfC reviewers are judging submissions more harshly than the drafts deserve; that their collective action is preventing good content from being added to the project. One common stumbling block is a draft about a possibly-notable subject but for which the submission fails to make an acceptable case, often with unsuitable referencing. We have a dilemma: chop the article to an inadequate stub that can be accepted or decline it and try to encourage, persuade, coddle, and cajole the contributor to bring the draft up to some minimal standard. My judgment is that the latter path often fails, but is better for the overall project than the former. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What URLs to include when referencing

Hi - I have a question about what info. to include for a cited source in a reference list. If I have an academic article with both a DOI linking to a paywalled download and a ResearchGate link to an open source download, do I include both in the reference? For example, the DOI for this reference links to a paywalled journal and is the technically correct academic reference:

Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005). Healing, Reconciliation, Forgiving and the Prevention of Violence after Genocide or Mass Killing: An Intervention and Its Experimental Evaluation in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology: Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.24.3.297.65617

The article is also freely available via ResearchGate at:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurie_Pearlman/publication/240630066_Healing_Reconciliation_Forgiving_and_the_Prevention_of_Violence_After_Genocide_or_Mass_Killing_An_Intervention_and_Its_Experimental_Evaluation_in_Rwanda/links/54d4d2db0cf25013d029fb79/Healing-Reconciliation-Forgiving-and-the-Prevention-of-Violence-After-Genocide-or-Mass-Killing-An-Intervention-and-Its-Experimental-Evaluation-in-Rwanda.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Should I include both the DOI and the ResearchGate links (e.g., by adding the ResearchGate link in the URL field of the reference)? If so, how do I indicate that they are linking to two different sources (or do I not need to worry about that)?

Thanks! Girish.l (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Girish.l, and welcome to the Teahouse. IF' you can be sure that the ResearchGate version is a fully accurate copy, and if it is not a copyright infringement, then it may be included as a 'convenience copy" to facilitate wider access. If it is a different version (not final perhaps) or is in violation of copyright, then it should not be included. The DOI should be included in any case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I avoid linking to PDFs posted at ResearchGate. The journal in your example (see via the doi) provides the abstract for free but sells the PDF. ResearchGate allows members to post links to PDFs of articles they are authors of, but I am not sure if that negates the journals' copyrights to those articles. As long as you are sure the article supports the text it is a citation for, the doi should suffice. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool, thanks for the replies. Based on this advice I think I will refrain from including the ResearchGate link and stick with just including the DOI. Thanks again, Girish.l (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can i send it on gmail to confirm? and what thing i need to do?

Hi i'm ShnRvs Unicorn 147 i want to know if i'm doing right. I'm a editing about colors and crayola colors. i want to edit the article titled "List of Crayola marker colors" i'm doing some research and i found a page called "jenny crayon collection" and some text in there can be use in the article so i send him a message informal (text) if i can have permssion to use it. Then next he replied she said " Do you work for Wikipedia? What information are you wanting to use?" and i replied "Yes i work in wikipedia as editor of color topics and crayola colors. I want to use some information in your website titiled "List of Current Crayola Marker Colors" The following information that i want to use: Name and Hex of 64 Pip-Squeak Makers Name and Hex of 50 SuperTips Markers"

if she approve it what next step i need to do how to confirm that she approve to use it or can i send evidence that she agree to use it and confirm it by sending to permissions-en@wikimedia.org in gmail

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShnRvs Unicorn 147 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, ShnRvs Unicorn 147. Why should we include complete lists of Crayola colors? That seems to be indisciminate information that our readers could easily find on the Crayola website. Is the "jenny crayon collection" a reliable source? Does it have professional editorial control and an established reputation for accuracy and fact checking? I doubt it, although I am not a crayon expert. Please think carefully about why you want to add this content to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing question

What reference should I add to my Draft namely Draft:C.K. Nayudu Award as I don't have any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Map Collector (talk • contribs) 08:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I formatted your question for you. Please start a new section when you ask a question. Have you read Wikipedia's information on reliable sources? Someone's left some links with more general info on your talk page. Edaham (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to cite several references to reliable independent published sources that discuss the award. This one may qualify, i'm not sure how reliable it is: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/110441.html . Maproom (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Map Collector, In the Draft:C.K. Nayudu Award, you would find the below inside the "salmon colour box and see below", click on news or newspaper and you wuld able to find some source for your article.

Find sources: "C.K. Nayudu Award" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news

Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um that would be Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, I think. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for infoboxes and what fields they have

Where can I find information about any arbitrary infobox (i.e. Wikipedia User) and what fields it takes?

Moonythehuman (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most infoboxes are listed at Category:Infobox templates or its subcategories. Each one lists its parameters, e.g. Template:Infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Moonythehuman: Infoboxes are a specific kind of templates, that create right-aligned boxes with quick facts, mostly used in mainspace. All templates are found by prefacing the template code (without arguments) by "Template:". So for instance, to find out information about {{Infobox country}}, you would go to Template:Infobox country. You should find documentation about the arguments if any at the template page, though documentation quality varies wildly across templates.

Also, we do not have a {{Wikipedia User}} or {{Wikipedia user}} template, and if we had, it would likely not be an infobox (infobox templates should almost always be named "infobox foo"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean this...{{Infobox Wikipedia user}} - X201 (talk)

Yea, i meant that. Thanks you two. Moonythehuman (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to get autoconfirmed

Good Morning,

I tried to edit the page Cyberbullying and received a message that said only autoconfirmed members could edit it. I have 100 edits and have had an account since last summer. Is there something else I don't know about. Thanks for your help with this. Jean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr524 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The message which is displayed does not stop you editing the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the page will trigger the check on your confirmed status, which should then be updated on your account. SeeWP:CONFIRM for info. - X201 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how to add pictures

hi i'm new to wiki how do add pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Madanje (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Madanje: To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

overwhelmed newbie trying to navigate COI/paid issues

Wanting to be totally transparent here and a total newbie so I am hoping I am not doing anything wrong! I am an art historian, curator, researcher and my primary interest is photography. However I have recently been consulting with a family that wanted to know more about their mother's artwork/career as a painter. They want to know if she was any good, if there was anything “there.” They aren’t interested in selling her work or profiting from it, they are just trying to learn more about her place in the history of art, if there was any. I am being paid for the research on the individual artist and in the process I am coming across some really interesting connections between this artist and other better-known artists, galleries, arts institutions, etc. I joined Wikipedia recently and posted a couple article suggestions here: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Visual arts. I would like to continue sharing on Wikipedia the info I am finding as part of this research so others will learn about these connections. But the more I try to read and understand the humungous number of rules and guidelines, I am realizing this might be a conflict of interest that I will be criticized for. How exactly do I deal with this, or is Wikipedia not the place for this information? The instructions on how to disclose COI or paid contributions are so complex I can’t begin to figure out how to do the right thing. HELP!Jenuphoto (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jenuphoto. It is not really that difficult. Paid-contribution disclosure gives you several options for disclosure. I recommend that you start a userpage, where you state that you are being paid by named person A for research about named artist B. If you conclude that artist B meets our notability guideline for artists, then use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft for review by experienced, uninvolved editors. When other editors have questions for you, admit your conflict of interest and defer to the judgment of experienced volunteer editors. Feel free to return to the Teahouse at any time with additional questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328. If I want to add info related to this artist's research, to other existing Wiki pages, do they have to be suggestions rather than edits because of possible COI? how should i "tag" those kinds of contributions?Jenuphoto (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenuphoto, if the artist's research has been published, and is considered a reliable source, then post on the article talk pages asking another editor to make the changes. See Template:Request edit for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How should I format my User: page, and how can I contribute as a multilingual?

Greetings, today I created an account and was trying to wrap my head around the concept of userboxes and how to contribute as a multilingual. Any good User: pages I could take some inspiration from or any idea how to get started with things like translation? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, A Lambent Eye (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Lambent Eye, and a hearty welcome to the Teahouse. Well done on completing the Wikipedia Adventure - I hope you found it worthwhile. It looks like you've already successfully found how to get userboxes to show in which languages you are competent. So, you might like to visit some of the places we have for utilising those skills. You might like to investigate Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki, and maybe add your name to Wikipedia:Translators available. You could do well to look at some of the userpages of those editors listed there. Try that of User:Kudpung who has a range of multilingual skills, and is one of our very experienced administrator/editors too. Pages on English Wikipedia that that have been flagged as containing foreign language elements can be found at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.

However, before you dive into too enthusiastically to offer translation, might I inject a friendly word of caution, please? Because you're very new to editing Wikipedia, I would like to urge you to spend some time familiarising yourself by simply editing English Wikipedia articles first. Having done that, you would be better placed to use your enviable multilingual to greatest effect. We are now so large (with 5.6 million articles, and 33,000 currently active editors on English Wikipedia, alone) that we do need quite a suite of policies and guidelines to ensure uniform style and approach to article construction and content. It is, unfortunately, quite easy for very new editors to be bold and to rush in in all 'good faith' and to hit problems they haven't fully appreciated. This is OK, but it can be demoralising if you're not prepared for it, and especially if you can't see what red line it is that you've stepped over. So, the trick is to listen to and heed the advice/concerns of others editors. Ask questions, too. There will nearly always be a good reason for any such advice, so do heed it, and pretty you'll soon become a great contributor. The key to becoming a successful contributor is to take small steps at a time, learning the right way to edit articles as you go along, and then I can envisage your language skills being immensely useful here, and maybe on other language wikipedias, too. I've left you a welcome message with some useful links on your talk page. Of course, do come back and ask for further assistance here should you ever need it, or if you don't feel I've quite answered the questions you were asking. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

My most sincere thanks Nick for that wise, tactful and concise reply. I shall be sure to study all the policies and guidelines and train myself in respect of the markup, although the Wikipedia Adventure did a very good job of introducing me to the principles and methods of Wikipedia. A Lambent Eye (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Lambent Eye, excellent advice there from Nick. If you have any questions regarding how we manage translations, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shall be done, Kudpung. A Lambent Eye (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference overkill

Hi there, I have tried to create a few articles, in which I have cited several references, in a long list at the end of the article (which was just one paragraph). I understand that this leads to "reference or citation overkill", but what other options do I have to include all the references, if the article at this point is only a few sentences long (one paragraph)?

Thanks a lot!

KSK (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusemek: How to write articles that don't get deleted, with emphasis on relevant steps:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Notice that you don't use every source you can find, just the meatiest ones. This avoids the whole "citation overkill" issue and lets others see that the subject is notable right away. Sources that just mention the subject in passing are useless for establishing an article. If those are the only sources you can find, then the subject really is not notable, no matter how many articles dedicate a whole sentence to the subject.

Also, in case those deletion notices were a bit intimidating, never, ever, ever, ever post copyrighted text onto the site. We can (and do) block users who end up requiring too many warnings about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright policy for old coinage/currency not currently in circulation?

I have a Voyageur dollar that I've taken a few pictures of, but I don't know what the copyright policy is for unused coinage. The Verified Cactus 100% 21:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VerifiedCactus. Yet again, you ask a wonderfully interesting question! I didn't know the answer to your question but, because no one has answered in the last couple of hours, I thought I'd kick off with a first attempt. You might like to read this article on Wikimedia Commons which suggests that different countries take a different view to coin copyright than others. You're in Canada, so this bit suggests coin images are copyrighted for 50 years. (Coins are copyrighted by the Royal Canadian Mint. There are charges for educational and commercial use, so they cannot be shown on Commons before the expiration of fifty years. Whether an image of, say, these coins in your hand would be considered in the same way I am not qualified to comment upon. Commons is a lot fussier about copyright infringement than is en-wiki, so maybe uploading locally might be a sensible approach. Please take this as a personal opinion, rather than formal advice. Maybe others could offer a better perspective. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add details about a fashion brand...

Hello. A popular Korean celebrity has her own fashion brand since 2014. I added well-sourced details about her brand in her own article page under a separate heading, but it was removed due to "blatant advertising". I wanted to know why I couldn't add information about her business in her own article, but I wasn't given a reply. There are dozens of online publications and magazines which have written full articles about the fashion brand (Eg: Vogue, Kodemag, KBS, Fashionista etc) so there is no shortage of reputable sources for information/details. Why can't facts about her business be included in her Wikipedia page? If this is the case, can I create an article for the fashion brand? Jesstan01 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jesstan01, and welcome to our Teahouse. It's great to see a BTS fan and K-pop-lover wanting to edit here. My daughter is utterly infatuated with both, and she loves to read about brands, so your edits would have interested her immensely. Unfortunately, however, by adding a very large amount of content about one brand line that the person (Jessica Jung) has created, you have rather gone off at quite a tangent. This is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia page on the biography of a living person. Had you mentioned it with just one or two sentences, providing a reliable reference to a source that is independent of the subject, that might have been ok. But I hope you can appreciate that you added far too much detail, causing the biographical article to rather go off course and to lose its focus. So a reader might then wonder if this was an article about a person or their brand. Another editor who removed your edit did leave a brief but polite note in their edit summary to say that this looked too promotional, so was deleting it. And I agree with them. What I'd encourage you to do is to just write a few lines with citations and explain your suggested edit on the talk page of that article and see what others think before you add it. We work by consensus here, so asking for opinions is exactly the right way to go forward when you're not quite sure what's best. If (and it's a big 'if') the brand has attracted the attention of the media and of writers, and if you can provide references that talk about it in great depth to prove that it meets what we call our "Notability guidelines, the brand might well merit a linked article of its own. See also WP:PRODUCT. (I haven't looked in detail at the information on this brand to make that assessment, I'm afraid). Does this help explain your concerns? Either way, keep up the good work! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key Lime Pie

I just looked at the Page about Key Lime Pie. There are some gross inaccuracies with the pictures displayed on the page. I wouldn't presume to edit these but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention. Key Lime Pie is never served with meringue and most certainly is NEVER, EVER green. It came to the keys with workers who came over from the Bahamas and is an adaption of Bahamian Sour Orange pie. Whew...had to get that off my chest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2560:4190:30E1:BBA0:1634:3AD3 (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. I agree that the photos in the article are not the best, but our articles reflect what reliable sources say. I am the main writer of an article about a culinary topic Salade niçoise, where there is great disagreement about which ingredients should be used in the dish. Wikipedia articles need to reflect both sides of a controversy, which I tried to reflect in that article. When I did a Google search for Key lime pie sources, I found an article in Southern Living, that describes the controversy about meringue vs whipped cream as an issue that might start a riot. There are clearly two sides rather than a single answer.There are recipes from notable chefs that include meringue, and those from other notable chefs that exclude meringue. Martha Stewart has recipes both ways. So, your statement that "Key Lime Pie is never served with meringue" is an expression of your legitimate opinion, but not a statement of fact. All that being said, the current version of the article is weak and can definitely be improved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've eaten green Key Lime pie, with meringue yet. Ravenswing 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it about this page: Key lime pie? --CiaPan (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And the key photo is not green. The article can probably do without the secondary photo, which is a slice of stacked KLPs, middle one dyed green. Both no topping and meringue appear to have some history as options. I do agree that whipped cream or Cool Whip as toppings is an abomination. David notMD (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking within a reference

This diff shows a link to a company within a reference. The editor has made other linking edits elsewhere where this company is mentioned in references. Should they be un-done? ―Buster7 ☎ 06:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Buster7. I see no problem with that wikilink. It is not an external link to some random company website as spam, but rather a link to our article about the publisher of the source used in the reference. I routinely link to notable authors, notable books, notable newspapers and magazines, and notable publishers in my references, including in several Good articles. I believe such links help our readers evaluate the reliability of sources. I think only one person has ever said they disagreed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buster7 Hi, I have reverted the edit as I have never come across linking in citing source; however, to say that, I agreed with user:Cullen328 comment above. You are welcome to revert my edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guys. I'd never come across it either. That's what made it unusual and worthy of doubt. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is a WP:CITEVAR issue. Either link or don't link metadata, but whatever you do, do it consistently. Don't changed established format without achieving consensus first. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's common to wikilink newspaper/journal/publisher/website/author/whatever in citation templates when they have an article. The same article already did it many times. Just look at all the blue links in the references section at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation at Template:Cite web says publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited and website: Title of website; may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work. The other citation templates have similar instructions. I routinely link the names of notable publications when i cite them. I don't think this is a CITEVAR issue, but one of improving the metadata that anyone can and should do in any cite at any time. I don't think there is such a thing as a Wikipedia style that intentionally omits all such links, it is mrely that editors have not yet added them. If the same publi cation is cited many tiems, it is arguable that it need not be linked multiple times. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

change username

Hello, I want to change my username because I can't use this one. Can you explain me how to change it please? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabcockWanson94 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BabcockWanson94 Welcome to Teahouse! I think your motivation (I cant use this one) is because of conflict of interest (COI) where you are the creator for Draft:Babcock Wanson article. Even you change your user name, you still need to disclose COI.

(A) COI

Please visit here on how to disclose COI on Wikipedia.
You need to disclosed on your user page (pls unhide to the template to view info)
Disclose COI in the article talk page (see template)
If you are paid editor, please lease go to Paid-contribution disclosure where you could find several options for disclosure. State on your userpage that you are being paid by named "XXX" company/person for "XXX article"
You could request other Wikipedia editors to edit for you instead by placing {{request edit}} on affected article talk page.

(B) Change your username

Please read change of username info prior request the change
Place {{User previous account}} of your previous username on your user page.
Please visit WP:CHUS for change your user name.

In addition, your draft article has been decline. Please read write in a neutral point of view as the current stage it reads like a advertising document. Also you need more independent, reliable sources instead rely mostly with content from official site.Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me What Is Wrong With This Article

There is something odd in the 1964 entry of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAMAS_Award_for_Best_Supporting_Actor). I just copy paste the default entry as a template for the year but seems like the appearance is quite odd. I don't know what I miss in editing this but I checked everything in the edit and seems like it is fine and I don't know why it appears like this. Please help let me know what did I miss in this edit so I will know. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady olympia (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lady olympia. 1963 had a wrong rowspan which affected 1964. I have fixed it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, after PrimeHunter fixed it but before he responded here, I removed all the "width=" settings which were causing the tables to be the full width of the screen. If you prefer them the way they were, please revert my edits. Maproom (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for add my name on naagin 3 page

hello sir, i am a actor and i am first debut from naagin 3 serial. thats why i want to add my name in naagin 3 page. my name - Rajpal singh rajput my charactor - Dhruv (friends of main lead) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpalsinghr (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rajpalsinghr Welcome to our Teahouse. We do not need your email address to respond to your question, so I have removed it for your privacy, and an administrator may delete it from the edit history to protect your interests. You have already asked this question in the right place - the Talk Page of the Naagin 3 article, so you do not need to repeat it here. I see you have been invited to supply a url to a source to substantiate (prove) what you say. If you can do this, another editor may well make that edit on your behalf. So it's up to you now to provide that evidence, please. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajpalsinghr: Having now looked back at some of your recent edits, I don't understand why you have not listened to the recent helpful advice - and indeed warnings - that past editors have given you on editing this article, or adding content about yourself. What is it that you did not understand the first time on the series of warnings given to you on your talk page? I'm afraid you are just wasting my time and everyone else's if you simply repeat the same question again and again without ever acting on the advice given to you. You won't get a different answer, but you will find yourself blocked from editing again if you continue to try to promote yourself on Wikipedia without providing any evidence to back up your involvement. It's as simple as that. Whilst "manners makyth man", here it's "both manners and evidence that makyth Wikipedia". Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria

Hello all, as a really new member I would like to know what the Notability criteria are.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria ch gr (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Maria ch gr welcome to our Teahouse. Notability is the critical threshold which every subject with a page on this Encyclopaedia has to meet if that page is to remain here. It really means we need to know that other people, independent of the subject have deemed that thing/person/place/concept sufficiently noteworthy to have written about it in depth, be it in books, newspapers, journals etc. We don't accept evidence of noteworthiness from people associated with that person or organisation, as they're likely to have a bit of a conflict of interesting wanting to promote their favourite subject! It can get a bit complicated because different areas (films, books, software, actors, places) can have specific notability criteria written about them. This is to help people understand the bar for acceptance, and against which we seek a consensus of opinion from other editors when discussing whether a subject is notable (and should remain here), or isn't notable (and so should have its article removed). You can read a whole lot more on this subject at Wikipedia:Notability, and also by following other links on that page, too. I hope this helps. Oh, by the way, in future, could you remember to sign all your postes with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically adds your name and a timestamp to your messages? Thanks. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the page created

Please,what really happened with the page i created? what should i do/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwachukwu ruphina (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is about Draft:Prof. Oreh Catherine Ikodiya. You (or maybe someone else) submitted it as an article, and it was rejected for the usual reason: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." You can improve the draft, in particular by adding several references to reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject; or you can give up and abandon this attempt to create an article. Maproom (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, there it is, as a Draft. You have only one citation. Need others. What the subject has published has no bearing on credibility, and actually, that list should not be part of the article. Also, do you have any connection to C.I. Oreh? Family? Friend? Co-worker? Paid to create this article? This should be stated in the Talk of the Draft. Lastly, in your other edits, you are designating them as minor when they are not. Minor is for very small changes such as grammar, typos, spelling corrections, etc. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added information to a page was deleted

Hello.

I added some information the the bellow page and even cited an official source. For some reason, it was remove with no explanation.

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

What did I do wrong?

What is the right process to edit pages?

Thanks!

Benoit Coutu — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenitoBC (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BenitoBC! I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but that list is only for the "Knight/Dame Grand Cross (GCVO)". The comment to the edit that removed your addition said "The Duke of Sussex is only a KCVO", which would indicate he's only a "Knight/Dame Commander" and thus doesn't belong in the list. If this is incorrect, I'd advise you to add him again but make sure that you also include a reliable source so other editors can see where you got your information from. /Julle (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenitoBC (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion policy/confused (trying to help with maintenance)

Hello all and thanks for the invite! I'm struggling with some of the policies and where to find information sometimes, but, for the most part getting around alright.

I do have a question about why a very very very low resolution, small, picture file was rejected from being deleted because "it's being used," but there are very-high resolution version(s) of it also on Wiki Commons. That there are high-res versions was one of the reasons I gave for deleting it. (One is a JPEG and one is a TIFF, so using the JPEG should be just fine since there can be a lower-res version preview). I got prompted to help sort images for deletion, so, it's just kind of funny/odd for that to be rejected. Am I missing something?

(For reference, here's what I tagged for speedy deletion: File:Calvin Coolidge receiving statue of Boy Scout outside the White House 1927.jpg

and here is a high-res version of it: File:President greets visiting boy scouts. 1500 boy scouts from N.Y., N.J., & Conn. making annual pilgrimage to the Capitol being greeted at the White House by President Coolidge LCCN94508179.jpg )

Thanks in advance! Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions. In order to qualify for deletion, the files have to be exactly the same, except for resolution. The bigger picture here does not have the edges cropped out, so it's not the same.

What you could do is upload a new version of the big image with the edges cropped out exactly the way they are in the smaller one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add, while "in-use" is always a valid way to keep files, it the case I describe above the low-resolution crops should be replaced with the identical high-resolution crops. That way the old file could be deleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something along those lines, but definitely didn't want to wing it!Finnusertop. Thank you so much for clarifying and explaining it that way! Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftspace Draft vs. Userspace Draft?

Hey there, just wondering what exactly the benefits of making a Userspace Draft over a Draftspace Draft is?

Thanks!

Melias C (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melias C. In principle, no one has ownership over Wikipedia content, so it does not matter where you make drafts. But in practice, as a matter of etiquette, people often choose not to edit others' userpages. So, you'll be more likely to see other editors improve drafts in the Draft space than in the User space. In that regard, chose whichever suits you best.

There is one technical difference however. All pages in the Draft space can be deleted after 6 months if no one has improved them. For drafts in User space, they will have to go through an individual deletion discussion first. If you have {{AFC submission}} on a userpage draft, however, it can be deleted after 6 months without discussion.

In sum, if you are planning to have your draft ready within 6 months, it does not matter. You can do as you please. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll go ahead and start my article then! Melias C (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing different pages from a book

I am interested in how I can reference multiple instances of different page numbers from a single work without resorting to making several citations of the same source differing only in the page or pages. I'm reasonably sure that's a thing we can do but have not run into an article using it yet.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rap Chart Mike: This is probably what you're looking for: Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers. I've used the notation before and it's definitely a time-saver. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That and the Help:Shortened footnotes mentioned in there are exactly what I'm looking for. Much Obliged @Drm310. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template for citing a chapter of an edited book

Is there a citation template that would allow to cite a chapter in an edited book in the following way?

Suppose the book is Morton Edward, Bloom Francesca and Harold Pinter (editors), Analysis of Moon-river, Elsevier, Rockport 1991 and it contains a chapter by Einstein Alfred with the title "Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C", pages n-m

The template I'm looking for should allow you to cite Einstein's article in the following way:
Einstein, Alfred."Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C" in Morton Edward, Bloom Francesca and Harold Pinter (editors), Analysis of Moon-river, Elsevier, Rockport 1991

or, even better, if one uses short citations:
Einstein 1991. Einstein, Alfred."Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C" in Morton 1991
and, on a different line,
Morton Edward (1991) Morton Edward, Bloom Francesca and Harold Pinter (editors), Analysis of Moon-river, Elsevier, Rockport 1991.

Thank you for answering my question. Piero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piero Caracciolo (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Piero Caracciolo:,

a Template:cite book with chapter parameters like:

{{cite book |last=Einstein |first=Alfred |editor-last1=Morton |editor-first1=Edward |editor-last2=Bloom |editor-first2=Francesca |editor-last3=Pinter |editor-first3=Harold |title=Analysis of Moon-river |publisher=Elsevier |date=1991 |chapter=Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C |location = Rockport |isbn=}}

would result in:

Einstein, Alfred (1991). "Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C". In Morton, Edward; Bloom, Francesca; Pinter, Harold (eds.). Analysis of Moon-river. Rockport: Elsevier.

Not exactly your formatting, but it should contain all information in the appropriate places and with MOS-compliant formatting. See the "Examples" in Template:cite book for other variations and use cases. You can link this citation with shortened footnotes as well. GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets

I would like to centralize the discussion of Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets here rather than on the talk pages of multiple reviewers. I reviewed this draft in a sandbox in April and declined it. At the time it was hard to tell what it was about because it did not have a well-formed lede and appeared to be about two people rather than about one subject. It is about two people who performed in public together. A few days ago, User:MUMACHA2203 improved it and resubmitted it and User:Legacypac declined it as not showing notability, and I said that it appeared to be written to praise the subjects rather than describing them neutrally. They have an article in the Telugu Wikipedia. I understand that each language Wikipedia has its own standards, and that inclusion in another Wikipedia is not evidence of notability, and that Telugu language sources are acceptable.

The author has since been discussing the draft at my talk page and that of User:Legacypac. I have had difficulty addressing and responding to that discussion, and it appears that the author is having difficulty trying to discuss in English, but I don’t know Telugu, and English is the language for discussion in the English Wikipedia. I stated that perhaps User:MUMACHA2203 would benefit from a co-author who is more fluent in English. (I tried to be diplomatic.) They then, evidently in good-faith error, created a second copy of the draft, and moved both drafts into article space as ready for article space. User:Discospinster then draftified one article as not ready for article space. User:CambridgeBayWeather then draftified the other article. I then converted one of the two drafts into a redirect to the other. One draft is now in draft space. User:MUMACHA2203 is continuing to post to my talk page and those of Legacypac and Discospinster. They say that the poets are notable, and that other poets have articles that were written to praise them. I realize that the author wants to have his poetic heroes memorialized, but I think that further discussion on the talk pages of multiple editors is not helping. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great summary. Notwithstanding the claims of the creator I suspect the real reason this page was created was to support the release of a new book of these poems - a commercial purpose. The draft pretty much says no one paid any attention to them while they were alive or since which screams "not notable" to me. Given the AfC rejections and their decision to move it to mainspace twice, a return to mainspace for an AfD would be in order, or MfD it and push for a proper discussion on notability. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, Poetry doesn't sell; I do not think attributing commercial motives is reasonable.

Robert McClenon, I think your suggestion to editor to draft in native Telugu, and have translated to English, best. Might pick up better sources on the way.

I assume good faith and further suggest to both of you that an important cultural difference - besides language and Wikipedia standards - is likely at play. It is obvious from the source I found in seconds (and just added to Draft Talk page) that these poetic performers may have been among the last of their type, oral poets, and venerated as much as I venerate Homer. I made suggestions for an article I would love to read, with reliable sources in a foreign language if need be. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paulscrawl - You refer to drafting the page in Telugu. There is already an article in Telugu. The author argues that as part of the reason why I should accept the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I looked at Telugu article and from what I gleaned with Google Translate it has better chances. I asked (in English) for translation into fluent English, to be posted on Talk page of draft. Left summary note & link and pinged from draft Talk page. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions about either the difficulty in discussing the article in English, or about posting essentially the same complaint on the talk pages of multiple reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon On language difficulties, I looked at posts and agree that another editor needed to collaborate. Perhaps translator will step in. See below for second question. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette Question

Is there agreement that if an editor has suggested that discussion about a draft article be continued in some public forum, such as here, or at the Village Pump, and has made that statement on their talk page, that it is not useful to continue to discuss on multiple user talk pages? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, Robert McClenon i would think that the best place is on the talk page of the draft, but in any case split discussions are unhelpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I think virtually all substantive discussions of article or draft content belongs on the respective article or draft Talk page. Other forums, like this, may be used for meta discussion, talk about Talk, user behavior, etc. and to solicit further input at source Talk page, but without all content-related discussion on most relevant Talk page transparency, history, and context are lost. Should a user post article-related content on my Talk page, after not reading my crystal clear warning template, I would simply cut and paste to article Talk page with a courtesy ping to the user. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Mainspace for AFD

User:Legacypac says that "a return to mainspace for an AFD would be in order". Returned or moved by whom? I think that, for a reviewer or other third-party editor, moving a page from draft space to article space in order to nominate it for deletion is a terrible idea, disrespectful of the purpose of article space, which is that article space is the outward face of Wikipedia to the readers. If you don't think that a draft belongs in article space, don't put it in article space. Don't put it in article space just to take advantage of AFD. That isn't right. If you don't think it belongs in article space, leave it somewhere else. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think it belongs in draft space, go ahead and nominate it for MFD, with a valid MFD rationale. Using article space just for a deletion discussion is a terrible idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my words out of context. There are situations where a page should be retained or returned to mainspace to face AfD. As you know certian busybodies with no experience in Draft management prevent MfD from functioning to properly to deal with problematic pages. Where notability needs to be tested AfD seems to be the appropriate venue. Occasionally a page is Draftified instead of AfD'd in error. That decision should be overturnable. In a recent case Robert called a page a "fugative from justice" when the creator moved it out of AfC to mainspace than back to Draft when someone sought deletion. Frankly there are maybe several hundred thousand pages already in mainspace that deserve deletion right now and many more that are unreferemced and/or have countless other problems. I can't see much harm in an extra one sitting there unindexed (just like a Draft) for a week with an AfD tag while we figure out if it deserves to live or die and interested editors take a shot at fixing it. If the creator already placed it in mainspace what's the big harm in putting it back? Just look at all the other pages sitting in maknspace under AfD that may be found delete worthy. Why are they fine to be in mainspace while under discussion but a page that was moved to Draft is not appropriate to be put back in mainspace for proper consideration? Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - How have your words been taken out of context? What are the situations in which you think that a page in draft space should be moved or returned to mainspace to face AFD? Please explain. I agree that there are several hundred thousand pages in article space that don't belong there. Is that a reason to add one more? I don't think so. Are you saying that questionable pages in draft space are such a dreadful burden on the precious research of draft space that it is better for them to be questionable pages in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this before. At this point I feel you are not looking for advice or discussion but to get me to say something in a way it can be used against me. Try discussing this with User:DGG who can't be banned or sanctioned for his comments. Legacypac (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI Inquiry

User:MUMACHA2203 - Does your academic department have an interest in the publication of a book on the poets? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

How to submit a page for review??

Noname479 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Noname479, I believe Draft:Sanjay Kukreja is the said article you referred to and which you have submitted for review; however it has been rejected due to subject has not established Wikipedia notability requirements and source are mainly primary instead of independent, reliable source. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contact a User

How do I contact a user directly and privately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdHardTruth (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the user have the "Email This User" feature enabled? If so, you can email them. However, it is usually better to conduct Wikipedia-related discussions in public on talk pages, either user talk pages or article talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ColdHardTruth, Welcome to Teahouse! if this is regarding Majid Rafizadeh page and there are disagreements on the sourced/unsourced content and referencing on wrong subject (there are two scholars with the same name) then, please bring the discussion to the article talk page which currently there is a thread there - pls see - different people?|Two different people?. If after many attempts and parties involved could not come a consensus agreement (make sure all discussion and suggestions are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines with presented independent sources), please bring the issue to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

If in any case, it is not regarding the issue above you can contact the edito here provided both the sender (you in this case) and recipient must have allowed user emails in their preferences.

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar or Burma?

I noticed that Kaing Shwedaung uses the country name "Burma". However, from my understanding, "Myanmar" is the official name. Should the page be changed to say "Myanmar", or should it stay the way it is right now? What is Wikipedia's policy on this?

Thanks! Hickland (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hickland and welcome to the Teahouse.

The governing policy for this is known as COMMONNAME. WP uses the name that is predominantly used by reliable sources in discussing the subject. Official names or the desires of the subject are not determinative of what name is used on WP. If you go to Talk:Myanmar, you'll see that there has been considerable discussion about which name should be used for the article. At the time the Kaing Shwedaung article was created, Burma was still the name used on WP for the country. Since there is no ambiguity about the country intended, there is no urgency to replace all uses of "Burma". You could do this now or leave things the way they are; I don't think there's a policy-based reason not to do it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you very much! I will choose to leave the article as is right now :) Hickland (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

feedback on revisions

Hi I revised big-time an article, (tripled length and references) using my Sandbox, and then clicked the Submit box. Two month wait, and I wonder if there is a different way to get a review before posting. Or should I just post it? It is competent, not a controversial proof of an alien invasion conspiracy etc., but ... Appreciate any feedback / redirects. Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeeBee60 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm sure it has happened before, but this is the first time I have encountered someone asking for AfC review of a sandbox created as a rewrite of an existing article. Flatly, this is not what AfC review is intended to do. I looked at your sandbox but don't feel competent to give feedback on your expansion of the original article. The optimal place to find people interested in the article is on the talk page of the original article (which you kind of credited when you copied it into your sandbox, but should really have more explicitly followed COPYWITHIN). The next best place would be the talk page of WikiProject Medicine or, if it exists, an applicable subproject of that WikiProject. If you're confident that you've done a good job on the rewrite, check for contributions by other editors in the intervening two months, make sure those changes are incorporated or addressed in your draft, and copypaste your sandbox into the content of Monomelic amyotrophy (again, with attribution according to COPYWITHIN). This is a pretty common practice by experienced editors and the discussion can proceed from there, if anyone has objections. When someone makes a big change to an article, there is often some pushback, so you may want to post a general explanation of what you did at Talk:Monomelic amyotrophy just to lay out your reasoning. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A different editor has declined the submission for the same reason as above - for an existing article, change it, don't replace it. What I've done in similar situations is copy my replacement content from my Sandbox section by section and paste those into the article, starting with replacing existing sections and then inserting your entirely new sections. I see that you have already described your intention in the article's Talk. Once that is done you may have to clean up orphaned and duplicated references. Note that I went into your Sandbox and shortened your draft. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marshmallych/GeckoLinux

Hello, this article does look good? I think, it got small problems. Check, please. Marshmallych 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marshmallych and welcome to the Teahouse.

One of the most important considerations for accepting an article is whether the subject is notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. In fact, there's a special set of considerations called NSOFTWARE that applies here. As far as I know, WP does not have a policy that says every Linux distribution should have its own article. And the fact that other Linux distributions do have an article is not, all by itself, sufficient reason for adding an article on another Linux distribution. So how do you think GeckoLinux stacks up against those criteria? Have you been able to find some in-depth coverage that is not written the project itself? Has it been written about by someone who is not best considered part of an enthusiast niche?

I think the other deficiencies of your article can easily be addressed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue of notability with a biographical article on a Hindi writer

I have created this draft article Draft:Gopal Narayan Authey about a Hindi writer which was recently declined for not showing adequate notability. The writer has over 60 publications in Hindi language and has received many awards for his works. However, the article is declined because of the person not having significant coverage in news, books or peer-reviewed journals. I have used references from four news sources, one magazine source, two public library catalogues, one journal and one database among other sources. I have used total 33 references. How does the significant coverage for notability is defined? I see many other Wikipedia articles having fewer references to be accepted. Please help me. Atul Anand 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Anand TISS (talk • contribs)

Hello, Atul Anand TISS. Try to find more of the news and magazine kind. Library catalogues and database are fine for what you do: verify his publications and awards, but they are not significant coverage. Citing a million library catalogue entries will not help if this person has not been covered in any depth in news, magazines, and books. Since this person's career spans decades, you should see if there are printed (paper) sources about him. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Declined - Need Help

Hi! :)

My article has recently been declined due to the lack of notability. Could anyone please help me to identify the notable sources as well as those which are not notable enough from the list I provided under my article?

As far as I know these are well-known sources in the markets they represent, therefore I feel confused on how to proceed further. I made a long list collecting various sources where Harba was mentioned, and selected only those which based on Wikipedia hidelines seemed notable.

Here is the article I was working on -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harba_ApS

Thank you very much in advance.

/Jolita — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoliPu (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JoliPu It is a 3-year old start-up company, that has created 1 app. There are a few mentions here and there about the app, but not about the company, and that is to be expected when a company is very young. The source you mentioned on Special:Permalink/842888472#07:21:25, 25 May 2018 review of submission by JoliPu: "Djurslandsposten - Uge 35" (in Danish). Retrieved May 25, 2018. is a short mention in an article about the small marina da:Nappedam. It is much too early to write an article about this company. Sam Sailor 11:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User threatening, pushing his political agenda

This guy Adamstraw99 is threatening me with some action even though I've warned him from advertising his political party on Chandigarh. This is against Wikipedia rules as far as I know. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandigarh&diff=842899233&oldid=842899051 Please see history. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.61.197.22 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Don't be panic. Actually Adamstraw99 will violate WP:3RR if he undoes one more time, not you, don't undo anything on that page yet. Discussion should be started in the article's talk page. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "advertisement" in question consists of mentioning which political party a MP represents, which to me seems a perfectly normal thing to do. Please remember to assume that other editors act in good faith, that is, that they are interested in improving the encyclopedia. And as AE says above, please use the article's talk page to discuss instead of just reverting back to your preferred version. --bonadea contributions talk 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikiexplorer13. Wikiexplorer13 is evading block. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of "Discovery"

I get that the article on the Age of Exploration, probably unfortunately titled "Age of Discovery", is something that would inspire edit wars by its nature, and thus is protected. My question is how to get someone with the privilege to edit protected pages to change the mention in the article of the "Straight [sic] of Gibraltar" to the correct spelling "Strait". Now that I've seen it, that's going to bug me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Sherman, Esq. (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@William Sherman, Esq.: Corrected, thanks! Sam Sailor 15:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. You rock, swabby. William Sherman, Esq. (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, William Sherman, Esq., if you click on the padlock icon in the top-right corner of a protected article, it will take you to the instructions for making an edit request - in this case, Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERBOX For Wrestling Fans

Hi, I need some help here to create userbox, I want to create a user box as a Fan of WWE I want to create a user box for the fans(including me) of Sonya Deville and Mandy Rose. Thank You.

Especially needed for those who have sympathy for/ and are fans of these 2 WWE female wrestlers. CK (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does my username violate username policy?

I was wondering if my username PorkchopGMX violates username policy, the GMX part comes from GMX Mail, where i signed up as PorkchopGMX. I liked the username and decided to use it on most places i signed up to. I signed up for a wikipedia account, and used the username PorkchopGMX on Wikipedia. I don't work at GMX Mail, nor do i have any affiliation with them, i just put it in my username because i liked it. Is this okay? If not i will change my wikipedia username. Thanks Porkchop GMX 16:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, PorkchopGMX, and welcome to our Teahouse. Thank you very much for being concerned and considerate enough of our policies to ask your question here. My take on it is that there is no problem whatsoever using those three letters in your username. I don't think it's too closely linked to be of any concvern at all. Assuming that "Porkchop" isn't itself used as an offensive or racist term in some countries (and I'm not aware that it is, and many others have used it), my only worry would be that you might now have given enough information away for someone to know your genuine email address and to make direct contact with you.

I don't know your age, but see that you are still in school. Wikipedia takes great care to ensure the privacy and safety of all its editors, especially those of children. So, please have a read of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, and be aware that our helpful administrators can assist you if you have - or ever do - accidentally release any personal information here that you wish you hadn't (emails, address, phone number etc), and they have the ability to permanently remove such content from past edit histories - something that is only rarely done. It's even possible to email them directly with your concerns, rather than repeat information you'd probably not want to draw attention to publicly. Curiously, I've only just today had to advise another new editor that they might wish to consider changing their username because it might be violate our username policy as containing an offensive word. But in your case, I personally don't see any concerns other than those outlined above. See this bit of our username policy should you wish to change your account name. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Company Wikipedia - Questions

Hi All - I love to consume wikipedia content and I've poked around making edits to some articles. Recently, I've taken a new (paid) job and I see that our organization's wiki entries might need some cleaning up. I do not plan on removing or adding any content, just condensing the confusing multiple articles into one. If I do actually want to tackle this, what is the clearest way to indicate I work for this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocad-no (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what templates to use

I was editing Hopkins_Library and recieved the impression it was observing the topic in an almost nostalgic/poetic way. I was wondering whether the local template would fit it, but peacock also might fit or the article might need citations of some sort. I would like to hear your opinion on the subject to learn more about the concise usage of cleanup templates. Any and all help will be appreciated. A Lambent Eye (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Lambent Eye: Perhaps {{Tone}}? You can see a fuller list here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also always {{sofixit}}, of course. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested using the story template on the talk page. Thank you for your help. A Lambent Eye (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 Hi, I'd like to know about how to use [[Template:Uw-npa1]]. The text says: "Hello, I'm Example. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you."
-I know how to put the template on someone's talk page. But are there instructions or a guideline that explains under what circumstances I can remove another editor's comment (or portions thereof) on a talk page, because it "didn't seem very civil", as the template says? The actual case is here: [[Talk:Münsterstraße_(street_in_Dortmund)#Notability]]. It's not really terribly rude, I mean there's no swearing... but actually it's rude! There is an AfD discussion about the article, and I meant to politely suggest that people should direct any relevant notability comments there, while it's active, instead of to the talk page. The reply from {{noping|Otr500}} seems sarcastic, provocative, and, well, uncivil. "Thank you for your improper instructions", "you do not have the authority, unless you bought the rights from Wikipedia, to dictate that article content", "if you did purchase this article, I will apologize in advance and refrain from future edits"...
+I know how to put the template on someone's talk page. But are there instructions or a guideline that explains under what circumstances I can remove another editor's comment (or portions thereof) on a talk page, because it "didn't seem very civil", as the template says? The actual case is here: [[Talk:Münsterstraße_(street_in_Dortmund)#Notability]]. It's not really terribly rude, I mean there's no swearing... but actually it's rude! There is an AfD discussion about the article, and I meant to politely suggest that people should direct any relevant notability comments there, while it's active, instead of to the talk page. The reply from {{oping[[User:Bash kid na|Bash kid na]] ([[User talk:Bash kid na|talk]]) 18:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)|Otr500}} seems sarcastic, provocative, and, well, uncivil. "Thank you for your improper instructions", "you do not have the authority, unless you bought the rights from Wikipedia, to dictate that article content", "if you did purchase this article, I will apologize in advance and refrain from future edits"...
 I've been active on Wikipedia for more than a decade now, and so far have never had the occasion to want to use this template, but for some reason, these particular sarcastic and rude remarks toward me and, further on to another editor (You will have to enlighten the Wikipedia world as to the meaning of [your comments]", "Please also note during this editing 101 class that...]] and so on, have really pushed my buttons! Any advice appreciated, thanks. --[[User:IamNotU|IamNotU]] ([[User talk:IamNotU|talk]]) 03:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-: Hello {{u|IamNotU}} and welcome to the Teahouse.
+: Hello {{u|IamNotU}} and welcome to the Tea house.
 : More a violation of [[WP:AGF|AGF]], I think. You could graciously ignore the comment, it's an easy way to go.
-: The warning templates are not magic. The wording has been worked out carefully to be civil, non-antagonistic, but firm. You could post your own admonition, based on the warning template, but ommitting the "so it has been removed" phrase. But you should not remove any comments.
+: The warning templates are not magic. The wording has been worked out carefully to be civil, non-antagonistic, but firm. You could post your own admonition, based on the warning template, but omitting the "so it has been removed" phrase. But you should not remove any comments.
-: My reading is that {{u|Otr500}} was making an overly sarcastic response to your advice. I agree with them that your advice was largely incorrect. [[WP:EDITATAFD]] says that even if an article is up for AfD, one can continue to edit the article (within certain limits) and discuss improvements on its talk page. There is no need to wait for the Afd discussion to conclude. Of course, it's a also good idea to get any notability advocacy into the AfD discussion as well, so you were partially correct.
+: My reading is that {{u|Otr500}} was making an overly sarcastic response to your advice. I agree with them that your advice was largely incorrect. [[WP:EDITATAFD]] says that even if an article is up for AfD, one can continue to edit the article (within certain limits) and discuss improvements on its talk page. There is no need to wait for the Afd discussion to conclude. Of course, it's a also good idea to get any notability advocacy into the AfD discussion as well, so you were partially correct.i just don't get the fact that the host of this article said rude but i do not see any thing relating to rude here . for me the imprecision is not a bad one
 : And if you watch the AfD, you'll see that it turns on rather fine points of policy; the consensus may see things Otr500's way or perhaps conclude, instead, that some aspect of [[WP:NGEO|NGEO]] or other argument for '''keep''' is more applicable.
-: So my strong recommendation is to leave everything alone and just use this incident as a learning experience. '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">—&nbsp;jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#0eff1a">(talk)</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#196633">(contribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 06:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
+: So my strong recommendation is to leave everything alone and just use this incident as a learning experience. '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">—&nbsp;jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#0eff1a">(talk)</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#196633">(cont ribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 06:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-::{{u|jmcgnh}}, thanks for your answer. I guess they were deliberately trying to provoke me, and I guess it worked... but probably I shouldn't let it get to me. I'm still curious about the template, and why it says the comment "has been removed". I understood that you shouldn't remove other peoples' comments, so it seems odd. In the meantime I found [[WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL]], which helps explain it, though not completely... I didn't suggest people shouldn't edit the article, I just meant to ask if there were additional arguments relevant to the AfD discussion, that they could go there, rather than splitting off into two separate threads and having to cross-reference each other. It didn't seem like a helpful idea to spill the AfD discussion over to the talk page while it was still active. I admit that saying "this page is about article content" is not really right. In any case, a polite correction would have been nice instead of uncivil sarcasm... I'll try to graciously ignore it, though it's maybe too late for that now, as it looks like you pinged the user who will come here and read this? I was kind of hoping to just get some advice before saying anything to them (or not)... Anyway, thanks again. --[[User:IamNotU|IamNotU]] ([[User talk:IamNotU|talk]]) 13:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
+::{{u|jmcgnh}}, thanks for your answer. I guess they were deliberately trying to provoke me, and I guess it worked... but probably I shouldn't let it get to me. I'm still curious about the template, and why it says the comment "has been removed". I understood that you shouldn't remove other peoples' comments, so it seems odd. In the meantime I found [[WP:REMOVE UNCIVIL]], which helps explain it, though not completely... I didn't suggest people shouldn't edit the article, I just meant to ask if there were additional arguments relevant to the AfD discussion, that they could go there, rather than splitting off into two separate threads and having to cross-reference each other. It didn't seem like a helpful idea to spill the AfD discussion over to the talk page while it was still active. I admit that saying "this page is about article content" is not really right. In any case, a polite correction would have been nice instead of uncivil sarcasm... I'll try to graciously ignore it, though it's maybe too late for that now, as it looks like you pinged the user who will come here and read this? I was kind of hoping to just get some advice before saying anything to them (or not)... Anyway, thanks again. --[[User:IamNotU|IamNotU]] ([[User talk:IamNotU|talk]]) 13:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-:::Hi {{U|IamNotU}}, I do understand how you feel for being treated for what you are not accustom to as what your background would deem a behavior is not acceptable/polite in social setting. You could visit this page for information on [[WP:NPA|what constitutes personal attack]]. Counter vandalism team members,(or any other editor), we do revert/remove the personal attack edit and placing a "npa" (no personal attack) warning template on the said editor talk page and would continue to increase the warning level if the same type of edit continues.  If personal attack edit is on user page / user talk page then it is constitutes "vandalism" edit and if the attack is particularity serious and extremely derogatory such as sexual/sexual orientation harassment, trolling with profanity, legal/violent treats we could report the editor to [[WP:AIV|Administrator intervention against vandalism]] immediately.  There are some differences  between what is not a civil behaviour vs personal attack. In Wikipedia, not respond to multiple requests on unexplained edits/ or not cooperative might consider not civil but editor has committed  no personal attack here, and that would be the same for being condescending, patronizing, or silly name calling (such as calling editor an idiot even their behavior fits the term). I hope the above help. Cheers and have a wonderful day. [[User:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>]]<sup>([[User talk:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>]])</sup> 00:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
+:::Hi {{U|IamNotU}}, I do understand how you feel for being treated for what you are not accustom to as what your background would deem a behavior is not acceptable/polite in social setting. You could visit this page for information on [[WP:NPA|what constitutes personal attack]]. Counter vandalism team members,(or any other editor), we do revert/remove the personal attack edit and placing a "npa" (no personal attack) warning template on the said editor talk page and would continue to increase the warning level if the same type of edit continues.  If personal attack edit is on user page / user talk page then it is constitutes "vandalism" edit and if the attack is particularity serious and extremely derogatory such as sexual/sexual orientation harassment, trolling with profanity, legal/violent treats we could report the editor to [[WP:AIV|Administrator intervention against vandalism]] immediately.  There are some differences  between what is not a civil behavior vs personal attack. In Wikipedia, not respond to multiple requests on unexplained edits/ or not cooperative might consider not civil but editor has committed  no personal attack here, and that would be the same for being condescending, patronizing, or silly name calling (such as calling editor an idiot even their behavior fits the term). I hope the above help. Cheers and have a wonderful day. [[User:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>]]<sup>([[User talk:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>]])</sup> 00:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[[User:Bash kid na|Bash kid na]] ([[User talk:Bash kid na|talk]]) 18:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 == Why "award-winning" is peacock term? ==