Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TH/Q)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Contents

WP teahouse logo.png

What is and is not appropriate language for a Wikipedia article[edit]

Hi, I have been following what looks like the beginning of an editing war, which I do not understand. My general question though, is first of all, is there some reason that just because someone said something, that that something has to be quoted on Wikipedia? The quote I have been following here:Anthony Scaramucci/Politics, seems to be unrelated to anything about this man, ie, totally irrelevant, and to top it off, contains a profanity that should be avoided to the greatest extent possible on an encyclopedia that prides itself on its neutrality. It appears to me that the entire paragraph in which the profanity appears is gratuitously placed there in order to make the subject of the article look bad, ie, does not add anything to our understanding of the subject. Doesn't this violate BLP standards? Pangera (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability problem: two music artists by the same name, one is on WP, one is not...[edit]

The artists in question are:

1 - Solomon King (aka Allen V. Levy, Randy Leeds) Born August 13, 1931 in Lexington, died in Norman, Oklahoma, January 21, 2005.

2 - Solomon King the contemporary blues guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter with 4 independent LP releases since 2008, one of which was nominated for a "Best Contemporary Blues Album" Grammy; two songs used for a massively popular HBO original series; played the leading role in an independent feature film about the night Phil Spector murdered Lana Clarkson; frequently booked at blues festivals, iconic nightclubs, etc. from Hawaii to Chicago; reviews and write-ups in numerous publications over the last 9 years.

Because of WP notoriety rules, the former artist who is deceased over a decade, hadn't recorded anything for over 30 years, and never wrote a note of original music is considered notable because he had a couple of songs on the UK charts in the 1960s.

The latter artist is not considered notable because he isn't on a major label, didn't WIN a Grammy, his movie was not produced by a major studio and didn't win any major award, apparently licensed reproductions in major television series' are not considered a factor for notability, and the publications that have reviewed his work are mostly dedicated to the blues genre and therefor not "mainstream" press outlets.

I always thought of Wikipedia as a triumphant example of crowd-sourced curating, capable of telling the true stories that matter in this world of media hype, legal payola, and "fake news" (whatever that even means anymore). But, as I am digging deeper into the criteria that WP uses to determine it's content, I am finding that it's not based on relevance, accuracy, completeness, or merit at all.

WP's primary criteria is "public interest" which obviously translates directly into search hits, so I understand the importance of that content to WP's bottom line. But, don't they have an obligation as an unbiased compendium of human knowledge to include information that is RELEVANT to a subject, even if it, in itself, is not POPULAR??? Isn't the regurgitation of already-popular content, i.e. content which has "public interest" as measured by agencies of the mainstream media exclusively, just more of the same rather than being a source of complete, unbiased, uncensored information?

I came to WP to get accurate information to help differentiate the works and history of these two namesake music artists. It became a project for me after noticing that both Amazon and iTunes have no method for delineating artist identity in search results. So, in order to know whether a song or album was recorded by Artist A or Artist B, I would have to know their discographies and songbooks already. So, in trying to obtain that information I came across numerous numerous entries on sites like allmusic.com that were not accurate. An example:

The songs "Frankie & Johnny" and "Jack Me Up" are attributed to the deceased Solomon King on his record in the allmusic.com database, when in reality they were written by the living Solomon King and both were on the soundtrack of the HBO series "True Blood".

This was not at all apparent though. It was only after carefully examining the songbooks of both artists from several sources and spotting the mismatch, researching the song titles, and finally contacting the living artist and asking him if he knew anything about an artist by the same name recording two songs with the same titles as his recent recordings, that I was able to finally conclude that someone must have just copied the song list off a site, like Amazon or iTunes, perhaps without even knowing they were looking at two different artists' work listed in the same search results.

So, I am trying to disambiguate a frustrating tangle of erroneous songbooks, album releases and recording credits across the internet that have occurred because of these two artists having the same name. I was counting on Wikipedia to either provide an accurate source of data to reference, or be a venue for publishing the correct data in a trusted publication if there wasn't already an entry.

Now I find out why Wikipedia was unable to help me research this information. It's because one of the two artists wasn't "notable" enough. Well, if you are searching for one artist and another artist's work comes up right along with the one you're looking for, that artist becomes pretty damn "notable" to you.

So, being that Wikipedia is supposed to be a research tool, not an anthology of popular media icons, I suggest they append their "notability" policy to at least include an exception for non-notables with the same name as notables. Ideally, I think they should expand their criteria to include more than just mainstream success, and take into consideration timeliness and notability within a subtopic. By that I mean: for those who interested in contemporary blues artists, the living Solomon King is very notable, whereas the the deceased one is completely irrelevant.

Brown Miller Brownianproductions (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I will start by the unpleasant stuff first, but please, keep reading. I suggest you change your username, because organization names are not allowed as usernames. Moreover, I suggest you give a read to our policy on conflicts of interest and paid editing. Also, try to be more concise in your posts - I think the above could have been cut by half while keeping all the important points. Finally, in Wikipedia as in other venues, starting off in a new circle by telling everyone how they should behave when you are the new guy in town is not a great idea, even if it is a genuine offer for improvement - a much better strategy is to come with "I don't understand why..." so that if there is a good reason it gets explained to you, and if there is not it gets changed easier because you did not trigger a fight or flight response.
Now for the bottom of the issue. First thing: you found a mistake in Wikipedia (misattributed songs); great, go ahead and correct it!
One criterion Wikipedia uses to determine the content is notability, which is not quite the same as "public interest", although the difference is subtle. You obviously took some time skimming through our guideline pages, but you probably missed this part and that part, which give some advice about how to weight various measures of "public interest" (there are countless others, I will not link them all).
It is extremely unlikely that Wikipedia will adopt a rule to have articles about homonyms of notable people; to me it seems like a form of "inherited notability" (which is not valid grounds to have an article, nor should it be). If you want to propose such a rule, you should do it at WP:VPP or WT:BIO, but I would not bet a lot on you managing to get that change.
However, if as you say there are reviews and write-ups in numerous publications about the living Solomon King, these can prove notability even if not from "mainstream" sources under current rules. What matters is that the sources be reliable for their particular context. For instance, an editorial in Diapason (a French music magazine) would probably not be a reliable source for analysis of the political situation in Germany, but it would certainly support notability of a rising classical artist.
How to manage the various "Solomon King" articles if the new one is created is a merely technical issue, I can take care of that for you if you want. For now, I suggest you create Draft:Solomon King (blues artist) and add the references you know; you can read this page for the basics of article creation. Drop me a note when you are finished and I will give you further advice / submit the draft. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Need clarification with WP:RS and with WP:SELFSOURCE[edit]

Concerns with understanding WP:RS and with WP:SELFSOURCE are in regards to a new article for Talalima Mobley - basically, I've written an article about myself, Talalima Mobley, and now it has been flagged as an Article for Deletion because the sources provided aren't from fully reliable publications. However, under the WP:RS it's explained under WP:SELFSOURCES that the self-published materials may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. As long as the following criteria are met.

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

I feel that each criteria has been met, then again, I'm new to this and possibly could be wrong. If anyone can assist in verifying that my understanding is reasonable or far from it, please let me know. Please refer to the Wikipedia Article for Deletion/Talalima Mobley discussion to get the full scope of the proposed article. You're more than welcome to reach out to me at talamobley[at]styleheirs[dot]com Thank you in advance.

Inherit Love, I AM, Talalima Mobley. Talamobley (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Talamobley. Self-published sources can indeed be used in limited circumstances (i.e. to confirm uncontroversial details about a subject), but the issue here is that in order for us to have an article in the first place, our notability guideline requires there to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

assignment work[edit]

Hello i am a university student and i have an assignment to publish a Wikipedia page of a female leader in our community. I did write a draft but till now there are no reviews that it will be published or no. It has to be done this Friday. Can you help me in publishing this page. MichelleGrace01 (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi MichelleGrace01 and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid your teacher does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a blog where people post articles. The person must already be well-known to have an article as shown by sources such as newspaper articles, books, etc. published by reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Did your teacher offer you any training on writing for an encyclopedia before making the assignment? I am putting a welcome message on your talk page which will have some helpful links about writing articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Please ask your teacher to change the wording of the assignment to "write an article in Wikipedia style ..." so that the task is possible within Wikipedia rules. Dbfirs 07:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert or leave it?[edit]

Hello again. I'm wondering if I should revert the Ma Barker article to its March 19 revision. I don't personally have a problem with the recently removed material, and already have reverted two other major changes (one marked as "minor") on other articles made by the same editor in a short time (which I found unconstructive or even destructive). I also wouldn't want to be considered to "stalk" if this third revert was unwarranted. On the other hand, I only noticed these edits because of other destructive edits, one being on a page on my watchlist. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, PaleoNeonate. I took a quick look at the recent major reversion but did not spend a lot of time studying the history of the article. This looks like a situation where serious talk page discussion is in order. The issue of whether Ma Barker was just the mother of some murderers, or herself a criminal mastermind, should be described in the article based on summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say. I am unfamiliar with the literature on this topic so will not express my own opinion. The article should not reflect the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors but rather what the range of sources say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Glad to meet you again. I also can't really evaluate the quality of those sources and claims in a reasonable time, and am not particularily interested in the topic. As for the editor, he just blanked the two comments I left on his talk page without answering back, apparently moving on elsewhere to censor what he doesn't like. Maybe I could take the chance to revert his changes to this Barker article, and leave a message on the talk page as well, then, hoping that it has regular editors who will know better. I'm tempted to track this editor's future edits, but maybe should not. Or, should I, and report to ANI the next instance (which would be my third message to him) I find is obviously inappropriate? It appears that he was blocked twice in the past, for disruptive editing... Thanks again, PaleoNeonate (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the changes and left a message on the article talk page for now. PaleoNeonate (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thanks again for your kind assistance. PaleoNeonate (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


I want to improve my hometown's Wikipedia article[edit]

The article in question is Lake Tahoe, it's one step away from being a ga rating, and I want to try and push it in that direction. I have two main questions:

  1. Is there a good place to find geographical and city maps in creative commons?
  2. Is there a definitive guide that states the criteria for a good Wiki article? That could really help.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks - SpiderGnome (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SpiderGnome. You can find a full set of resources and tools regarding maps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria for a detailed description of what is expected for a Good article.
Please do not think of Lake Tahoe as an article about your "hometown". It is an article about a geographical feature, the physical lake. We have separate articles about each of the various populated communities around the perimeter of the lake, such as South Lake Tahoe, California and Zephyr Cove, Nevada. By the way, I have visited Lake Tahoe many times and you are fortunate to live in such a beautiful place.
This article went through a Good article review in 2008, but that was not a successful process at that time. Although I am sure that the article has been changed a lot since then, you may want to go back to the archived 2008 discussion to see whether all the problems identified at that time have been resolved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

my first article is nominated for deletion. on the issue of copyright and publicizing an individual. how do i solve this this[edit]

my first article is nominated for deletion. on the issue of copyright and publicizing an individual. how do i solve this this Soplux (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Soplux. As to the copyright, I saw what you wrote on the talk page, but it misses the issue. Even if that content is owned by the individual:
  1. we could not use it here unless it was released by him into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license – his permission for our use here is not what we need;
  2. such as release would have to be done in a verifiable manner and not by you claiming he had given permission, because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how this might be done), but;
  3. this material was blatantly promotional, so we could not use it here even if it was released, without a major rewrite; and
  4. it is unclear whether this individual is notable in the special sense we use that word here to mean being the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic; and if he is
  5. The way to write an article is to look for those sources first, and then only if they exist, write the article in your own words, citing those sources for their information, but not for their sentences, essentially including nothing that is not in them, and leave out every bit of evaluative and flowery promotional language. Just. The. Facts. (Which should speak for themselves.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Good day formatting my article[edit]

I was rejected for my lack of MOS. Is there a cliff note version. I certainly hope so.

Thank you Sharen Sierra (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sharen Sierra and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Writing better articles may help, but read Wikipedia:Your first article first. The article has been marked for deletion as not having been edited in over 6 months, so you will have to start working on it if you want it to stay. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating info on Fiji Times Wikipedia page[edit]

I need some help updating Fiji Times Wikipedia page as the current information is outdated and I've tried but kept getting reverted. This is an urgent issue because the information has been outdated for over 7 years now. Would really appreciate if I could have this update. Foster679 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

Hi I am trying to create an article on Dr Suresh David. I have received some help from people, It's really challenging to add, edit etc. I am trying. Need some help. When you find some free time can you please give me suggestions on how to add date of birth, award pics. Thank you so very much. Yourgirl (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi,welcome to the Teahouse. We'll try to help you. We add reliable references in articles. I suggest you to read these two pages:

Please go through these pages, and feel free to ask if you have questions. -Tito Dutta (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Yourgirl is asking about the mechanics of adding a date of birth and pictures to a biographic article, Titodutta (although a date of birth should be sourced). Dates of birth are typically added in brackets after the person's name at the start of the article, Yourgirl, as described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Opening paragraph. Adding images is a bit more complicated, but Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial tell you all you need to know. I would suggest working on ensuring that all of the content of Draft:Dr Suresh David is fully referenced to reliable, published sources first though, before trying to add images. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, remember that you are writing an encyclopedia article, not a CV. We don't need to know about every conference that David has presented at, for instance. Most of the bullet-point list items should be removed from the draft, in my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so very much everyone

I will go through the pages and make the necessary changes Yourgirl (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is that community live online help page?[edit]

HEllo, I'm new and am looking for the community live online help page where you can post questions and have real time volunteer support. I found it once and didn't bookmark it. Please advise, thx! BESH 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentMBeshara (talkcontribs)

Hello @BrentMBeshara:, you are probably referring to the IRC chat channel for online help. A link to this channel is available in the upper right box at Wikipedia:Help desk. Of course you can also always ask questions here or at the help desk. GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @GermanJoe! That's the one, cheers! BESH 18:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentMBeshara (talkcontribs)

Rules on uploading photos[edit]

I just created a bio page on an artist, Debra Yepa-Pappan, and I am a bit confused about the rules/how to upload photos. Can someone explain? 17:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

PetJ (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey PetJ. For full guidance see Wikipedia:Uploading images. In a nutshell, the first thing that has to be done is finding an image that is either 1) licensed in a way that would make it free to use on Wikipedia, or 2) able to meet our non-free content criteria. You may also want to check out our tutorial on finding images for Wikipedia.
At the end of the day, uploading images is easy, but finding images Wikipedia can use is often pretty hard. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi PetJ If the subject is currently alive only photos that are completely unencumbered by copyright restrictions may be used - then non-free content is not an option. In the vast majority of cases the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, this presumption holds unless it is conclusively proven to be otherwise. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What is a portal?![edit]

I am new and wondering...What is a portal? Nova003 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nova003. For the full explanation and lots of related links, see Wikipedia:Portal. But in a nutshell, a portal is a collection of articles related to broad topic area. So, for example if you wanted to read articles on science generally, you could browse through Portal:Science to find articles that might interest you. For the full list of Wikipedia's portals you can visit Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Search engines finding new Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi. A Wikipedia page I created -- 'A. M. Pattison' -- went live last Monday but search engines aren't listing it yet. Should they be by now? The artist's full name is 'Albert Mead Pattison' and searches using his full name do return results of other sites where his art appears, so I'm wondering whether I should have named the page using his full name instead. Thanks for your help!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. An article title should be based on the subject's common name. The choice of title doesn't govern when it gets indexed. As of a change last year, each new article is now NOINDEXed until it has been reviewed through the new page patrol process. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I marked the article as reviewed BTW. But the whole thing is quite weird. Since User:SwisterTwister is autopatrolled, my understanding is that the article should have been automatically reviewed when it was published by them at AfC. Not really sure what went wrong there. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll check to see if that has fixed the issue.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is the rule to discourage editors from claiming credit by name?[edit]

History of the Spanish language has acquired a recent edit saying "(Created by Nikki Reynolds)". I know this is inappropriate, and I'm ready to delete it, but I want to quote a Wikipedia policy rule to support my action. Where is that rule? Kotabatubara (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

At WP:SIGNATURE I find "When editing a page, main namespace articles should not be signed, because the article is a shared work, based on the contributions of many people, and one editor should not be singled out above others." Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That claim was added by an IP from Buckhannon, West Virginia, who has made no other edits - whereas the article was created in 2004, by an Australian editor, who currently has 11,500 edits, so I have simply deleted the claim. - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
My interpretation, based on the edit summary, was that the IP was jokingly claiming credit for inventing the Spanish language, not for creating the article. I would just have reverted this as vandalism, Kotabatubara. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How to change image of a page?[edit]

I want to ask you how can we change a title card picture of a drama serial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza590 (talkcontribs) 12:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hamza590. I'm sorry that your question has gone unanswered so far. I think this might be because it's not entirely clear what you mean by "title card picture". Do you mean an image at the top of an article (perhaps in the infobox, in the top-right)? Could you tell us which article you want to change? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Reply[edit]

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! nathanlucy (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, N mc lucy. WillKomen isn't actually a real person, but if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, please do ask them here and we will do our best to help. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually...if this is a wordplay on the German "Willkommen", welcome...why is it written with just one 'n'. For German speakers this looks weird :). Lectonar (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request Feedback - How to submit[edit]

I'm a new editor - first article. Been working with editors in the Help IRCChat. The feedback was to remove 2 sentences with 2 sources that didn't reflect encyclopedia tone. Otherwise it was good feedback. Made the changes. How do I Request Feedback or a review from an editor in Teahouse that would indicate it's an acceptable article to move to main space? Do I need to type in subst: submit at bottom of draft?Ktlnlindler (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your draft was moved to article space at Mary Whyte soon after you posted here, but you have been subsequently editing the draft. Perhaps you could update the live article with the latest alterations? These are the changes. Dbfirs 09:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request feedback on Draft[edit]

This is my first article. I think the draft is ready to move to the live que or main space for acceptance but I am relying on Teahouse feedback if you believe it's acceptable. The last items that needed additional editing are the following: Per suggestions from an editor, I removed quotes and 2 blog sources and put in a credible newspaper source in it's place. Source 3. I've addressed all previous suggestions from editors. Can you please provide edits and/or approval? I appreciate your time very much. Draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ktlnlindler/draft Ktlnlindler (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ktlnlindler. There's a seeming embarrassment of riches to draw from. Why not move this to the next level with some of these?: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
For my first time - I wanted to see if it was acceptable to move into main space as is and then once it's accepted go back in and continue adding to/editing with the sources you've included. What do you think? Appreciate your time!Ktlnlindler (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You will see that your draft has been moved into main space at Mary Whyte, so you should continue editing there. Dbfirs 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Species distribution map?[edit]

Hello. Is there a template that can be used to create basic species distribution maps? If there is no such templates, what should I do? Note that it would be for the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaharituber. AWearerOfScarves (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. At this time, I don't believe Wikipedia has a native template for representing regional distributions of any sort. Most editors use third-party cartography/image editing tools for these types of applications. Cheers, Kevin12xd 20:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!

AWearerOfScarves (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft publishing[edit]

Is a draft automatically being reviewed or do I have to move the page or something? And the first round of the reviewing process takes seven days? Thank you! Median Hyde (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Median Hyde. You must add {{subst:submit}} to the bottom of the draft, and then someone will review it after you add it. The length of time it takes to review it will depend on how many other Articles for creation submissions are waiting for review. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
So easy, thanks a lot! Median Hyde (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Advice[edit]

While doing some reference fixing at Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names I fell on the "Chris Kilham" article. I raised my perceived issues on its talk page, but then also noticed the other article, "Zoe Helene", and the two main editors which appear to be the same person under two nicknames (I'm avoiding to ping them here for now) which are mostly single-purpose. It is possible that one, or both have some notability, but I'm not sure, it looks suspect to me. Should I: a) tag the article(s), b) bring this at an appropriate location (where?), c) ANI (I've never used this before), d) ignore? Another thing which I am wondering: as a non-admin editor, when I encounter COI issues, or sockpuppets (these or others in the future), should I still ideally warn them myself, or report? It would seem easier for me if I did not have to confront them myself, considering my limited experience level with such procedures. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PaleoNeonate. I agree with you that both of these biographies have problems with promotional content. Chris Kilham looks notable to me as the subject of a lengthy profile in the New York Times and as a TV personality. I am unsure about the notability of his wife Zoe Helene. That biography relies far too much on things she has written herself, and there is definitely promotionalism and citation overkill. I do not see the two accounts you mentioned as sockpuppets. One stopped editing early in 2013 and the other started editing late that year. That is not sock puppet behavior but rather may well be a case of a lost password.
As for advice, please do not take this to the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents, commonly called "ANI". That is a sometimes aggressive forum for dealing with serious problems needing immediate attention. You would probably get "thrown out of court". Instead, I suggest that you start by trimming and pruning the promotional content out of the Kilham article, and try to determine whether Helene is notable by reading the sources. The first step in such cases is to try to improve the articles in collaboration with other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328: thank you very much. Since I have no immediate interest to work on those articles myself, I will probably add the {{Advert}} tag for now (and keep them in my notes), unless that is discouraged. Since you confirmed that I should not take such non-urgent issues to ANI, is this still a proper place to report things I find suspect in the future? PaleoNeonate (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, you can always ask questions here at the Teahouse. If you discover solid evidence of sockpuppetry, present it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you encounter something serious and flagrant that requires immediate attention from administrators, go to ANI. We have many dispute resolution venues, depending on circumstances. These two articles you mentioned here are biographies of living people, which is a type of article subject to strong policy restructions. Concerns about how that policy is enforced on specific articles should be taken to the Biographies of living people noticeboard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Noted. I was mostly concerned with the gravity of those avenues, where before recoursing to them I'd want to be sure it wasn't a mistake (i.e. for a trivial matter, as in this false-positive, about my sock suspicions). About the "thrown out of court" above, I've indeed read logs of some ANI discussions where this occurred (i.e. only a heated content dispute), and cases of boomerang, which is somewhat scary.
The last time I asked a question on the Tea House (which may not have been a newbie question, it was about template proposal and writing), noone answered, but I eventually managed to find what I wanted. I then wondered if this was only for very basic questions. I seem to remember of a project, or maybe more than one, of experienced editors "adopting" or "sponsoring" less experienced ones, although it seemed to not really take off (and I never tried to get a sponsor so far). If that was a viable option, I'd likely first contact such when I have these questions, but if the Tea House remains an equivalent, I'll gladly continue to ask here. Thanks again. PaleoNeonate (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, template editing is pretty sophisticated stuff and the Teahouse is oriented towards basic editing of the encyclopedia, and helping new editors to develop an understanding of our content policies and guidelines. I have been an active editor for almost eight years and have never once edited a template. For questions about this type of advanced editing, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The Village pump has five subsections, each of which may be of interest to you. As for adoption or mentoring, these days those programs are usually "last ditch" solutions for highly problematic editors in danger of being blocked. I see no signs that this applies to you. Just ask questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328: super. Thanks again for your advice and patience. PaleoNeonate (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Resolved

How short definitions appear under the title of an article in mobile view?[edit]

For ex. look here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(computing)

Is it possible to edit and fetch by REST endpoint the string 'Quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by a computer'?

Thanks.

2A02:A31D:843F:6E00:3285:A9FF:FE8E:531C (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Those summaries are stored in Wikidata:, a sister project to Wikipedia. Each article corresponds to a Wikidata item, which stores structured data about the topic. You can find technical information about using Wikidata data at wikidata:Wikidata:Data access. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks a lot.2A02:A31D:843F:6E00:3285:A9FF:FE8E:531C (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Is a self-referencing universe a theory of interest?[edit]

In my travels, I have thought often about the nature of the universe. I have concluded such thought with this theory: The universe, and everything in it, is a series of datapoints connected in a mind, which reference each other and have many layers of meta-data to reference within themselves, and "consciousness" and limited observation of the world is a microcosm of the entire universe, which is a mind thinking independently. Is this something that is of common public interest, and if so, is there any reputable references for such? In my book and webpage mining, I have found none, so I must ask. ---Araverus Araverus (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research and is not a general discussion forum. If you are looking for references on the topic, you might want to try the humanities reference desk. Were this posted there, I would advise you to look into Hermeticism -- that did not use terms from computing or cybernetics, but it's similar. Advaita Vedanta, Heraclitus, and Immanuel Kant are comparable. Again, though, this really belongs on the reference desk and neither this place nor that one is a discussion forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
What you're describing is the Biocentric universe theory. An article on the theory was recently removed from Wikipedia (you can view the article at the point it was removed here), so any new article would need to demonstrate improved coverage of the theory, and ideally demonstrate that scientists other than Lanza himself consider the theory credible. ‑ Iridescent 08:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Iridescent. That's all I needed to know.Araverus (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Ian.Thomson - This was quite helpful. I wasn't sure if was described elsewhere, and that which you posted has given me insight. I will read into that before writing said article.Araverus (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Where to ask for help on an article?[edit]

I am creating an article about Timothy Caughman. It is the first time I have done one from scratch and I'm discovering it's pretty challenging. So far I am just collecting links, sources, quotes, data. What I have is a total mess.

Is there a place to invite Wikipedians to chip in?

Lucas gonze (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lucas gonze: There are already article about Timothy Caughman and Stabbing of Timothy Caughman. Can your material be worked into one or both of those articles? If not, then the Talk pages of those articles seems like a good place to outline what your article will be about and ask for help. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that tip, Gronk Oz. Timothy Caughman is the article I am working on. Stabbing of Timothy Caughman is an article I want to replace, or merge with, under the reasoning that murder victims should be known for their lives. See the talk page for conversation on that.
Lucas gonze (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas gonze: I see that the merge has been done now, so this is moot, but it might be helpful to know for later. That feeling that everything is a total mess is normal when creating a new article - it means you're on the right track. But even before starting the project to write a new page, you first should assess whether the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word). That will determine whether there should even be a separate article on the subject. There are general notability guidelines, and there are also specific guidelines covering particular situations. In this case, the appropriate guideline is Crime victims and perpetrators, which describes how "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event" normally will not be the subject of an article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


I will bow to convention on notability, because it has so much thought and consensus building behind it, even though I believe it is in harmful in the case of victims of racist violence. I will put work into improving the writing about the life of this person on the page about his death. --Lucas gonze (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Film Amar-Preet[edit]

Sat shri Akal to team wikki ,please Guid me about my artical about film Amar-Preet...wikkipedia wants articals on all subjects,I can do something ,but to do work for wikki ,it is very dificult ,a new person cannot do understand the rull of wikki,it is not good,please help in ese language ,how i can do some work for wikki...With RegardsRavinder kaur ravi (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Looks like your page was deleted for being a direct copy-and-paste from another site. We can't accept submissions like these because they're clear violations of copyright policy (see WP:CV). Kevin12xd 02:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What next?[edit]

First and second review were not accepted on Draft:High Performance Alloys, Inc.. I tagged as Rfc to get opinions. One quote I used, in what I thought was NPOV, was removed. Still reads okay though. Questions: how long do I wait for comments, how many are needed and what are the next step(s) (if any). Contributor1972 Discuss with me 02:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Contributor1972. You have 22 references in your draft but I do not see any independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic High Performance Alloys, Inc. Those are the sources that are needed to establish the notability of the company. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328, I do realize that there are not many major sources used (2), a citation of a Federal Space Contract, and two metals industry citations. National Geographic, State of Indiana, Modern Metals and FRANCE-METALLURGIE. Reading the information provided by the reference doesn't immediately make me question the reliability of what is presented though. Are these not considered WP:GFE? If the sources are actually on some banned list, I could try to find other references. I was told the draft could be too long, potentially watering down the Notability. So I made a notability summary for review and comment at: Draft_talk:High_Performance_Alloys,_Inc. to showcase what it looks like without all the dressing and bio. Contributor1972 Discuss with me 06:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Contributor1972, I am not questioning the reliability of those sources, but rather pointing out that I do not see significant coverage of this company in those sources. Passing mentions and directory type listings do not make a company notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328, thank you for further explaining and clarifying the issue. I was falsely under the impression that a wide array of sources, as a broad base, would be better than just a couple sources showing continuous coverage. {[WP:GNG| General notability guideline] defines significant coverage as enough detail to extract information, showing evidence, so that no original coverage is needed. While a 'directory' is cited, it is for the content in the citation; which shows what the award was for and the general basis of one of 43 awarded without being promo-y. There is also a citation from the State of Indiana which was more general on the subject. The name in passing is in relation to what had been achieved as a group. I agree that there are 29 citations by scholarly sources are in passing, but that is in support of being an early adopter of the internet. Maybe it was too much to expect the early nature of those citations to lend credibility to the term 'early adopter' from a list of citations shown in a Google search. Ran across it as it was one of the ways to generate citations and I looked at it as the forest for the tree. Some of the scholars mentioned materials supplied by or purchased from. These were good citations, rather than complaints or insults - which they could have included in the papers. I do see some examples of significant coverage lapses, and those will be fixed by using quotes to validate significant. Contributor1972 Discuss with me 19:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Contributor1972, many of those sources might be fine for verifying secondary details, if and only if other, more comprehensive sources are cited that demonstrate that the company is notable by devoting significant coverage to the company itself. So far, I do not see those sources, and without them, an acceptable Wikipedia article cannot be written. We cannot call a company an "early adopter" of the internet based on a list of mentions that you consider "early". That is original research which we do not allow in Wikipedia articles. We need a reliable independent source which says that very thing, or it does not belong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328, your assistance has been extremely helpful once more. Removed lot's of original research to aid significant coverage by sources. Hopefully my current lesson in NPOV is now complete and I will not need to revisit. Some hidden text has been left (citations not complete), will these hidden comments survive? It is worthy of another review? Contributor1972 Discuss with me 00:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

improving the review process[edit]

I have some comments on improving the review process for new or revised articles. How do I get those comments to someone in administration? ThanksRgschroeder12 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Rgschroeder12, you can post such comments at the Wikipedia:Article review talk page. Wikipedia:New page review's talk page may also be a suitable place. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

how to change the summary statement[edit]

When I go to Wikipedia.org and search for "operations management for services, I see the following summary statement. Operations management is an area of management concerned with designing and controlling the process of production and redesigning business operations

This is exactly the same summary statement as my search for "operations management" which is primarily a manufacturing oriented article. The two statements should be different, since the content is different.

I would like to see the summary statement for the "operations management for services" changed to: Operations management for services has the functional responsibility for producing the services of an organization and providing them directly to its customers

This statement is from the first line in the article on "operations management for services" and accurately explains the content.

How can this summary statement be changed, when searching for content?Rgschroeder12 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rgschroeder12. It appears you have discovered a bug. The search box at https://www.wikipedia.org displays English Wikidata descriptions if the article has a Wikidata item with an English description. For example, "Wikidata item" in the left pane of Operations management leads to operations management (Q1423657) where the description is: "An area of management concerned with designing and controlling the process of production and redesigning business operations". If there is no Wikidata item or it has no English description then nothing should be shown but instead a Wikidata desription from another listed search result is currently copied, at least for me in Firefox. This also happens for other searches and in cases where the other search result is unrelated to the article. The only way to control the description is to create a Wikidata item and add an English description to it but you shouldn't do that just for this purpose. Wikidata items are intended for other things and this is just a side effect of them. I will search for a bug report and maybe make one if I don't find one. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I have reported the bug at phab:T161422. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Im just ridiculously new. Its about Authors[edit]

I recently have attended a book festival and met lots of Authors, since looking them up I can not find Wikipedia pages. Do all Published authors deserve a page? Or just prominent/ succesful ones?Yarns110 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, not all published authors, only the ones who are WP:Notable in the Wikipedia sense. They need to have been written about in WP:Reliable sources. In particular, the author must have created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Also, see WP:Biographies of living persons. Dbfirs 20:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirects between different-language Wikipedias[edit]

How does one do a redirect between language versions of a corporate name?MLTiede (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you really mean redirects, or do you mean Interlanguage links? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

adding non-free use images[edit]

I want to add an image to an artist page but I can't find any images that don't violate copyright policies and the work is not in the public domain. Are there any acceptations that would allow me to add an image to a living artist page without violating copyright rules?Absflan (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if all 10 of these criteria are unambiguously met; because Wikipedia content can be re-used by anyone, the rules are very strict on non-free images. Basically, you can't use an non-free photo of the artist if they're alive; you might be able to use one representative image of their work if you genuinely can't find any free alternative, but you need to reduce the file size as much as possible (as a rough guide, no more than 300px high and wide) to make it of no commercial use to anyone else. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Musician classification[edit]

Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm editing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_E._Brown. The artist is categorized as a jazz musician but based on everything I read I think he is just a regular musician. How do I change his classification? I'm referring to the classification "Jazz musician" which appears directly below his name when I view his page on mobile. Is it possible to change "Jazz musician" to "Musician"? JazzKatherine (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. Though generally, original research is discouraged, in small cases like these, I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Editing categories is a little trickier than regular body content - I've gone ahead and made the edit for you, but when editing categories in the future I strongly recommend you enable HotCat by following the steps here. Cheers, Kevin12xd 19:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, JazzKatherine. Brown performed in jazz saxophonist David S. Ware's band and was reviewed by All About Jazz. It seems that categorizing him as a jazz musician is accurate. Such categories do not exclude performing in other musical genres. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JazzKatherine. I see that you have discovered that the "subtitle" that appears in the mobile version does not derive from categories, as Kevin12xd implies, or from anything in Wikipedia itself, but from the Wikidata item corresponding to the article, and you have edited that. (I'm putting this answer here, even though Katherine does not need it, for other people's benefit). --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing Title of article. Name of scholar/Jesuit priest[edit]

I recently created an article for the American Jesuit priest and Hegel scholar, Quentin Lauer, S.J. I now realize I probably should have written the title as "Quentin Lauer." I instead wrote "Quentin Lauer, S.J." I now think it would be better for the "S.J." (Society of Jesus) to be after his name is first used in the body of the article and not in the title. This seems to be format for all other Jesuits with Wikipedia pages. How do I change the title of the page? Do I need permission to do so?

Johnwhalen (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Normally, you'd use the move tool to change article titles. However, this requires the autoconfirmed flag, which is granted automatically to users after 4 days and 10 edits. Seeing as you don't yet have this flag, I've gone ahead and moved the article for you. Cheers, Kevin12xd 10:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi[edit]

Can there be some protection on Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as it is receiving persistent vandalism.Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack Upland. Please file your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The on-duty administrators who do that kind of work can be found there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Social Media as a source?[edit]

Could I use a tweet as a source, if the account is verified? The Verified Cactus 100% 22:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey The Verified Cactus. With use of sources, it almost always depends on the specific context. Even seemingly extremely reliable secondary sources can be poor sources in certain contexts. For uses like this, where you are looking to apply the exception to the rule, it is even more context-specific In its absence please see WP:TWITTER. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
One context in which social media is generally acceptable is finding out birthdays of notable people. It's often tough to find a birthdate in a more acceptable source. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I would take White Arabian Filly's advice with a pinch of salt, VerifiedCactus. Unless it's from a verified account of the subject, I would say that a birth date on social media is pretty well worthless; and even if it is on their own account, celebrities do not always tell the truth about their birth dates. Independent reliable sources are always to be preferred. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that, if you can't find a notable person's birthday anywhere else, and they post on Facebook saying, "Today is my birthday" then it's ok to cite that. I wouldn't trust a fan's post, but finding birthdays can be a huge pain. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Help 😓😟[edit]

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia. I created an account because I wanted to make a page for my school but it's extremely difficult. I tried using this School Infobox templet but it never looked like the table I wanted.

I need someone to help me with this or if you don't mind to make it for me then I'll supply all the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My editor mp (talkcontribs) 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have made a good start with the infobox. I've made one minor correction for you. The article now needs some text about the school, and some references. Secondary schools are usually considered notable in the Wikipedia sense, but can you find WP:Reliable sources where the school has been written about, perhaps in newspapers? Normally, we prefer writers to be independent of the subject of an article, but if you declare your WP:Conflict of interest on your talk page, I don't think there will be a problem. Try to avoid any promotional language. Unfortunately, you made the mistake of starting this and your previous attempt in main space instead of creating a draft in WP:Draft space or in your sandbox. so the article as it stands might get deleted. If this happens, I've copied the content to User:My editor mp/Hoërskool Rob Ferreira High School with another minor alteration for you to work on it before submitting it for review. (This version will stick now.) The school logo can probably be used under WP:Fair use but you need to upload it to Wikipedia, not link to another site. Dbfirs 07:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@My editor mp: You perhaps didn't read the last sentence of the reply above from Dbfirs? A logo would need to be uploaded here at the English Wikipedia with a specific fair-use rationale. Wikimedia Commons will not accept images unless they are free of copyright, so your files there have been deleted as copyright violations. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not Able to Use my Signature using four tildes (Wikibaji 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC))[edit]

Hello Wikipedia experts,

Please help me to fix my signature hyperlink. If i use four tildes with any message that doesn't reflect in to a hyperlink. Wikibaji 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talkcontribs)

Look at Special:Preferences. In the signature section is the "Treat the above as wiki markup." checked? If it is does the box right above have a link wikilink to your usertalk or user page? If you check that box you have to put the code exactly how you want your signature to appear including any wikilinks. If you uncheck that box then the software creates the wikilinks. ~ GB fan 12:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems resolved – see the user's sandbox page Special:Diff/771242628. --CiaPan (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much User:GB fan, my issue is fixed now.Wikibaji (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Marked as resolved, based on the OP's statement above. --CiaPan (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
I was having a similar problem, signed comments (4 tildes) were being re-signed by sinebot. After sandbox experimenting, I found a likely cause: If there is an accidental CR/LF (i.e. <Enter>), or probably space or any other invisible charcter after the tildes, SineBot adds another signature. Makes sense, actually, although I suppose SineBot could be refined to ignore white space after the tildes. D Anthony Patriarche 18:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche (talkcontribs)
I've never found that to be a problem myself, D A Patriarche. Note that your signature needs to include at least one link to your user page or user talk page, per WP:SIGLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and as mentioned above you can do that by removing the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkmark at Special:Preferences. Then your signature will say "D Anthony Patriarche (talk)" and Sinebot will be happy. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll try that, thanks. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Memes[edit]

Could we make a page for dank memes plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.6.186 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the subject is that you are referring to (a class of Memes perhaps?), but the answer is the same whatever the subject. If there are reliable independent published sources which have discussed the subject in depth, then there can be an article in Wikipedia about it, based almost entirely on what the reliable independent published sources have said about it. If there are not, then no, we cannot have such an article. Please see your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
A former article at Dank memes was deleted and changed to a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dank memes. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Make a Wikipedia of my name[edit]

Plz help me for make a Wikipedia of my name but it's extremely difficult — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hira Laraib (talkcontribs) 11:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless your name is WP:Notable, there should not exists a Wikipedia article for your name. What particular article did you wish to create? Dbfirs 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hira (surname) is an article about your first name, assuming it's "Hira". stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 07:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/[edit]

Is Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/ considered unreliable, with no useful information? References using the site are being systematically stripped.

I know it has a libertarian bias, but some of its content could be valuable.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jonpatterns. I believe this is related to a discussion happening at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#massive deletions. TimothyJosephWood 12:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Timothyjosephwood:, I've joined that conversation. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

I'm currently making this article on the game 60 Seconds! heres the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bunsdome/sandbox Bunsdome (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bunsdome and welcome to the Teahouse.
Normally people come here to ask questions, but you've simply announced something you are working on. I took a look at the draft in your sandbox. You need to find more references that help establish that this game meets notability standards. I also saw that you went so far as to create a disambiguation page, but that was not needed and has been deleted. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox government agency[edit]

Hi I recently tried to change some names in the infobox for this article Board of Admiralty I added |type = Board so that it reads Board Overview which then changed the officials to Board Executives instead of agency executives however preceding this board was an office it now reads preceding board and superseding this board was another board it now reads superseding agency both of which are not the correct term this government department was consistently changing names of its subsidiary functions and sometimes eventually going back to the original name I would like to know how you can change it or adapt it to included additional options for the following, Board, Branch, Council, Department, Division, Office, Section. You can see another example where its a division and the same problem occurs here: Anti-Submarine Division many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)