Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

i want to create my company profile in Wikipedia, pls help me.

Nadeemmusafar (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing automatically-added categories to transcluded pages

Hello. Just to note, I have previously asked this question at WP:HD, but without an exactly helpful reply or referral to someplace on Wikipedia that could help. I am querying whether or not it would or could be possible to customarily remove categories that have been automatically added to an article transcluding the {{SLBY}} template. For some backstory, I have recently created a userpage within my own userspace and I am currently struggling to manually delete these categories that have been implemented by default. Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 21:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered asking this question at Template talk:SLBY? Surely the editors who watch that template can give you an answer. Perhaps rewording the question is in order. I understand 'customarily' to have a meaning akin to 'usually'. It is the usual or common practice for that template to add those categories so if I understand your question, you want to change that so that the template does not add categories.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Yes, that is correct.--Neve–selbert 21:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it is incumbent upon you to persuade the editors at {{SLBY}} that the categorization scheme is incorrect and needs revision. Present your case at the template's talk page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed now done so Trappist the monk. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 22:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding True meaning of Notability

Dear Team,

Need help to understand true meaning of notability again. W.r.t my article Draft:Purplehed_Records, results of my 3rd submission quotes a new issue in my article that "This record label is not notable at all. It has only released 2 singles to date, and these singles have not received any awards" by Tseung Kwan O. Well according to my understanding and learning I was referring to this rule and thats why I choose this topic, but now after few months on my 3rd AFC review I got informed that it is not notable at all and I feel like I wasted lot of time on non notable subject . I request someone to kindly help me understand why my subject is not notable even when its clearly meeting first point. Criteria for musicians and ensembles "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" While after I fixed issues given by second reviewer he assured that he sees no reason not to resubmit without expressing any concern about notability. Refer this conversation Feedback from Reviewer who declined during my 2nd submission

I am currently working on few more subjects who haven't got any award but are subject of multiple independent reliable sources. And I am really confused due to multiple different issue each time that what exactly is notability :(. I request someone to kindly guide me. Thanks and Regards Catrat999 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catrat999. All the sources in your draft seem to be primarily about a music video instead of about Purplehed Records as a topic. The company itself is mentioned only in passing in those sources, and we need significant coverage of the company as a notable business entity in order to have an article about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Catrat999, actually the previous reviewer Primefac has already stated that the submission fails WP:TOOSOON. So even with a surfeit of references, the subject of the submission still lacks notability in general. Regards, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 19:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan O I have fixed issues raised by Primefac and after discussing with him only I have resubmitted it, According to him subject is notable but its too soon because during my 2nd submission reliable resources were less , Have a look on his comment "One song/video does not a notable record company make. It's possible it's TOOSOON, but if not a few more reliable sources that talk about Purplehed in a context other than Burn Like the Sun would be beneficial. " you can refer that version in history to understand that issue which is solved now. He never mentioned me that an Indie record label will be notable only if it gets awards neither any such rule on wiki guidelines. Refer our conversation here - Feedback from Reviewer who declined during my 2nd submission. However your comment is "This record label is not notable at all. It has only released 2 singles to date, and these singles have not received any awards." Kindly guide me with so many reliable references what is notable here if not record label, then Song, Music Video, Artist ?

@Cullen328 : There are many links where subject has significant coverage of the company :) I request you to kindly research on my article thoroughly before concluding anything. Subject is mentioned in websites like India.com alexa rank 70 in india and 798 in world. , The Hindu Global Alexa rank - 840 and 72 Rank in India , YourStory global rank-3,183 -Rank in India = 198 and many other reputed newspapers , magazines and prints  :) However if you still think after full research that my subject is not notable at all then my real question is what is actually notable here ? Music Video? , Song ? , Artist ? or accordingly the company under whose umbrella everything is done! And if you still conclude that there none of them is notable inspite of several independent reliable references then I find wikipedia AFC submission very inconsistent, because all this time could have been saved right in 1st submission :) Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenming_Hu

I wanted to bring the following two references which I recently came across, which may be deemed as independent accounts of his contributions:

1. http://ethw.org/Chenming_Hu 2. http://www.asianscientist.com/2016/01/topnews/hu-cheming-national-medal-tech-innovation/

Is there some way these references can be included on the wikipedia page and also integrated into the text in his biography. Would the inclusion of these references be helpful in resolving the issues listed on his wikipedia page.

Adityamedury (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adityamedury. The first source is a user edited Wiki, and is therefore not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, the second source looks very reliable to me, and in my opinion, would be an excellent source for improving Chenming Hu. Please read Referencing for beginners to learn how to format the reference properly, and incorporate it into the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have a conflict of interest regarding Chenming Hu, then please declare it, Adityamedury. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The 2nd source does look good. It may suffer a bit from lack of independence. It's source is this which appears to be a press release from an organization Chenming Hu is associated with. That press release refers to this White House press release which might be a better source to cite. However current source for the medal seems fine as is. Gab4gab (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Romanizing as an alternative to Unicode and Anglicizing

Pardon me for taking the scenic route. It is necessary. Thanks.

The scenic route …

By around 1500 English moved away from a phonetical writing system to dictionary based writing system. The European printing type did not have þ, ð and æ. The commoner's language did not have a power base to preserve its writing system. The English were so desperate that they either joined Crusading ships as a path to heaven or pilgrim ships hoping for the Promised Land. The Language was furthest in their minds. A similar thing is happening to a billion plus people in South Asia. The vast majority is not middle-class but poor-class. They have too many other things to worry about than the language. Unicode solution was one that came out of ignorance of the Indic writing systems. The powerless cannot use it and so moved to Anglicizing. More than 130 languages world over have completely moved to use Latin-derived English alphabet or have an alternative in it. There must be a reason for it. English, and if you can use a modified QWERTY keyboard, Latin-1 is the most computer friendly character set. Try the following HTML page (uses Latin-1): <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="si-Latn"> <head> <title>Demo</title> <meta charset="utf-8"> <style> @font-face{font-family:aruna; src:url(http://smartfonts.net/woff/aruna.woff) format("woff");} </style> </head> <body style="font-family:aruna"> oba mee kiyavana síhala kramaya ígriisi haa samaanava parigaNakayee lehesiyen paavicci kaLa hæka. iita avazya vannee ígriisi muðraa puvaruvata iþaa aasanna, niruþsaahayen igenagaþa hæki muðraa puvaruvak haa næNakuru font ekak ya. næNakuru kiyannee, tayip karana vita yaabaða akuru mona mona hædavalata venas venavaaða kiyaa ðænumak gæb kaLa, ee hæra an aþin saamaanya vuu font ekakatayi. </body> </html> If you can read Old English, then read the body text. Apply the Dutch style vowels and treat the acute accent to apply 'ng' sound to its vowel. 'a' is like 'u' in but, 'æ' is like 'a' in bat. Now you are reading Singhala if you take 'i' and 'u' to be unvoiced (like in Spanish). The web font does all the hard work of applying Singhala orthography to the text. (Arguably, it renders faster than a Latin font). It is a grammar-based solution. All Indic languages behave similarly. They all have the Sanskrit phoneme chart as the core of the writing systems. See H-K Sanskrit at: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/tamil/index.html The key to understanding Indic writing is to know the 'akSara' (using H-K) concept. An akSara is first the sound. Writing shape is secondary. This means that we can have one romanized system for all Indic and apply orthographic fonts to show the text for each language. It saves effort and money enormously. Most of all, it releases the people from the Unicode trap. What does this have to do with an encyclopedia? It provides knowledge about a system that is obviously working. Compare it with Unicode Singhala. It is a way to assemble shapes using 64 keys on the regular keyboard used only by experts skilled in finger acrobatics. Since its inception in 2004, there are only 4 fonts. It is so hard that the academics who help in it proudly copyright them. Millions of dollars are continued to be paid to the West by India and Sri Lanka owing to Unicode. The RS keyboard uses fewer keys than English -- only 44 keys as opposed to 52 in English and is faster to type because it is very close to QWERTY and needs much less shifting. When and if Google updates its 1980s text editor in their Gmail page, people will write in their native languages preserving their cultures.

May I have more educated responses to the above than dismissive ones, please?

Thank you.

JC (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

What is your actual question? ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we have the web font added to Wikipedia so that more people can write to Wikipedia? JC (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As was already explained to you two years ago Wikipedia isn't a webhost or a repository for original information. If I understand you correctly, you're asking for Wikipedia to switch to an orthographic system of your own devising which is not actually used by any publisher in any language. This is not what Wikipedia is for—we reflect what other sources say, we don't make changes of our own. ‑ Iridescent 14:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I think I should just write a page about the existence of this system that uses orthographic fonts that displays romanized writing system back in its native script. The problem is then how to show the text in that form. I guess I use graphics.
JC (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't host original research. Unless your writing system has actually been the topic of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, any page you write about it will be deleted. If it has been the topic of significant coverage then go ahead, but remember that the article needs to specify the source used for each fact within it. ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your advice is noted. 'Significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources' seems to be not that helpful. Could you err on the side of informing than censoring?
JC (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how informing you of the de minimis requirement of the general notability guideline "Significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources" is "not that helpful".
If you do not have, and/or do not cite, such sources, you will be wasting your time writing an article as it will contravene the guideline and WILL be deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; this isn't me giving my personal opinion, I'm explaining to you Wikipedia's core policies of no original research and notability. If your writing system—or any other topic—hasn't been the coverage of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, than Wikipedia is not going to host an article about it. Bear in mind also that anything you write on Wikipedia is irrevocably released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, allowing anyone else to commercially reuse it without compensating you, which may not be what you intend. ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I should get it by now. So, let me come back in another three years and see if Wikipedia updated from 'plain text' mode to allowing web fonts just like moving from just text to include pictures. (That was funny leaving a blank space for the size of the scenic route and still making it available to read -- Thanks)

Learning is good for me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahangama (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Facebook cite

Is Facebook reference are accepted in Wikipedia?. U+20B3 (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, U+20B3. Social media sites such as Facebook are only considered reliable in quite a limited set of circumstances. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources? on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

issues with respect to wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenming_Hu

With respect to the following wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenming_Hu

I would like to know, why I see the following two issues:

1. This biographical article relies too much on references to primary sources

In order to fix this problem, I have added two secondary references. These are the only two independent journalistic accounts of the person's contributions that I could find on the internet. Is this sufficient to fix this issue? If not, what else would I need to do, to fix this issue?

2. This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. What do I need to do to fix this issue?

Adityamedury (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adityamedury. That article is unfortunately very far from what we are looking for in an encyclopaedia. Some things for you to consider:

• Both of the problems you list above can be fixed by replacing the references to Hu's own bio with citations of independent reliable sources. Because this person is inherently notable as holder of a named chair at a major university, you need not worry if there are few of those independent sources available. Any content not supported by such sources should be summarily (mercilessly, relentlessly) removed; in almost all cases, Wikipedia just doesn't care what people say about themselves – what counts is what has been said about them.
• The page needs to be written in a neutral and dispassionate tone; we don't want to be told how wonderful Hu is, we want a clear account of his achievements so that we can form our own opinion (in Witness, the girl says to Harrison Ford "You look plain, John Book"; that's how a Wikipedia article should look, too)
• You cannot simply copy content from other parts of the internet into Wikipedia, that's what we call a copyright violation; since that is what you did with your first an early edit to the page, I'm afraid all many of your edits have been undone. Please don't add copyright content to Wikipedia again. I'll leave some advice about this at your talk.
• If you are personally or professionally connected to Hu you must declare that connection in any discussion about him or about our page on him. If you have such a connection you are also strongly discouraged from editing the article, but always welcome to propose changes by posting on the talk-page, Talk:Chenming Hu.

If you have questions, please ask them here, below this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)(edited 14:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

Unsafe web site

When I recently clicked a reference in an article, my computer told me that it had intercepted and quarantined a malicious file. Is there someplace on Wikipedia where I should be reporting this? Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NewYorkActuary. Please read Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for general instructions on how to request a block on that website. In this specific case, please try to find a legitimate alternate reference, add it, and get rid of the bad link. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Was the review unduly harsh

I see many stub articles in a far worse condition that the article I created. Yes there are errors, but that is what the templates are for.

That is why I added the templates. I think I made a good start.

Remember if an article is notable it should be published. Not all articles have to be 100% wikified and perfect at first publish.

I see the many low quality stubs and feel unduly treated. I know the article is not 100% right its not a FA quality article but a quick check of the classifications makes this easily a start quality article.

I think you risk making new editors disinterested if you put high limits on submitted articles that dont apply to all articles.

190.46.24.169 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Puente Alto - El Volcan Railway. Please let me know if it is something else. Actually, the review of that draft is quite friendly and supportive. The purpose of AFC is to help new editors learn how to write better articles. If accepted, your draft is much better than a stub, and I agree that it will be a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. So, please address the reviewers concerns and resubmit.

Please also consider the following: The Articles for Creation process is optional and voluntary. You asked for a review and you got one with good advice. Wikipedia is 15 years old and has well over five million articles. The vast majority of those articles never went through AFC which is only a few years old. Maybe a million or more are mediocre or poor. People just wrote them and plunked them into the encyclopedia without review. Experienced editors work every day to improve them or delete them if their topic is not notable. If AFC reviewers accepted articles based on the "lowest common denominator", then we would be failing in our duty to try to improve the encyclopedia. That is my honest opinion, and I thank you for the very good start that you have made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you like someone to copy-edit the article while it is still a draft? --Boson (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

is my draft ready?

can someone with editing experience please review my draft, and tell me any remaining issues please so I can finalize it for article review? Draft:Scott_Nute Sandy Montoya (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Sandy Montoya (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

See Draft:Scott Nute. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Sandy Montoya (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sandy Montoya: Awhile back, you blanked the page and accidentally deleted the button to submit your draft for review. I've re-added the template. Try clicking the button that says "Submit your draft for review" at the top of the page. That'll let the appropriate people know that your article is ready for review. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Sandy Montoya, your draft is not ready, and I don't suggest you try submitting it as it stands. If this person is notable (and I haven't looked into that), a page about him needs to be based on independent reliable sources, not sources associated with or published by Nute, and needs to be written in a dispassionate, neutral and encyclopaedic tone. Stuff like "they shared the Good News of Jesus Christ with him, just like his mom had done" has no place in an encyclopaedia. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Oh, and if you are personally or professionally connected in any way with Nute, you should declare that connection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

"Jump up to" instead of circumflex

Can anyone tell me why often when reading Wikipedia articles, the circumflex or up symbol symbol that looks like one (^) next to a source reference says instead "Jump up to", in prose, and if there is any way to fix this error? 108.54.152.77 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. That's a version for screen readers with text from MediaWiki:Cite references link many accessibility label. See also translatewiki:MediaWiki:Cite references link many accessibility label/qqq. Do you have any screen reader software? What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

p.s. 108.54.152.77, don't forget to sign up for an account :) Then you can track your history, retain more privacy as a user (your IP is public information!) and access cool tools and other nifty things. You can create an account here! Happy editing and reading. Missvain (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

How much weight should adjectives have?

Hello, and thanks in advance for your help. I have a difficult time ascertaining the quality of adjectives in descriptions. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_(marketing)

"New World’s Little Shopper Campaign is a shining example of this: consumers were required to spend a minimum amount of money in order to receive a free collectible item."

Is it appropriate to downgrade/remove the adjective of, in this case, the word "example". I would say that "shining" is debatable (or at least unnecessary). I'm sensitive to not having everything read academically or mechanically but being new, I'm not sure where that line is.

BologniousMonk (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted "shining" from that article. I agree with your views. I cannot tell whether the intention in writing "shining" was promotional or ironical, but either way the adjective was misplaced. Maproom (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright policies for images

Greetings- I am in process of creating a new page and there will be some images that I will want to use. Most of these images will be copyrighted. I know the copyright holder and will likely be able to obtain permission to use them. If possible, I would like to have the copyright tag retained as a courtesy to the holder. How does this work? If I upload an image, does it have to be public domain?Gene McCullough (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It does not need to be public domain, but it does need to be licensed in a way that allows for reuse for any purpose. See WP:DONATE for information. RudolfRed (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gene. To expand on this a bit more, outside of the limited exception and stringent requirements for fair use of an image, any image used here must be either, released into the public domain, or released under one or more free copyright licenses that are compatible with the free licenses Wikipedia content bears. (The release would have to be provided by the person directly, not by you secondarily). Under such licenses, the copyright is still owned by the person or entity providing the release, but the license allows anyone to re-use the image (even for commercial purposes) and to modify it, so long as they give appropriate credit to the copyright owner and give notice of the free copyright license upon any re-use. What this also means is that someone's permission for use here – a one-time license – while retaining non-free copyright, is useless. For details on the methods the copyright owner might use to provide a release, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. See also Commons:Licensing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Using Collapsible Elements on pages?

Hello All

Do articles need to be long or can the sections/tables be Expandable/Collapsible like explained in [1]?

I want to tidy up the ATA 100 page up with Para and sub para and thought, as per some corporate pages I compiled, that the sub-para elements could be collapsed.

Captain Static (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Static: please see PrimeHunter's reply to your previous question. The Manual of Style (MOS) will answer a lot of questions about how it should look, rather than the MediaWiki:Manual which tells you what the software can do. Nobody here will mind answering any more questions about the look of Wikipedia but the MOS contains lots of answers. Nthep (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Correcting capitalization in Wikipedia article?

I've created the article San Diego Society of natural history and can't figure out how to correct the capitalization of "natural history" in the article's title.

The article is a redirect to San Diego Natural History Museum, the current name of the organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=San_Diego_Society_of_natural_history&redirect=no

West32 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi West32. A redirect is not called an article. A page name is changed by moving the page but there is not much reason to do that for a redirect. I have created a new redirect at San Diego Society of Natural History. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Redirects are cheap. Anyway, if an article is moved (renamed), a redirect from the old name is almost always kept. Redirects are cheap. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I knew I shouldn't use moving to rename a redirect, but couldn't find a way to correct my capitalization error. -- Cheers West32 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

As was done, just create a new redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the original redirect for speedy deletion, as the only thing linking there (other than pages notifying admins of the WP:SPEEDY tag) is this page. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and MediaWiki - Right Way/Wrong Way?

Hello

I have loads of IT experience including corporate Wiki's in Confluence, Sharepoint and MediaWiki alongside other things. Of all of them I find MediaWiki the easiest to perform Knowledge Capture for sharing.

As a Wiki Gnome on one of the corporate MediaWiki tools I have learnt the Mark-up language and am finding subtle differences with Wikipedia.

• Is there a defined configuration for Tables as the ATA 100 ATA Chapters has single Pipes whereas the Corporate Wiki has two pipes to separate the columns?

• Would you prefer text headings using BOLD, ITALIC and UNDERLINE or actual Headings in Articles?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Captain Static (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Static, welcome to the Teahouse. Table cells start with one pipe at the start of a line, or two pipes when on the same line as the previous cell. See more at Help:Table. Section headings are made with == ... == and no other formatting. See more at Help:Section. And please see Help:Minor edit for what is considered a minor edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thanks for the prompt response. I will look at the Help:Minor Edit and follow what I consider Best Practice for the Tables and Page Layout (Levels 1-5 Section Headings, bullets, numbering and Bold/Italic/underline) in line with my experience editing the corporate Wiki. If any Admin/Expert Users want to identify Best Practice in what I edit, please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Static (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Static: We have a detailed Wikipedia:Manual of Style but new users are not expected to follow all that. It includes italics, boldface, collapsible content and lots of other things. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

draft ready?

Sorry about not adding link to my draft before...I am still getting used to the Wiki way. Please let me know what additional changes are needed for my draft to be ready to be sent for potential article review. thanks. [[2]] Sandy Montoya (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy Montoya, you can link to a draft like this: Draft:Scott Nute. There are a few issues with it. It doesn't have references at the end of every paragraph. It also needs to use more formal wording, and not have external links within the text. I think it can be readied in a short time, though. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a tip, Sandy Montoya: you don't need to start a new section each time you return here with a new question related to a previous question. Just scroll down to your previous question, and hit the "edit" link in the section header, and you can keep everything together in one section so it is easier to keep track of. This goes for talk page discussions in general. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So, are you saying external links are not allowed in the text? Also, can you please give me an example of some "informal" wording? And, are you saying the end of every paragraph requires a reference...others pages I looked at don't have this. Thanks Sandy Montoya (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to the bottom of the section, Sandy Montoya. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sentences such as "These experiences, along with others, began to get Nute's attention and warn him that he needed to make important changes in his life" don't sound encyclopedic to my ear (that one is also lacking a source). On the need provide references, it is likely that each paragraph requires more than one (the exception being the introduction, which should summarise material that is referenced in the main body of the article). Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability on this. If you are looking for a good example, take a look at some articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Sandy Montoya, material about a subject's mental state (eg what was getting their attention) should never appear in a Wikipedia article unless it is citing a material by somebody unconnected with the subject, that says just that. The point is not only that the information has a reliable source, but that somebody unconnected with the subject has judged the information worth publishing. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

How to declare a conflict of interest

I work for the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation and would like to update the page about the Foundation (current board members, mission statement, list of services, etc.) Please let me know how to go about declaring my conflict of interest and also the process for having a moderator view and make updates on our behalf.

thank you Arlenetnbcf (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arlenetnbcf. Thanks for being up-front about your COI. Please see WP:DISCLOSE for instructions on how to declare this. Wikipedia:Simple COI request will give you information on how to request an edit using an article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So, to clarify the Conflict of Interest (COI), as long as I do not edit directly any of my employer/competitors pages then I do not need to identify this. Is that correct? Captain Static —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Captain Static, you only have to declare a COI if you edit an article where it is relevant. Otherwise, almost all of us would probably have to declare multiple conflicts of interest! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Company page on wikipedia

Hi,

My first article about my company in which I work, got rejected, with the reason as lack of references. I have few references which includes company website, Facebook, LinkedIn and you tube official pages. Few newspaper articles regarding latest events in which we feature. Other few links such as online vendors list for different groups. Please help me if that would work. And what else do I need to start my company's official page on WikipediaSidd5100 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sidd5100, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your company can't have an official page on Wikipedia. It might be possible for us to have an article about the company, though. Note that if you are writing about your employer, you have a conflict of interest, which needs to be declared. You have done well to write the article as a draft for review rather than creating it directly, as that allows for a reviewer to check for neutrality. As for sources, please consult Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources on what is considered reliable. YouTube videos and social media pages generally aren't considered reliable, although official pages can perhaps be used to verify basic facts about the company. They won't contribute to establishing notability, though. That requires significant coverage in independent sources, such as newspapers. See Wikipedia:Notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at Draft:Stonex India Pvt. Ltd., Sidd5100, it is terribly promotional, so I would emphasise that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to act as official company pages but rather as encyclopedia articles. You need to base the draft mostly on what independent sources say about the company, not how the company would wish to present itself to the world. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition to being inadequately sourced, your current version is written in very non-neutral language, intended to praise the company's founders. That sort of language is typical of corporate web sites but is unacceptable in Wikipedia, another reason why conflict of interest edits are discouraged. (Was it copied from your corporate web site? If so, that is copyright violation, and must be removed immediately. Wikipedia is very serious about copyright, even if most other web sites are not.) Your references are inconsistently and incorrectly formatted. Also, you removed a previous AFC decline. Maybe you didn't notice the small notation that says not to remove those. They are part of the record of the review of the article and should not be removed until it is approved. They have been restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The draft has been deleted as blatantly infringing on the copyright of the company's website. Sidd5100, if you are the owner of the text at the external site, you would have to release it under a suitable free copyright license or into the public domain for it to be used here, but as Robert McClenon advised upon his decline of the draft, that content taken from the website consisted almost entirely of promotional language, and so would be highly inapprorpriate as the text of an article in any event (and would have been subject, separately, to speedy deletion as blatant advertising, especially if residing in the article mainspace).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ordinary photo deleted in gallery

About my first article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Creatordavid109/sandbox I do "insert" -> "media" -> "upload" -> "this is my own work" -> "save" and i got : "There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted".. Strange because this was an ordinary photo from an exhibition ..? How can i put him back? And how can i see all the picture that i added to the gallery, specially this ones i did not used in the sandbox..? Thanks in advance, kindly.Creatordavid109 (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Creatordavid109: looking at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Creatordavid109 the problem appears to be that although you took the images, the subject of those images are also copyrighted works of art and covered by (Dutch - my assumption) copyright law. They were deleted due to the absence of permission from the artists concerned to use their work in the images. Nthep (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I use sources that are not in the article original language?

Hello, I'm currently interested in translating articles that are not available in English or Spanish. Can I use sources that are not available in the "article language".

For example: Using Spanish sources to write an English article or vice versa.

Thank you kindly. 189.223.90.96 (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Reliable sources in any language are allowed, but if sources are abundant, then we prefer to select English language sources here on the English Wikipedia. If sources are more limited, then sources in any language are perfectly acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi 189.223.90.96. Just to add to what Cullen328 posted, you might find WP:NONENG to be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

draft ready for next step?

I made the changes requested on my draft. Can you tell me what is next in seeing if my draft is ready to go to the next step? Sandy Montoya (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sandy Montoya. It would be helpful if you could include a link to your draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I believe this question is related to this previous question from Sandy Montoya. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, though there's no link there either. It's often easy enough to work out which article or draft an editor is referring to, but I think encouraging new users to use wikilinks helps establish good practice. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I know if my submission has been apporved?

Hello Teahouse,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Chrisley

Thank you for the invitation! I recently created an biographical stub titled "Chase Chrisely". While the subject of my post in not inherently notable, he does belong to a small subculture that would allow him some recognition. Since creation of the article I have received no notifications of any issues pertaining to the page itself. My question is: does the page meet encyclopedic standards?

Thank you once more, and I look forward to hearing back soon.

Regards, Reston1876

Reston1876 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Reston1876. Notability has a precise meaning in Wikipedia-land: Wikipedia does not care what you or I know or think about a subject, or what the subject or their friends, relatives, employees or associates says about them. It only cares what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them in reliable places. Consequently, for an article to be acceptable, it must be nearly 100% based on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject. "Notable" means that there is enough independent material about the subject published to write an article: nothing else. It does not mean anything like famous, important, popular, influential. Your current draft has three references, but none of them is independent, so it does not establish notability, and is liable to be deleted. For this reason, I have moved it to Draft:Chase Chrisley, because it will not be summarily deleted there, and you have a chance to improve it.

I suggest you read Your first article, and find and add some independent references. When you think you have got it up to an acceptable level, add {{subst:submit}} to it (with the double curly brackets) and that will submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Colin. Thank you for your help, much appreciated. I get the majority of what it is you are saying, however the concept of "independent" sources have confused me. I would say that since the sources listed in Draft:Chase Chrisley are not not linked with and/or affiliated with the subject they would be independent of him. Correct? Reston1876 (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

They look to be independent to me, Reston1876, but the second one is a wiki site and therefore not reliable. I'm not sure the first source is reliable, either. Beside that, the issue is more to do with the depth and extent of coverage in the sources, rather than their independence. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Reston1876, your user page states that you "have over 10 years experience in media-related article creation and talent management". Can I ask if the subject of Draft:Chase Chrisley is one of your clients? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Cordless! No, Chase is not one of my clients. I believe that would be conflict of interest and prone to bias. I created the article because I believed the individual has a platform.

Reston1876 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And the third source is mostly quoting Chase and his associates, so not independent. But more seriously, Reston1876 - I moved the article to draft space for you, to save it from (likely) deletion. GeoffreyT2000 requested an administrative speedy deletion of the main-space redirect, since a redirect from main space to draft space is likely to confuse people. You have undone that and restored the version in main space (which, I repeat, is liable to be proposed for deletion as non-notable), and you have blanked the draft (which is never an appropriate action). What are you trying to achieve? --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Colin! I appreciate your continued help. I replaced the article within the main space to avoid potential issues with the the WP address name as well as to avoid administrative speedy deletion or placement in AFD.

Reston1876 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the draft page: there are pages with blank draft pages as well as page that do not have content on the this page. So I do not believe this is an issue. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aisha_Tyler

Reston1876 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Reston1876. First of all, please do not remove questions from the Teahouse, even ones you have asked, which have been responded to by other editors, The information contained in the responses is not only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of other new editors who might be faced with a similar situation. Older questions are evenutally archived so that a record is there for others to see if necessary. It is also not considered proper on Wikipedia to remove/delete the posts of others from article talk pages or noticeboards per WP:TPO unless there is a very good policy-based reason for doing so.

Next, I think what you did with the draft was a mistake. If you wanted to upgrade the draft to article status yourself, you probably just should've moved the draft to the article namespace. What it looks like you did was basically copy and paste content from the draft into a a new article. Copy and paste moves like this are tricky because when you do something like that you lose all record of any edits made up to that point in time. If you look at Draft:Chase Chrisley/Revision history and then look at Chase Chrisley/Revision history, you see all of the information in the revision history of the former (including edits made by others besides yourself) is not reflected in the latter which is what is meant by "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. (Wikipedia's copyright license requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires." in WP:MOVE#Before moving a page. I'm not sure, but this might require an administrator to clean up and merge the edit histories. I agree with ColinFine's assessment of the draft in that the sources provided do not show how Chase satisfies WP:GNG. As a draft you would have had more time to work on the article sourcing, etc., but since you moved it to the article namespace it is now likely to be quickly nominated for speedy deletion or deletion via AfD. I strongly suggest you request that the article be userfied to your user space so that you can work on it some more and that you submit it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation the next time around. It has already been prodded for deletion once, which you removed, and then tagged with maintenance template, which you also removed. If you continue in simply reverting the edits of others without fixing the problems they are pointing out, then you going to be seen as edit warring and disruptive. You added the draft to mainspace which means it is now fair game for anyone to edit, tag with templates, or even nominate for deletion per WP:OWN, so continuing to blanket revert the edits of others is going to end badly for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Request to expedite review of draft "Robert Harding Picture Library Ltd."

I was directed here by another reviewer to request that the review of my contribution draft Robert Harding Picture Library Ltd. If anything is missing or needs edited to get this page published please let me know. Thanks. Kylesalsa (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kylesalsa. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. You need to establish notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of the Picture Library in reliable sources. Also some of the content appears to have been copied and pasted which is a big concern. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kylesalsa. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions and learn about editing Wikipedia, not a place to request an expedited review. There is currently a backlog of drafts awaiting review, and yours will have to wait its turn. Can I ask where you were told that you could bypass the queue if you posted here, as that advice shouldn't have been given to you? Taking a look at Draft:Robert Harding Picture Library Ltd., though, I can tell you that it would currently fail its review as it lacks inline citations. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on how to reference an article properly. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, that is helpful and I will get the draft corrected asap. As far as who told me to come here and request expedited review, I was told by another reviewer Robert McClenon had replied to a message on his talk page as he was the reviewer that requested speedy deletion of the initial draft. He then told me he would decline it, but would let another reviewer deal with it and to post here and request expedited review. If there is a way to forward you the message or send you a link to where I was informed I am happy to do so? Again, thank you for the info on what is missing to have my page published, although you mentioned some of the content looked like copy paste? I assure you it is all original and written by myself, can I ask what specifically you are referring to? Thanks Kylesalsa (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

old newspaper article verification

the draft I am working on has newspaper article references from the 1980s and 1990s, but I am having trouble finding the online archives. So, does this mean we cannot use this source, even if I have a copy of the actual article in print but not online? Or, is it sufficient to cite the paper name, author, date, title, etc, without an online link? 2602:306:B87E:E670:1E6:D127:F9B7:ED8F (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is absolutely acceptable to use sources that are not available online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. What you can do to aid verification is to add a quote from the source in the citation, to illustrate how the source supports material in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As long as you provide enough information about the source so that others could verify it (assuming they had access to the newspaper(s) in question), then that's fine. See Template:Cite news for how to cite newspapers. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How can I fix Piedmont, California?

When I began editing Piedmont, California I noticed a warning message about an invalid parameter "leader_title5." The article uses Template:Infobox settlement, which has leader_title4 but not leader_title5, which another editor attempted to use.

I compared this article to other articles about cities, and the only difference is that Piedmont identified the Vice-Mayor. My options seem t be:

• Comment out the Vice-Mayor.
• Request that the template be modified to allow more parameters.
• Try to figure out how to use the template Collapsible list.

So far, I have made only minor contributions to the article. I am unfamiliar with the subject, and I feel reluctant to make major changes.

What is the best thing to do? Comfr (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Comfr: it often helps to look at a Featured Article, since those are the ones that have received the most attention and peer review from experienced Wikipedia editors. I see that San Francisco is a FA, and skimming through its infobox, it looks like they list mayor, board of supervisors, State Assembly members, State Senator, and US Representatives. I guess you could stick to that. Another thing you could do is ask at a relevant WikiProject, though sometimes they're not active. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

pending citations

what do we put in a draft when we are waiting for a source to be verified...for "pending citations"? Sandy Montoya (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sandy Montoya: I assume you're talking about Draft:Scott Nute. I see that draft has been tagged with {{failed verification}} in a few places. That would happen because someone checked the source you cited and found that it didn't verify the text you added to Wikipedia. For example, if a book says, "Star Wars is a popular film" and you write on Wikipedia, "Star Wars is the most popular film ever made", that would fail verification because it's not what the source said. What you'd need to do is either change the text you added to Wikipedia so that it more closely matches what the source says or find a new source that verifies what you added to Wikipedia. Someone else might do this for you, but, in my experience, it's pretty rare. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitting a Draft

Hi sir, I started writing on the subject of Ayurved Pharmeceutical Sciences a couple of days ago but was denied. In fact the matter differs from main topic AYURVED in its principles in light of the modern day position. So please could I continue to write for your perusal and found proper we may add a new article. July 7 2016 (A.J.Baxi)

Hi there. I created a page draft submission that was denied. I would like to keep working on it, by pressing edit and then making the changes recommended by Wikipedia. (I haven't done this yet, but will.) After I'm finished and I would like to resubmit the page, do I just click the blue "resubmit" button on the live draft page? Should I leave all of the markup intact on the formatting side of the page, (that starts with {{AFC submission...)? Thanks very much.

Ellaby12 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ellaby12: yes and yes. Keeping the previous submission notes helps the reviewer this time see what was aid previously and whether the issues identified have been addressed. Nthep (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitting a Draft

Hi sir, I started writing on the subject of Ayurved Pharmeceutical Sciences a couple of days ago but was denied. In fact the matter differs from main topic AYURVED in its principles in light of the modern day position. So please could I continue to write for your perusal and found proper we may add a new article. July 7 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.J.Baxi (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Hi there. I created a page draft submission that was denied. I would like to keep working on it, by pressing edit and then making the changes recommended by Wikipedia. (I haven't done this yet, but will.) After I'm finished and I would like to resubmit the page, do I just click the blue "resubmit" button on the live draft page? Should I leave all of the markup intact on the formatting side of the page, (that starts with {{AFC submission...)? Thanks very much.

Ellaby12 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ellaby12: yes and yes. Keeping the previous submission notes helps the reviewer this time see what was aid previously and whether the issues identified have been addressed. Nthep (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Image location

I moved an image from the right hand side of a page to the left, and another editor has twice moved it back again to the right. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Stokes_(critic)

Why would they do that? I have sent a message to that editor but haven't had a response yet.

What are the Wikipedia conventions for the placement of images? Pdstokes (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pdstokes. To my mind, the page looks much better with the image on the right, as it then doesn't interrupt the text. Placement on the right is also the default option, as documented at MOS:IMAGESYNTAX. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Note also that your username and this edit summary suggest that you have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, Pdstokes. Please read and follow the advice at WP:COI. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to Cordless Larry for their response. I do have a COI but looking at the guidelines on image placement, this sentence 'It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text.' would seem to support my view that the image is better on the left. I don't see that the text is unduly interrupted by placing the image there. Pdstokes (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Pdstokes, I cannot think of another article where the first image is aligned to the left of the article's introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. A left-aligned image looks awful in the lead of an article with a table of contents. @Pdstokes: If you own photos of your father and will release them with a free license then you are welcome to upload them at commons:Special:UploadWizard and add one or two to the article. If another image is to the right in the lead then the photo where he looks to the right could be in the left side of a later section. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Pdstokes, the major issue with the article at the moment isn't the image placement, but the complete lack of sources. Do you know of any that could be used to support the material in the article? Please do suggest them at Talk:Adrian_Stokes_(critic) if you do. You also need to declare your COI there. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Atomic oxygen in Saturn caused by rings to wear out.

Why rings from the Saturn eroded. I can't know why Saturn thought. Accoding to her 10 years old sister, Claire-Anne, Saturn will be eroded? Daskjhon john (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Daskjhon john. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. General knowledge questions are more likely to be met with answers if you ask them at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about speedy deletion

Hi I do not know what is wrong with the page, considering its my first time I would really appreciate some useful insight. I don't mind you pin pointing the mistakes either. I do know that the references were not uploaded, but if that's the only thing that keeping it from getting published I shall add them. The page is tittled as Umang Software Technologies.

I got a message saying it is nominated for speedy deletion. I want to know why?

Velington Afonso (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The most obvious fault with the article Umang Software Technologies is that it offers no evidence at all, in the form of references to reliable independent published sources, that its subject is notable. Without such evidence, it will certainly be deleted. That is not its only fault, but it's probably the one that will be most difficult to overcome. Maproom (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Velington Afonso, please read about what we mean by "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia. Also, if your contributions relate to a person or organisation from which you receive money, you must make a paid-contribution disclosure. This is a requirement, not an option. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I notify the community that I drafted a requested article, pending acceptance?

I happened to see an interesting topic on the "WikiProject Missing Encyclopedic articles" under the "Monthly focus: MacTutor biographies" list (Sergei Chernikov). Since so few of these articles are left on this list, I am probably not going to be the only person who takes a stab at drafting this biography in the week before the article is approved or rejected. Should I do something to indicate this article is "pending"? Thanks guys. Oceanchaos (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I was in the process of accepting this when I found that Dodger67 had beaten me to it (thanks, Dodger!). OceanChaos, that's the sort of article you could have created directly in mainspace – an obviously completely notable subject, and a number of unimpeachable references, all in all a valuable addition to the project (thank you!). Are the journal articles available online, perhaps through some major online database? If so, it'd be nice if you could link to them, and add a {{subscription required}} template to the citations if necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. I didn't want to just drop it straight into mainspace because (1) this is my first from-scratch biography and (2) while I'm reasonably confident I got the biographical details correct, I'm a biostatistician, and need someone with more expertise to help decode his contributions to group theory. I see someone already fixed several errors I made in the reference tags, including external links. In the future, should I put notable subjects straight into namespace, even if they are incomplete/possibly riddled with coding mistakes? Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oceanchaos and Justlettersandnumbers I've dropped a note about the new article at WikiProject Mathematics, so other subject specialist would probably be contributing to it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I see this has already started to happen. Crowd-sourcing is awesome! Thanks so much! Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Good work, all. Just a quick point, though. Looking at Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov, is the list of published works necessary, or would a selected list of his most influential publications be better? At the moment, that section makes the article look a bit like a CV. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Cordless Larry, we don't usually need or want such a list. There seems to be plenty of scope and source material for those who understand the subject-matter to discuss the importance and significance of his articles in running text. I suggest removing or drastically pruning the publications list for now, Oceanchaos. By the way, I think this would make a good WP:DYK, if you're interested in that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I just grabbed all the articles in English from Web of Science that had at least one citation (there were dozens more). I don't know enough about the history of group theory to say which of these were most influential, and the number of citations in English databases is probably a poor indicator of influence of Russian publications from as early as the 1930s. I'm hoping more knowledgeable people will be able to pare this down. I tried to get a sense from the Dixon et al. article which papers were most significant, but the terminology was just too foreign.Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting the DYK tag, Justlettersandnumbers. Yes, I would definitely be interested in that. Do I draft my own hook? What about nomination? I'm way too new at this to feel comfortable nominating myself for the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanchaos (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 July 2016‎ (UTC)

One more thing: the article says that Chernikov trained more than 40 PhD and 7 doctor of science students, but I don't see that statistic in the source cited. It certainly lists some of his students, but I don't see where it distinguishes between PhDs and doctors of science (if indeed there is a difference). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Ershov et al. obituary says on the last page "The academic school that Chernikov founded is widely known. He trained around 40 Ph.D.'s and 7 doctors of science...". Dixon et al. actually lists all of them, and there are more than 40. Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Oceanchaos. My confusion came because only the Dixon et al. source is cited at the end of that sentence. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft being declined by Kylie

Dear Teahouse,

My name is Sam and I am working in a PR firm in Hong Kong. Recently my colleague has drafted a organization profile on Wikipedia for our client, The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors.

However, we find that the review process take so much time. It has been drafted about one month ago, but it has not been published.

We try to consult some users of wikipedia and they suggest us to disclose the paid contribution on the talk page. So we have done accordingly too. According to the notification, our draft was declined by Kylie. So we would like to know what else we can do to make the organization profile publish and prevent violation of any regulation of wikipedia.

Here is the link for of our draft for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Hong_Kong_Institute_of_Surveyors

We look forward to your reply.

Best regards, Sam 203.186.212.98 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have three comments. First, thank you for making the paid contribution disclosure, but that was required, and we don't owe you thanks for it. Second, please remember to log in before editing. Third, as a paid editor, you have a right to expect civility, but you do not have a right to expect promptness from volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fourth, too many of the references are to your own web site, and are not independent. We are more interested in what others have written than in what you have written. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sam (203.186.212.98). As Robert McClenon posted, Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about a subject; They are not intended to reflect what the subject says about itself. Moreover, the subjects of articles do not own Wikipedia articles written about them and have no final say as to what information is added and what information is removed. So, you might want to let your client know about Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences.

The thing you need to do is to show how this organization satisfies WP:ORG, in particular WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is needed, and that primary sources or trivial mentions are not considered acceptable for establishing notability. Wikipedia's is not intended to be a way for subjects to promote themselves per WP:NOTPROMOTION.

Finally one last thing, if you are by chance User:Creativegp, then you should probably consider changing your username for the reasons I gave at User talk:Creativegp#Your username. Wikipedia's username policy does not allow the use of any usernames which may be seen as representing a company, group, organization, etc. because such names are considered to be promotional. Such accounts are sometimes blocked from editing by administrators if they appear to be only editing for promotional purposes. According to this edit, this IP account also appears to be being used by someone named "Paul". If that's not you and you are not "Creativegp", then I suggest you create an account for your own individual use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sam. Since you and your colleagues at your PR firm are being paid to edit this draft article, I suggest that you offer a complete refund to your client. Your firm has not succeeded in learning the basic principles of writing a Wikipedia article, such as summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. A large percentage of your sources are not independent and are instead affiliated with the surveyor's organization. Your references are poorly formatted as bare URLs and it seems that your paid team of editors are not familiar with the basics like Referencing for beginners. Unpaid volunteers regularly and routinely write much better encyclopedia articles than this. One would think that someone being paid would do a much better job, but that is certainly not the case here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

next step after draft is ready

the draft I have been working on is about done. So, what is next in the process of getting the final version ready to be sent to an article reviewer? Do we add photos and such now or later? thanks Sandy Montoya (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Motoya. If you've created a draft article that you believe is ready for article status, then I believe there are two things you can do.

1. Simply move the draft to the article namespace yourself.
2. Submit it for review via Wikipedia:Article for creation by adding Template:AFC (more specifically {{subst:submit}}) to the top of the page.

If you a relatively new editor without much experience creating articles, then I recommend option #2. This will give AfC reviewers a chance to assess your draft and provide suggestions on how to improve it. There is no policy or guideline which states that editors cannot simply add articles to the encyclopedia without a review (i.e., option 1), but such articles tend to be highly scrutinized and often quickly deleted per WP:AFD or WP:CSD if they have serious problems which cannot be fixed. Being accepted via AfC does not guarantee that an article will never be deleted, but it does give you and others the opportunity to address serious problems, etc. and bring the draft up to Wikipedia's standards and, therefore, make it less likely to be immediately tagged/nominated for deletion.

As for your question about images, freely licensed files like the ones found on Wikipedia Commons can be added to drafts of articles. All you have to do is make sure the images you choose comply with WP:IUP. Copyrighted content, however, is considered to be non-free by Wikipedia, and may only be used under the pretty restrictive WP:NFCC. One of these conditions is WP:NFCC#9 which states that non-free content may only be used in the article namespace, which means no userpages, userboxes, drafts, templates, talk pages, etc. So, you should only add a non-free image after the draft has been upgraded to an article and only if the particular use satisfies all 10 of the non-free content criteria found at WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Motoya. I've looked at the article and every citation I looked at failed verification, i.e., the sources do not corroborate the information in the text. You seem to be using citations to verify the existence of things, rather than to corroborate the actual factual content. For example, when you write:

"Soon after, Dwight invited Nute to move to Denver from New Mexico to become the "guinea pig" intern for his ministry, Kingdom Building Ministries (KBM), an international discipleship organization."

References

The citation should verify that "Dwight invited Nute to move to Denver"; and that it occurred "soon after" the event in the preceding sentence; and that it was for the purpose of "becom[ing] the "guinea pig" intern for his ministry"; and that "Kingdom Building Ministries (KBM)" is his ministry; and that KBM is a "an international discipleship organization". That is, every single fact making up the sentence should be corroborated by the citation you provide for them. Instead, the link is to the front page of KBM's website, and verifies no part of the content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Who are "we", Sandy Montoya? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for individual, not collective, use. If there's more than one of you, you'll need an account each. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help with formatting

Hello all. I am looking for a kind of mentor when it comes to formatting for the english wikipedia. I regulary participate in the german wikipedia - subject: contempory art - and as some of the artists, i wrote about, do also exhibit in english-speaking countries, i am translating some of the articles. But formatting on the english wikipedia is not the same as on the german wikipedia, and i really would prefer not to make mistakes here :-). Just someone, who has a look on the article before i move it, thus only occasionally i need help. Kind regards --Gyanda (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Gyanda: You seem to be a competent editor, so I am not willing to act as mentor. But your spelling and formatting can be improved – I have already removed some upper-case initial letters from Regine Schumann. If you ever want me to inspect and copy-edit your work, I will be happy to do so, just leave a message on my talk page. (Unfortunately I'm about to leave for a week's vacation with only a laptop to edit from, so I may not be able to help much until I'm home again.) Maproom (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Maproom - I am a little puzzled, but will try to interpret or restate. You decline to mentor another editor because they seem to be competent. Do you really mean that they seem to be sufficiently experienced that they don't need mentoring in the usual sense? Incompetent editors don't need mentoring; they need to acquire clue, but they often don't acquire clue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: maybe it's a matter of terminology. I see "mentoring" as being ready to say "you shouldn't have done that, it's contrary to this policy". I don't think Gyanda needs such help. But he (or she?), a German speaker, does need help with English spelling and capitalisation, as we can see from the above request. I call that "copy-editing", and am willing to provide it. Maproom (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree. I will note that there are, in my opinion, very few editors for whom mentoring about Wikipedia policies, etiquette, and culture is useful. Most editors either come here willing to learn, or come here with their minds made up in some way, such as a desire to right great wrongs or a mindset that they are being bullied, or something. There are only a few editors for whom mentoring is useful. (The ArbCom in the past would occasionally try mentoring, and has more or less given up on it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gyanda. I make the same offer as Maproom. Just hit me up on my talk page when you're ready and I'll gladly do a copyedit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you people are so kind!!! Thank you for your work, Maproom. And thank you for your offer also, Fuhgettaboutit, i will go on with translating and when i am ready, i will alert you too and will be very thankful for help - and will also notice everything i learn in my "vademecum" (i already have one for the german wikipedia, it is "how do i do this and that" info, from what i gether... i am very eager to do things properly!!! Thank you!!! --Gyanda (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

One question, which i meet often: when i list Exhibitions and Collections: do i name the german name of the museum first (and add the translation in parenthesis in italic) or do i only name the german name of the museum or do i only name the translated version of the name of the museum? --Gyanda (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a common question, Gyanda, and a difficult one. My personal take is roughly this: if the museum (or whatever) is always known in English by an English name (the Sistine Chapel, say), it would be pretentious and silly to use a foreign-language name for it; if it's almost always referred to by a foreign-language name in modern English-language sources (e.g., Museo delle Mura), use that; but if it's somewhere in the middle, be guided by the name of our article on it or give both the foreign and the English name (WP:DIVIDEDUSE can be useful reading in those cases). In general, translated names should only be used if they are already established – Wikipedia should not make up a new name for something.

You can add me to your list of willing proof-readers for your translations, though my German is poor and strictly read-only. Please remember to add a {{translated page}} attribution template to the talk page of any translation you make. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumbers - i read the information on "translated page". It says: "Translations of copyrighted text, even from other Wikimedia projects, are derivative works, and attribution must be given to satisfy licensing requirements." - "of copyrighted text" - but my text is in german written by me and translated by me. As i understand it right, then i do not need the translated language information???--Gyanda (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Now, i would think that the page is ready. It lacks the categories still, as i did not know how to make this "not working" as long as i work on the page. In german i would embrace it with [nowiki] - but this does not seem to work here. Would you people be so kind to have a look, whether you find a lot of mistakes in formatting? I did translate the "Art in Public Places" into english as otherwise i think it does not make sense. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gyanda/Heiner_Thiel --Gyanda (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, are you able to assist here? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

using reference multiple times

I was informed when we use a reference multiple times we add the "/" after the refname and it copies it, but, what if the reference, which is in the same book, is on a different page? Is it necessary to put the page number for each reference? If so, how do we do this using the "/" for repeat references? Sandy Montoya (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sandy Montoya. You're right about citing a reference multiple times. The process is described at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. As for the page number issue, I find this one of the most frustrating things about footnote referencing. Help:References and page numbers gives some guidance, but I don't find any of the available systems particularly satisfactory. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Montoya. Short citations is one answer to this issue. For example (look at this in edit mode to see how it was done – and note that I 'nowikied' the section headers only because they would not play nice with this page):

(excerpt from article):

The bill is lavender, slightly tinged with green, and black at the tip; the legs are a pale blue-gray and the claws are slate or black. ...

In Sumatra, the bird is found throughout the Barisan Mountains, and has been observed in the Gayo Highlands of Aceh province, the Batak Highlands of northern Sumata, and at Dempo in the south of the island.

== Citations ==

== Bibliography ==

• Harrap, Simon (1996). Christopher Helm (ed.). Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers. Illustrated by David Quinn. ISBN 978-0-7136-3964-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Another method is to use {{Rp}}, though it really only should be used in situations where one book is used a vast number of times for many different page numbers. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Or the {{r}} template, with the syntax {{r|name|page=n}}, good when there's more than one ref for the same fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

please someone upload my college photo.

Anyone like to help plsss plsss contact. I am new. LOLZ. 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan messi acharya (talk • contribs) 18:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Help:Upload and Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup has a pretty good in depth tutorial about images on Wikipedia. eurodyne (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)