Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245

Unsure if a subject merits an entry

The actor Josh O'Connor does not have an entry, and I'm unsure whether to draft one. I haven't written an entry before. Thank youP. Tobie B. (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I easily found sources like these,[1][2][3][4] , so I´d say you have a fair shot per WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Now I just have to figure out all the coding stuff, LOL. Not sure if I can do it, but I'll try. P. Tobie B. (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey P. Tobie B.. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, which can hopefully explain a lot and make things much easier. GMG ^talk 15:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Go Green. I did look at those instructions, which is why I have a feeling I won't be able to figure it out :-) Will try, though, as I think Josh deserves an entry. P. Tobie B. (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, P. Tobie B.. Perhaps you can try using the Article wizard? It should guide you through the creation of your article, step by step. We'll also be happy to help at the Teahouse with any questions you may have during the process. Good luck! –FlyingAce^✈hello 01:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FlyingAce! I'm eager to give it a go. Is it standard courtesy to ask the subject if he/she would like to be in Wiki? 2604:2000:E0D3:3500:1143:E2AD:889D:6983 (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that´s an interesting question, P. Tobie B. It´s a fine sentiment, but my answer is no. In part because Josh O'Connor choose to pursue fame and this is part of it (hopefully a fairly harmless part). Also, per for example Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography, we generally want the subject of an article involved as little as possible. Also, remember to log in when editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@P. Tobie B.: The short answer is that no, we do not care about the subject's sentiment towards the article either way. This being said, we usually try not to include overly-private information in articles (see WP:BLPPRIVACY for details). There is some precedent that if a subject just meets the notability guidelines, and requests deletion of an article about themselves, we usually follow that request ("courtesy delete"); similarly, if there is information at the limit of WP:DUEWEIGHT that is not clearly negative, we usually remove it on request. Considering the links that Gråbergs Gråa Sång dug up, I would say we are not in that case (GNG is clearly met to my eyes). (Also, my minority opinion is that many "personal life" sections should go - the university they went to, their spouse's name, number of children etc. are often included even when those facts are not really relevant to the article. Even if that is publically available information, I think it is not encyclopedic information. But that is a minority viewpoint. It was recently agreed that putting samples of signatures for everyone we could was not a good idea, in the same vein. ) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I've unearthed a lot of links about Josh, so there's stuff out there for sure. Tigraan, I find the bio facts about celebs interesting—schooling, family, etc.—and would think they belong. If I ever get up enough courage to figure out how to post—I'm a writer, but the technical stuff here scares me—I'd be inclined to include them. 2604:2000:E0D3:3500:1143:E2AD:889D:6983 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless their full date of birth is widely known, please dont't add it. It makes identity theft easier. See MOS:DOB. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P. Tobie B. except for the subject's spouse/partner, avoid naming non-notable relatives, particularly children. Do say: "He married Susan Blogs in 1998, they have two children", do not say "He married Susan, second daughter of Joe, a lawyer and Vietnam War veteran, and Anne Blogs, in 1998. Their children are Pete, aged 6 and Lara aged 3". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, Roger. There are several famous people in my family—all listed in Wiki!—so I'm quite discreet. I so appreciate everyone's help.2604:2000:E0D3:3500:6041:5ADE:21B3:AEF0 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to scare you away, but you might want to check out this page. Rajanala Samyak (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help for brainstorming a particular template for WikiProject Law Enforcement

I'm asking here 'cause the wikiproject page is really dead. Although I advocate for changing to inactive, another matter is that someone raised the idea of making an infobox for law enforcement units such as SWAT-type units since the military unit infobox is used for them. I would agree, except I need feedback and no one hangs around there. Ominae (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ominae, why? Police department are not generally notable; sub units of police departments even less so. Infoboxes are solely intended to head articles. Why create an Infobox that virtually won't be used? John from Idegon (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. This is what the guy said though. Ominae (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ominae and John from Idegon: How many articles are there about law enforcement units? --Thnidu (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law enforcement agencies may be a starting point? --David Biddulph (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, David Biddulph, but I quailed at the apparent size of the tree. --Thnidu (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50 title change/page move?

Hello Teahouse hosts!

I was working along happily, making improvements to the Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50 article, when I suddenly realized the article should be called All Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50 as that is the actual title of the exhibit. I'd like some guidance on how to correct this problem.

Thank you in advance for your help Circa73 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it for you, but in the future WP:MOVE should be useful. (It's funny, we have almost exactly the same number of edits... I know it's irrelevant, but I just had to mention it.) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I attended that exhibit at the Oakland Museum of California, Circa73, and enjoyed it very much. Thank you for writing an article about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A lad insane. I appreciate your moving the page and also the link to the WP:MOVE article! I'll give it a try on my own next time. Wow, I guess my edits are adding up...I'm sort of a dilettante editor; sometimes I don't edit for months, but then I'll have a burst of editing-energy again. I've got some things under my belt, but there's always something to learn:)Circa73 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Circa73: I'm the same way... happy to help =D -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328 Thanks for your enthusiastic response to the All Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50 article! Did you by any chance take any pictures of the exhibit!? I'd love love to have one on the page;)Circa73 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did take photos, Circa73. I will try to find them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to use the redirect command when experimenting with personal Wikipedia Sandbox?

I tried doing a search through the archives to find an answer to my question, but didn't see anything. If I'm playing around with my personal Wikipedia Sandbox, would entering this code

be disruptive to a legitimate Wikipedia page? (Entering the word drunk for example, in place of nameofsomething)?

Thank you

Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beauty School Dropout and welcome to the Teahouse.

The {{redirect}} template that you are thinking of does not redirect anything. It only affects the page it is transcluded on. You can safely experiment with it in your sandbox to see how the various parameters change how it looks on the page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Beauty School Dropout (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Article was denied immediately after I submitted it from my sandbox for approval

It reads that my SandBox Username may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained. I am new here so I am really not sure what this means?

Kasia Kaoir (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasia Kaoir: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It doesn't appear to me that you formally submitted your sandbox for approval as a draft, but another user tagged it as vandalism for speedy deletion. Unless that user knows something I don't, it doesn't appear to be vandalism, so I removed the tag. However, your draft is a long way from being able to be placed in the encyclopedia. It does not have independent reliable sources indicating how the article subject is notable. It doesn't have any sources at all, for that matter. You have dived right into article creation, which is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia. I would encourage you to read Your First Article to learn what is being looked for, and perhaps to take some time making edits to existing articles to learn how Wikipedia operates before attempting to submit a draft. You may find it easier to use Articles for Creation to do so, which will give you feedback from a reviewer. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...there is something (that may not be broadly elucidated upon), that lead to my tagging.But, anyways, I will extend AGF and keep an eye out.Winged Blades^Godric 14:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What things might revoke my editing rights without the usual mis-conduct like profanity or fake news?

I recently edited the Sino-Indian War article by updating it with the 2017 conflict. I added the link to its wikipedia article and wrote just a couple of sentences in the summary as I thought the article itself had sufficient citations and source material and that no other conflict was given references in the summary- their own articles had all the necessary references. Within a few minutes my edits were reverted and a message was left on my talk page saying " Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Adding unsourced content in a contentious topic will certainly lead to losing your editing privilege. Consider this your first warning. Thanks. " I do not want to get my editing privileges suspended over something I don't fully understand. Can someone help me here? I don't know what all un-obvious things might get my previleges suspended. Thanks.

Nishant.sankhe (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nishant.sankhe, and welcome to the Teahouse. Each article needs to be independently verifiable. If you add information to some other article, please bring the citations with you, if you are confident that they verify the content you just added. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What other not-so-obvious things might get my rights suspended? What else should I be alert about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishant.sankhe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nishant.sankhe. Editors are blocked when it is necessary to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy for a detailed explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 19:22, November 19, 2017 (UTC)‎

I reviewed your edit. You tried to add content about a 2017 standoff between Chinese and Indian troops to an article about a war that took place in 1962 and resulted in thousands of deaths. The 2017 incident resulted in no casualties and it certainly does not belong in an article about a war that took place 55 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 19:31, November 19, 2017 (UTC)

Well to be fair, it was in a small section titled " Future conflicts". And as far as I understand 2017 is a future conflict and I edited it in the proper section. But I am a new user and always ready to learn. It would be really appreciated if you just took one more glance and tell me what I did wrong and what to keep in mind for further edits? Thanks. Nishant.sankhe (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Alex Shih, who issued the warning. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange is going on. I (Cullen328) actually wrote the two passages that are signed by Bonadea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, your posts did not show up, so I closed a tag, and suddenly my signature was added to your posts... it's all very strange. I added the unsigned template just now with your name, but you might want to fix it with your own signature. I'll withdraw gracefully before I cause any further confusion. --bonadea contributions talk 19:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave things as they are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that strange, as the ~~~~ was being commented out as a result of the accidental removal of ">", closing that tag activates the signature to the last revision editor (Bonadea). In regards to the original poster, my warning was mainly in response to the post left on my talk page. Usually I am in favor of being more lenient, but in extremely contentious topics there are simply little rooms for error. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page.. I added a link to the wikipedia article which was thoroughly referenced. The only unreferenced thing was the summary which was that way because the 1967 and 1987 incidents weren't either. Shouldn't you be deleting their summary as well for being unreferenced?I am not inciting an edit war. Don't want one. I am new here and all I want is advices, not swift rebuttals. Any help is appreciated. ThanksNishant.sankhe (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishant.sankhe, the proper place to make your case for adding this content is Talk:Sino-Indian War. I find it hard to see how this 2017 content belongs in an article about a war that took place 55 years ago. As for the 1967 and 1987 confrontations, it depends entirely on whether reliable sources explicitly connect them with the 1962 war. There are other articles about the troubled relationship between India and China where this content might better belong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WAM

I don't get the WAM (Wikipedia Asian Month) thingy. I try to edit some articles but it doesn't let me add. Sometimes, when I search an article up on the edit site, it says THERE ARE NO ARTICLES WITH THIS NAME!!!!! And then, I search it up on the Wikipedia home page and it's there!!!!! Someone please help me figure out this problem!

Angel For Life (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Angel For Life. Welcome to the Teahouse. Would you mind giving some examples of topics you searched on without success, but then found later, please? Normally I would suspect this would be just an error in typing, but it would help to know what exactly you were trying to do, or any error messages you received. You should be able to make edits to existing articles, but your account is not quite old enough yet (4 days minimum), nor have you made enough edits (10 minimum) to current articles for you to be 'autoconfirmed', which would allow you to create articles from scratch. Was that what you were trying to do? (One other cause of being unable to make even a minor edit to an existing article is if you were first trying to edit either from a blocked IP address (is not logged on with your username), or via a proxy server used by a Web browser (like Puffin browser), but then you'd see a rather alarming message, like this one. The more you can explain what you were doing, the more we can try to help you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick Moyes. Thank you for taking your time to read this and tell me how to figure this out. Well, I wasn't really sure what I was doing. This is my first time entering the WAM organization. I was rather confused. I just pressed random buttons and I reached a site. I can't get to it anymore though but there was like a page where it shows all the people that edited a page related to Asian things. It also showed how many credits these people got for editing these articles. So, there was a search bar and I started searching up some stuff. At the bottom right corner, there were two buttons that said "Cancel" and "Add". SO I searched up Maggie Fu and it said there are no article with this name. And then I searched up a band called Mayday, but it would not let me add (the "Cancel" button was bright, and the "Add" button was dim.). Today, I searched for the site again, hoping I could get back to it and figure it out, but it wasn't there anymore. It was like it never existed. I even bookmarked the page, but it's not in the bookmarks bar. Is it because my computer has a virus or something? Or is it just because the whole thing ended? I am getting more confused by the moment, so I guess I'll just stop here. Sincerely, Angel For Life (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving appeal for donations

I would like to give an impuls about improving the appeal for donations and didn't find any other kontact form fitting my purpose.

It woult be wise to use the text of the appeal for donations to line out why it's important to donate if you can. Most people know, that it's easy to ignore the appeal, and it's not very motivating to say that most people do ignore the appeal (also see ^[1] for that matter). In my oppinion it would be helpfull, to answer the unspokes question of many „non - donating people“: „why should I donate (=~ pay) for a free encyclopedia, when it's purpose is to make knowlegde free, NOT paid?!“

I would address this by saying something like:

„If you can afford it, it is important to donate so that those people who can not afford giving money can still access free knowledge“ So „It's you helping to keep the information on Wikipedia freely avialable for all the others who don't have money“

And normally it's best to keep the appeal as short as possible, otherwise many people don't read the whole „Text“ of 3 Sentenses.

My intention is only the help the Wikipedia community, and motivate other people who can afford it to help with their Donations.

I would be very happy, to see an improved appeal for donations (not for me though, I did already donate ;)

Alexander Wartmann (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

Moved from Ref Desk μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexander. The English Wikipedia community is not actually directly involved in the donation appeals. They are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of all WMF projects. You can read about the latest round of fundraising and give your feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation website. – Joe (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander Wartmann: Adding to what Joe has said, you may find this page of FAQs of interest, and you can always email the Foundation directly about fund-raising matters at donate@wikimedia.org if you wish. Your support and donations really are appreciated. Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer, as are the host of editors who create content on this and other language Wikis around the world. The cost of maintaining its servers, supporting education and outreach projects into world-wide communities, and encouraging volunteers to contribute to develop these sites is considerable. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References for creating new articles

What constitutes an article topic being "notable"? Does the article have to be about someone who is famous? What type of references are required. If I'd like to create an article on a restaurant that my be local or a music band that my not be in the Billboard top 100, is there any type of stipulations on creating these types of articles?Sweetbliss79 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You'll find the definition at WP:Notable. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines for bands are at WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sweetbliss79. We do not have a notability guideline specifically for restaurants, so the General notability guideline applies. I have been involved with a lot of discussions about restaurants, and here are my observations: Because local newspapers review pretty much every local restaurant, most experienced editors will consider this routine coverage to be inadequate to establish notability. If a restaurant has won a Michelin star or a James Beard award or another highly prestigious national award, that is a positive sign. If the restaurant has been reviewed in depth by prestigious newspapers and magazines based hundreds or thousands of miles away, then that is a very positive sign. Take a look at the references for Whoa Nellie Deli, an article I wrote about an unusual restaurant in a remote part of California. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Im new and do not know a good wiki to start at can someone give me a good one, if so thank you Tegan001234567890 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tegan001234567890. If you are looking for tasks that need to be done to improve the encyclopedia, please take a look at the Community portal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worthwhile to create an entry if the same topic is included in Wikibooks project

I am trying to add a new entry of "glutamine addiction" to Wikipedia, but I found out an article in Wikibooks discussing the exactly same topic, entitled Glutamine Addiction in Cancer. So shall I proceed to write a new entry in Wikipedia? Peiyangium (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Peiyangium. Wikibooks is a completely separate project that creates free textbooks for teaching purposes. Textbooks are very different from encyclopedia articles, are written in a different style for a different audience. That project also has different editorial standards. There is no reason why you cannot write a Wikipedia article, assuming that the topic is notable and that you follow our policies and guidelines. I recommend that you read Your first article for some excellent advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328! That is very helpful! Peiyangium (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I look at what someone has written in their own sandbox to do a peer review

I am trying to find a classmates sandbox article to do a peer review, but I cant find it at all. can you help me? SonnyGreenbush (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, SonnyGreenbush. Go to your classmates user page, and click "User contributions" in the left hand menu. You can see a list of their edits, and their sandbox will be on that list if they have edited it. For example, I just took a look at your contributions and saw that you have recently edited User:SonnyGreenbush/sandbox. 05:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How to prevent edit wars?

I honestly tried to improve a lemma about a field I wrote a PhD on, so I could be considered an expert in. A user reversed my contribution and sent me some unfriendly comments. I am not prepared to write my contributions again. How do I resolve this conflict? Perhaps my contribution was not "ideal", but the original text was definitely wrong. Rbakels (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rbakels: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are in a content dispute with another editor, you should first attempt to discuss the matter with them to reach a resolution on the article talk page. If that does not resolve the matter, then there are dispute resolution procedures available which you can find at WP:DR. That said I don't see how the other user was rude to you. Remember that it is hard for text communication to convey emotion and that everyone should assume good faith. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reaction. Rude? The comment was "You seem to have replaced a perfectly sensible description of the idea of an invention with a mis-typed, US-centric screed describing inventions as tricks." I had to look up the word "screed" in a (language) dictionary, and I found it is a negative term. Rejecting my explanation (that an invention basically is a "tric") with no other comment that it would be "US-centric" does not help the debate either. Rbakels (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rbakels. Expert editors are welcome on Wikipedia, but sometimes have difficulty adapting their approach and expectations to the special requirements of Wikipedia. I suggest you have a look at Expert editors.

By the way, your contribution is not lost - it is there in the history of the article. If the consensus you reach by discussing with other editors is that your contribution (or part of it) would be valuable in the article, then you, or somebody else, can retrieve your text and use it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since none linked to it, the edit in question seems to be that one. I kind-of agree with the reversion rationale (given on the OP's talkpage). I would guess that replacing the lead sentence by "an invention is basically a trick" is what angered the reverter - this may be true, but our article Star does not start by "a star is basically a sun".

I cannot provide a guideline to that effect, but the art of the lead is basically to make the topic as simple as possible, but not simpler. Your analogy is not obvious to understand (maybe the Dutch word for "trick" has more meaning than in English?), and anyways analogies are not really desirable in the lead. Remember that since we can link articles together, it is not such a big problem to use a technical term; it is actually better to use a wikilinked technical term that is precise that an imprecise layman term (and better yet to use a precise layman term, but that is not always available).

Well, now that I look at our article star, A star is a luminous sphere of plasma held together by its own gravity is probably a step to far in the opposite direction of techno-encyclopedic language, but that gives you the idea. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating pages for musicians and artists

Hello - complete newbie here, getting lost in the rabbit hole of Wikipedia, and would appreciate some help please. I'd like to create and maintain pages for some notable artists that I work with. One already has a Wiki - Tony Momrelle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Momrelle), which I have just made my very first edit to (and I really hope it's okay...). The other band, Lydian Collective, does not yet have a Wiki, and I'd like to create a page but I understand that:

a) I apparently may have a COI because I work for them doing their social media (I'm not 100% sure, though, how I disclose this and what it actually means for the pages in question) b) I need to wait 92 hours before I can create my first page and must have 10 edits under my belt

Both artists are on iTunes, Spotify & all other online stores, so there's no question of notability (I don't think?). I'm honestly getting lost in all of the Wiki articles that I'm meant to read in order to get this information up on here, and would like to know if anyone has experience with getting artist/musician pages online, and whether there's a template that I can follow which will ensure it gets approved? I literally just want to put biographical and factual discography information on here.

Would very much appreciate some help. Thank you. AlexandraK1234 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexandraK1234: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are correct that you have a COI, if you haven't already, please review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI which also has information on how to declare one. If you are paid for your work, you are also required to read and comply with the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(this is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are a paid editor).

Having music available for sale online is not in and of itself evidence of notability, as it is not difficult to post music online. Wikipedia uses notability as a test as to whether a subject merits an article. In the case of musicians/bands, the notability guidelines for them are listed at WP:BAND. A musician/band must meet at least one of them in order to merit an article, as shown with independent reliable sources. As you have a COI, you should use Articles for Creation to create new articles, and for existing articles you should suggest changes on the relevant article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article you are viewing, then edit normally). 331dot (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @331dot - I'm sorry, totally new to this, and actually I'm finding it's pretty confusing (mainly because the sheer volume of guidelines a lot to take in). I'm not being paid specifically to update Wiki, just to do social media, but I'm updating Wiki because I think they should have accurate Wiki pages (Spotify pulls Wiki data, for example, onto Artist 'about' pages). I don't want to ruin any pages or post anything I shouldn't, so I've reached out to my networks to see if I know any established Wiki editors who might be able to help. Are there any Wiki editors that regularly help out with getting accurate content onto pages for others, who might be interested in helping out here? Thanks again, A AlexandraK1234 (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexandraK1234: I'm not being paid specifically to update [Wikipedia]... - well, you might still be a paid editor. If you are paid to update Spotify, and you need to update Wikipedia for that, then for our purposes you are paid to edit Wikipedia. Basically, if you make your proposed Wikipedia edits during your work hours and your boss is happy with that, it is paid editing.

Fortunately, you are still allowed to edit. Just make the appropriate disclaimer as described at WP:PAID.

Oh, and not that anyone cares, but wiki is not synonymous with Wikipedia.Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small note: you designated the edit you made to Tony's article as minor when it was definitely not minor. Minor is more like correcting spelling of a word. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlexandraK1234 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexandraK1234: I'm a newby here too (2 months) and I started out very much as you have, wanting to create a page about something I was interested in but for which also had a conflict of interest. My first 'proposed page' was - with very good justification - quickly rejected and even deleted shortly afterwards. In the 'rejection response', I received links to some essential principles, rules and tips. I've learned a whole lot about Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia foundation) since then. The page I was interested in creating has now been published (in Dutch) with the support of a Wikipedia coach and 2 independent reviewers/contributors. I'm still far from being an experienced Wikipedia editor/coach but I've been through the initial learning curve. I've managed to find my way through the Rabbit Hole;) In the past 2 months, my perspective of Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia foundation) has shifted 180 degree. I started out with the question 'what can Wikipedia do for me/us". My involvement now centers on the question "what can I do to help the Wikimedia foundation and its various projects (including Wikipedia)"? If I can help you with what you'd like to do on Wikipedia, I'd happy to do so. Not as a coach (I don't have nearly enough knowledge/experience) but just as a newby who's been through the hoop. I can thoroughly recommend finding a Wikipedia coach! My coach has been invaluable.

Mikemorrell49 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching "spoon theory" should not redirect to "ego depletion"

Currently, searching the term "spoon theory" redirects to the page ego depletion. In the Talk page for ego depletion, I mention why this is misleading and unhelpful.

I do not know how to delete a redirect, and I am not sure that is the best solution. It is probably the best solution. Searching for "spoon theory" should either inform the user that the page does not exist, or it should have a short article mentioning the essay that coined the term spoon theory. I am doubtful that the topic meets the notability guidelines, but the metaphor of spoons is increasingly common. Fluoborate (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been restored. Dbfirs 11:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being bullied via a page

Dear Tearoom, a page has been set up abut me (Polly Clark) which of course I don't mind, but the person seems to have set it up in order to present me negatively, by using non-neutral terms and not including full information. This has persisted despite my publisher making amendments. I object to the word 'chequered' being used to describe me in the way it is on this page: the full quote, where I describe my career as chequered myself, and then go on include varied jobs should be included if the author wishes to use the word. The author has changed the context to make my career sound shady. Also, the author describes my review coverage as 'mixed' and then highlighted my single bad review. This is not neutral language, as I understand it from your own guidelines below. I do not mind the presence of the bad review (it is in the public domain) but its prominence is being distorted. There is malice behind this page, and as this is being repeated it is bullying. Please can you help. Thank you, Polly Clark

I have now made amendments to the page, which remove the non-neutral references, but keep the review quote.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. 81.154.82.160 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Deb. GMG ^talk 15:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article (Polly Clark) (and its refs), it seems to focus almost exclusively on Larchfield. I created a redirect at Larchfield, but maybe it should be the other way around (i.e. the article at Larchfield and Polly Clark redirecting to it). Also, the zookeeper stuff does not look very relevant (even in the BLP article). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this really isn't the place for the below comment. I would just refer you, 81.154.82.160, to the conflict of interest guidelines. Deb (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC) :What a load of nonsense from 81.154.82.160. I created a page for an emerging author under the umbrella of the "Women in Red" project. I did my best to make it NPOV, mentioning that it had received mixed reviews - which is true. Under the pretence of making it "fairer", an anon removed all mention of negative reviews and added long quotes from the positive ones, also claiming that "'chequered' - the term used by Clark herself in an interview - is "a loaded, negative description", whilst adding the term "widely-acclaimed". If this really is Polly Clark writing above, she needs to check out how Wikipedia works before throwing around completely unfounded accusations of "malice" and "bullying". Deb (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if table should be included in article

Was looking over [[5]] and noticed the tables in [[6]] seemed to be copy pasted from some other source and didn't format properly. I began to work on finding a source for the table and transferring it over, but I began to wonder if it is appropriate to include such a detailed table within the article since it is about a politician, not the elections themselves, ignoring any issues with organization of content, etc. (I found a source for one of the tables, though it doesn't exactly match all the fields, on page 328 of [7] to see exactly what I'm asking about) Juan el Demografo (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juan el Demografo and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you were right in your concerns, and I note that a helpful copy editor has been hard at work today in improving the article on S. P. Singh Baghel and removing irrelevant content. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

links allowed?

I am creating a page for a music band. It's in the editing phase: Ruin (punk band). I want to link to a few of their early songs. Is it allowed to include YouTube, Spotify, and/or Bandcamp links?

Thanks. Eliswinterabend (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eliswinterabend. The answer is, generally not: see WP:EL for the (quite stringent) restrictions on what external links are allowed. Looking at Draft:Ruin (punk bank), I wonder if you have read your first article: if not, I recommend doing so. It looks to me that you have started the difficult task of writing a new article backwards, (as most inexperienced editors do). Citations to independent reliable published sources are not a nice-to-have, that can be added after writing: they are the essential basis, without which there can be no article. Wikipedia is not really interested in what the band say, or even what they have recorded, and it is certainly not interested in what you (or I, or any other random person on the Internet) know, or think, about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection to them have published about them, and that is what you should base the article on. --ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

creating a page

The songwriter, Kyle Fishman, is mentioned on several songs on Wikipedia... how do I create a Wiki page for Kyle Fishman and link back to the songs?LenFishman (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LenFishman and welcome to the Teahouse. You have already created the article here Draft:Kyle Fishman. I declined it because the references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. You may also have what we call a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My declination of article creation

Why was my arcticle declined? I worked quite hard on this and I am very dissapointed. I had citations and links and everything so why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidgetFan1234 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WidgetFan1234. Welcome to the teahouse. I'm afraid your article Draft:Typical Gamer falls far short of the requirements of an encyclopaedia article, as was explained in some detail when your draft was initially rejected today. I suggest you follow the links in that advice, as well as read this guide to newcomers: Wikipedia:Your first article. You are free to improve and resubmit it when you have done that. I see you have asked a similar question at WP:AFC, so I wont expand on it here, too. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How and where to add a reference

Hello, I submitted a draft for a page and it was rejected because I did not add any references. Besides the website for the organization, all of the other notes came from internal documents. How should I add the reference so the draft can be approved?

Thanks. (96.68.247.213 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that there are no published reliable sources independent of the subject, then there can be no article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a relative newby, perhaps I can just add to David Biddulph's (correct) response. I started out here 2 months ago much like you. I proposed draft page for review that I had a personal interest in with no understanding of Wikipedia's goals, criteria or standards. Unsurprisingly, my draft page was quickly and justifiably rejected too. I've learned a lot since then. My advice is:

put aside your self-interest (or that of your organisation) for the moment and try to see things from the perspective of Wikipedia volunteers; they have good reasons for making sure that information offered to the public meets certain standards (such as relevance, reliability and neutrality). They have the responsibility to make sure that Wikipedia does not become a 'dumping ground' for people/organizations that are primarily motivated by self-interests to add or edit content. It took me quite a while to really see things from this perspective.
take the time to read the help pages and guidelines from this perspective; you will have received links to the main ones in the reviewer's response
a key point is that the content of all Wikipedia entries must be verifiable through references to independent, reliable sources. This means that the role an author/editor is simply to find sources, include references to them and decide which information from these sources only is useful to include in the page. The main purpose of the page is to summarise the sourced information and to provide references to these where more detailed information is given.
if (as David points out) there are sufficient independent and reliable sources (newspaper articles, business journals, etc) that indicate that outside world is interested in your organization, ask for help from other editors (perhaps as a coach) in drafting a page that meets the criteria and standards. If you work for this organization, you have a potential 'conflict of interest'. For this reason alone it would be wise to ask other (independent) editors to review, discuss and contribute to the draft page.

This is probably not what you want to hear (nor did I) but I hope it helps. Mikemorrell49 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help please!

Hi team, Hope you're well.

I need your help. I created a profile for Dr. David J. Chao last week. Actually he asked me to create his profile since he does not have the skills or time.

I received an email today that his profile has not been accepted since the references don't have significant coverage (but only mere mentions). To be approved by Wiki...we will need reliable sources to be added. Could you please look at my profile and let me know if this is the only reason why the profile was rejected. What if I ask Dr. David Chao to send me more articles that include his name and look more reliable...is this going to help? What is your advice? Are the references the only reason the profile was rejected or there are some other things that were not correct?? Please come back to me, I will really appreciate your help. Mvasileva (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mvasileva, you must have reliable, independent sources like magazine articles on your subject and they have to be mostly or entirely about the subject. Also, pages in the Wikipedia mainspace are articles, not profiles. We really don't care what somebody says about themselves, because you can look that up on Facebook. Plus, if you are working for the guy you are writing about, you have a conflict of interest and should declare that. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that unless that picture at the top is a bust of David Chao, it should be removed. We only want a picture of the subject in the infobox, not something random, even if they like it. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more question

Mvasileva (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Thank you so so much for your help "White Arabian Filly"[reply]

Can you please tell me how to create an "article page" instead of "user page"? I struggled with that.

I will remove that photo as soon as I receive a photo from my client that I can place on his profile. This is just a template that appeared once I created the profile last week.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Mvasileva (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mvasileva. Wikipedia is different from almost any other website, and there is a lot to learn, in order to edit it. Please read and study Your first article, which will answer many of your questions. But a couple of things I will say are: Nobody in the world, not even Jimmy Wales, has a "profile" on Wikipedia. That is not what we do here. What we have are encyclopaedia articles, which summarise what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject (or their friend, relatives, employers, or associates) have said about themselves, and no interest at all in how they wish to be portrayed. It is only interested in what those independent people have published about them.

As for the photo, I would advise you not even to bother about a photo until you have got the important things right in the article (the important things are citations to reliable sources and a neutral tone). But when you do, I'm afraid there are also restrictions on images, because of copyright. It's not enough for your client to sent you a photo. The owner of the copyright in the photo (who might be your client, but is more likely to be the photographer) must explicitly release the copyright under a licence such as CC-BY-SA (which allows anybody to reuse it for any purpose). See Help:Upload.

I'm sorry to be negative, but you (like many people) seem to have come here for your client's benefit and not for Wikipedia's --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, your user page is about you and what you are doing at Wikipedia. Your private space to practice stuff is your Sandbox. Draft articles are sent to Articles for Creation (AfC) for consideration.

On the DJ Chao topic, a non-famous person does not qualify as a topic for a Wikipedia article just because they do their job. Dr. Chao has a perfectly good website. But I did not see mention of independently written articles about him. David notMD (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different languages

Hello, I recently created an article, which also features in a different language, I have tried to link the 2 pages but it is not working, can someone please help me resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMN81 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This must be about Vital Concept Cycling Team. You've created an article about a cycling team that has not yet competed in any race. It might be best to wait for a year or so; by then we can hope that there'll be something to write about. Maproom (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfDQuestion

Can the creator of an article be involved or "speak" in an AfD discussion? Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Nikolaiho. Yes, the creator of an article can participate in a deletion debate about that article. However, it is good form, and far more effective, for the creator to acknowledge that they wrote (or began) the article. That frankness defuses accusations of conflict of interest, and results in a smoother debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When am I allow to turn a redirect into an article?

I ask because of this. CrayFishBob (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, CrayFishBob. You can create a well-referenced article about any topic that is truly notable, and otherwise complies with our topics and guidelines. An existing redirect can easily be eliminated if an acceptable new article has been written. Please refer to Your first article for some good advice. Since the English language Wikipedia has about 5.5 million articles, it is difficult (although not impossible) to write an acceptable new article. The broader editing community must agree with you that any new article is acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)÷[reply]

How can I create an election poll graph?

Hey all! I have noticed that in nearly all articles concerning european elections, there is a graph showing the poll's results. How can one create such a graph? Is there a tool within the WP or should someone create it in an extra-WP page and upload the picture afterwards? Thank you. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Τζερόνυμο: You might be interested by the Template:electiontable; that's not a graph, but I am not sure you should make a graph (check on the article talk page, after reading the rest of my comment).

I had a bit of trouble finding a graph used in Wikipedia, so if you have any in mind please point to the article. The one in Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election is a still picture (the article includes File:Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_UK_general_election.png), generated by an external tool. If you go that route, be wary that including a trend line might fall afoul of WP:OR/WP:NPOV; it is easy, even involuntarily, to pick generating parameters that suggest that one party is better/worse than another set of parameters would make it look like. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed for a draft. Thanks!

Dear all,

I am new to creating contents on Wikipedia, so I am not very well-versed as other users. Since the decline of the first draft, I have made some revisions on "Health Ecosystem". Would you please kindly give me some feedback on what to improve?

Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Health_Ecosystem

Thanks!

Yours sincerely, a.w.i.auA.w.i.au (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you need to do is to remove all the misplaced external links. Other editors can give further advice. Note also that it is better for your question to include a wikilink like Draft:Health Ecosystem, rather than a URL like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Health_Ecosystem . --David Biddulph (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the links in the "Practice" section? The links in this section mean to direct readers to the description page of the established "ecosystem". In this case, should I still remove those links? ;A.w.i.au (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read any of your sources but the titles look as if they are very relevant. I'm a newby but I agree with the reviewer's comment that the page presents the "author's point of view rather than to summarize the points of view of reliable sources". In other words, you give some good references but the way in which you've 'joined the dots' is from your own perspective rather than from the perspective of the sources. My suggestion would be to edit the text so that you summarize the key points (and points of view) presented in your sources. Don't give your own opinion/analysis of what a Health ecosystem is or isn't (or what it should be). Let your sources 'speak for themselves'. State (neutrally, as an observer) that (for example) "In [ref] author xxxxx is of the opinion that ..... This is supported/contradicted/expanded on by author yyyyy in [ref]. "Both xxxxx[ref] and yyyyy[ref] agree that that the following are key components of any Health Ecosystem .... Future directions for the evolution of Health Eecosystems are presented in {ref 1, ref2]. In summary these are: ...." Of course you (together with collaborating editors) need to decide which information from your sources to include and how in the draft page. Hope this helps, Mikemorrell49 (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, A.w.i.au. I can also add a few observations which build on previous comments: Most significantly, I'm afraid it currently reads rather like a student essay or synthesis by an insider of a few papers. It also fails to address the fact that there seem to be far more articles online which use the term Healthcare ecosystem, and I would certainly expect both terms to be used in the lead. Or are you intentionally promoting one term in favour of the other? Personally, I think this topic could be quite effectively addressed in just a few lines within the existing article on Health system, or possibly within a new section on that page. I would respectfully suggest the following is roughly what you should consider saying:

"The terms 'Health ecosystem' and 'Healthcare ecosystem' have both been used to describe the very complex and dynamic relationships existing between the many organisations, individuals, and environments involved in maintaining a modern healthcare system. These terms reflect the highly complex and delicately-balanced relationships that exist in natural ecosystems. These agents typically include....."

Then just add in a few references, and you've said almost exactly what's in your draft, but in a way that a typical user of this encyclopaedia can digest. If you do decide to proceed with your draft, be prepared for a WP:MERGE proposal at some point. Other points to consider would be linking to salutogenesis and removing the identical reference after every keyword. Put just one ref at the end of a line. You will also need a WP:HATNOTE to point readers towards the similar-sounding, but utterly different, Ecosystem health. Finally, are you confident the chart you uploaded was published and released under a Commons licence? I'm sorry to sound negative on all this. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

help with The "Caesarea Edmond Benjamin de Rothschild Development Corporation"

i tried to write an article about "Caesarea Edmond Benjamin de Rothschild Development Corporation":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lev.daniel#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_The_Caesarea_Edmond_Benjamin_de_Rothschild_Development_Corporation_.28November_17.29

pepole who read the sandbox tells it seams to be an advertisment, i disagree, i think its a good article, very relayble.

can someone here please help me?

Lev.daniel (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lev.daniel: First of all, you need links to reliable sources independent of the company to support claims made in the article and prove the company is "notable". This is a more pressing issue than advertising-like writing or English mistakes, which are problems that can be fixed; the absence of sources cannot be fixed if they do not exist.

This being said... Literally the first sentence of the draft right now is The Caesarea Edmond Benjamin de Rothschild Development Corporation is the executive branch of the Caesarea Rothschild Foundation, continues the philanthropic path of the Rothschild family. In the third and last sentence of the (very short) lead there is also this is an exceptional and unprecedented model of an economic company. (emphasis mine in both cases)

Please see WP:PEACOCK for why this is a no-no in Wikipedia, but honestly, if you cannot tell how this reads like an advertisement, you really should read carefully our policies about writing with a neutral point of view before attempting further edits. Are you related to the company? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding articles on South African Musicians, Films, Albums e.t.c

Hi, How can i go about editing and creating pages/articles on South African topics such as singers, actresses, films, television e.t.c

SadeK (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SadeK. You probably want to start by reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMG ^talk 14:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do i know if a certain topic about South Africa is relevant to be included on Wikipedia SadeK (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SadeK. Where a subject is from is generally not terribly important. Rather, the metric we use is our notability standards for bands and musicians. If the subject meets those standards, and it can be verified using sources that meet our standards for reliability, then the subject is usually appropriate for an article on Wikipedia. GMG ^talk 15:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations for this company page?

I'm writing the page for a company called "Xometry" and am trying to get it through the review stage - are there any recommendations you would give for it? I've cleaned up the tone and sources because it was rejected for not sounding formal enough. Any help that could be provided would be very beneficial!Sgarg01 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sgarg01, welcome to Wikipedia. You need to avoid any words that are marketing related or do not simply say what is meant (for example: "he went into the heavenly light" instead of simply saying "he died", example from the article: "on-demand manufacturing network" instead of "webshop"). To make it easy, I suggest rewriting it and using small sentences. Try to avoid any words a 12 year old would not use. That way it becomes easy to detect promotional language. Let us start at the first sentence. It needs to say what the company is. Currently I cannot easily deduce what the company is or does. It needs to be a simply "x is y" sentence. So "Xometry is an American online shop." would work. Avoid promotional words like "The company's web platform (=website) uses machine learning to provide (=give) customers (=can be completely removed without changing anything) with instant (promotional, can be removed without changing anything) quotes... Etc. Could be written as "the website produces quotes and is self learning". Sry if this article is completely not my topic of interest, but I hope you get the general idea. I hope this helps. All the best, Taketa (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sgarg01 and a welcome from me to Wikipedia too. I'm still very much a newby here too (2 months). From my own experience, I understand your wish to get a page published, the challenges that presents and the difficulty you might have in making use of the standard (=impersonal) links to guidelines and tips that reviewers provide. I've given some tips at the Tea House to other newbies that might be relevant for you too. Click on my name, then contributions and look at the ones on the tea house. My experience is is that there are no real shortcuts to learning more about Wikipedia's goals, criteria for new entries and quality standards. These are there to safeguard the relevance, reliability and neutrality that Wikipedia provides to the public. For example by filtering out 'advertisements', personal opinions and content that is unsupported by reliable, independent sources. It's a completely different perspective than wanting (through personal interest or that of an organization) to get a page published.

I have a bit of a technical background and my gut feeling is that Xometry is an innovative company in its field and because of that perhaps worth a mention on Wikipedia. Not so much because of the company name but because of the innovation. My feeling is that your sources are very light on the significance of the innovation (if it is significant). The sources I've browsed through summarise press releases, financial (investment, profit) announcements and non-critical interviews (including Forbes!) with executives. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand your wish to find and reference published sources. But a source that unquestioningly summarises/repeats 'corporate PR' (because it too needs news/content) is questionable in terms of reliability.

My advice is:

to focus on what makes Xometery 'notable' in Wikipedia (innovation?)
to try to find independent, reliable sources that indicate that Xometry's innovation is significant. If they don't yet exist, wait until they do.
to focus your entry/references on this significance rather than on generic 'company blurb' (background info but not the justifaction for an entry)

hope this helps, Mike Mikemorrell49 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important!

Mvasileva (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello team, Hope you’re well. My question is, when you go under the profile I tried to build last week. Profile name is “David J. Chao” Is the only problem the references I have provided or it’s the entire text including the Biography, Career, Honors, awards, distinction and External links? Please let me know. Thank you so much! Mvasileva (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mvasileva, welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to explore the website and write about subjects that are relevant to an encyclopedia. I see a recent article you created was deleted. It was deleted because the text was already published on another website. Copying text from another website is not allowed. We have to obey copyright and cannot simply copy someone elses work. You have to write your own texts. Moreover, text from other websites (which are not encyclopedias) are not written in an encyclopedic style. They are not correct for Wikipedia. So in short, please feel welcome at Wikipedia. But write everything yourself. All the best, Taketa (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As models, I suggest you look at Wikipedia articles about other physicians, for example Robert A. Good. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi team, Mvasileva (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're well.

The page I created last week under "David J. Chao" was not approved and was deleted today. (or I think it was deleted). I would like to work on the whole profile for David Chao again, and build the profile in the correct way, following all the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. So my question is, is my profile completely deleted or I can still work on it and resend it for another approval? What's your advice? Many thanks, Mvasileva (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvasileva: Wikipedia does not have "profiles", it has articles about subjects shown with independent reliable sources (read more at WP:RS) to be notable(WP:N). Please read those pages I linked to as well as Your First Article before attempting to write an article. You may also wish to make edits to existing articles first which will help you learn more. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please read what you were told in answer to your previous questions at #Help please!, #One more question, and #Important!. There is no point in asking questions if you don't read the answers. To summarise some of the answers, we do not have "profiles", we have "articles", and we are legally not allowed to have copyright violations, which is why David J. Chao and Draft:David Chao have both been deleted. If you are going to try again, you must use your own words instead of copying from something already published. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you ever do manage to create a valid article about David J. Chao, MD, other editors will be able to add newsworthy items, too. For example, in 2010 federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency served a search warrant on Dr. Chao's medical practice because he wrote more than 100 prescriptions to himself, and was suspected of giving those pain meds to patients. He had previously been fined for unlawfully written narcotics prescriptions. And there are some alcohol-related incidents that are in newspaper articles. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I earlier cast doubt on Chao's notability. But now I've read this and this. They do more to establish his notability than anything cited in Mvasileva's draft. Maproom (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My article entitled, Dr. Marvin Tile

I submitted this article a few days ago, but it is not released yet, as far as I can tell. It is not searchable on Google. So what causes that to happen? Just wait? Is there going to be a discussion? Does someone have to see it first and then they load it?

Katsheron (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New articles are NOINDEXed until they have been patrolled through the New page patrol process. There are currently thirteen and a half thousand articles awaiting patrol, and a backlog of over 8 months. If it hasn't been patrolled within 90 days the NOINDEX ing will be removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to report IPs to get range blocked

There is a range of IP address that will constantly make edits on A-League and 2017–18 A-League to change Soccer to Football. (It is known as soccer in Australia). The range is from an organisation so it will be people doing it at the workplace. I know the IPs for that workplace can be blocked as my own workplace is but not sure how to report it. NZFC^(talk) 00:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears Gilliam has noticed the edits as I see they has blocked one of the IPs for a week and another for two years. If anyone wants to have a look at User Talk: 203.24.1.137, I think they are based at same workplace as they have made the same disruptive edits. NZFC^(talk) 02:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whom can I talk to about deleted articles?

Hello

On Wikipedia, there is an article that talks about a popular anime (a kind of Japanese shows) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Hero_Academia) and there is another article that lists the characters in that anime with a brief description of each character(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters).

I decided to write an article on one of the popular characters from that anime. In my article, I talked about that character in more detail taking special care to gather and write accurate information about that character and making sure to cite all my sources. I gathered my information from the anime's official website and from the anime the character is from.

However, a notice was put on my article immediately after I published it saying how it should be deleted right away because it might be about a real person but the article does not credibly indicate why or how the topic is important. I contested that in the article's talk page stating that it's about an anime character and how I have cited all my sources. I also stated how I don't believe it should be deleted, but I would be more than happy to get advice from experienced Wikipedians on how I might improve it. Unfortunately, my article was deleted.

What I would like to know is:

1)Based on your knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, do you think this article should have been deleted?

2) What should I do next? Should I just give up on it? Or is there someone I could talk to who could take a look at the article and decide if it really should have been deleted or not?

Thank you so much for your time and your constructive feedback.Langotaku (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Langotaku,

welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for volunteering your free time to help spread knowledge about this topic.

Unfortunately I have doubts whether the topic is relevant enough for an article. It is mentioned on the list of characters of the anime as a side character. In general even main characters have a hard time getting an article of their own, since most information can be put in the relevant list. As such, it is necesary to prove the relevance by showing sources. The website of the anime itself is not enough. Ofcourse the anime itself will describe the characters. This only proves they exist, not that they are sufficiently in the public eye to get an article. You need to show enutral sources, such as books or notable reviews, that focus in debt and specifically on this single character. See WP:FICT and WP:NCHAR for more information about relevance.

If you wish to discuss the deletion with someone you can talk to the deleting admin User talk:Casliber or the person who proposed the speedy deletion User talk:Velella. If you wish to recreate the article, I suggest you start with a Draft version. See Wikipedia:Drafts for more information.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Langotaku, I'm no expert on speedy deletes but I believe that the A7 category applies to real people, not fictional characters. So perhaps it should have survived the speedy delete given your response on the talk page. It's likely it would have been deleted by another process due to the notability issue explained above by Taketa. Gab4gab (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist / Email Notifications

Hello everybody,

What preferences do I need to set so that I get an email notifications if an article on my watchlist is changed? I couldn´t find it out :-/

Thank you very much! F.Blaubiget (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear F.Blaubiget, on the top of the page go to "preferences". Go to section "User Profile". On the bottom there is the option "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Taketa, This is the answer (I only checked the settings at Watchlist and Notifications...). Thank you very much for helping and the clear description. Hartelijk dank!--F.Blaubiget (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Boigraphy

I am a Bengal Cricketer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.207.56.126 (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not social media for users to upload their biographies. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. It is highly discouraged(though not forbidden) to write an autobiography. Without knowing who you are, it is difficult to know if you meet the notability guidelines listed at WP:NCRICKET, but if you do, it would be best if you let others write the article about you. However, if you believe you can write an encyclopedic article with the required neutral viewpoint, you should do so using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what the heck is going on with the infobox template?

Is there a bug or something? — goethean 16:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey goethean. I'm afraid you're probably going to have to be more specific. There are a great many infobox templates. GMG ^talk 16:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a screenshot of what I see at the bottom of Camp Douglas (Chicago) See at the bottom where it says [hide] v t e ? Same thing on Friedrich Schelling — goethean 17:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I log out, It's fine. — goethean 17:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geez goethean. I honestly have no idea. It looks like Template:Chicago misbehaving, but that hasn't been edited since February and there isn't any intermediary redirect that could have been vandalized. Have you tried purging the page to see if it fixes it? GMG ^talk 18:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This happens sometimes when the page is not fully loaded (the CSS part). If it's fine when you logged, it's probably related to your account Preferences > Skin. I suspected it was a problem with Custom CSS but it doesn't seem to be the case here. Alex Shih (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I switched from Monobook to Cologne Blue and that fixed it. I think it's an issue with the Monobook skin. — goethean 19:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Goethean: The pages look fine to me in MonoBook. It may be a problem with the MonoBook skin files downloaded by your computer. You can try to clear your entire cache. By the way, boxes at the bottom with links to related pages are called navboxes or navigation templates. Infoboxes are at the top right and have information about the subject of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my custom monobook.js and then bypassing the cache seems to have fixed the issue. — goethean 21:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I turn off keyboard shortcuts?

I want to disable WP:Keyboard shortcuts, but can't figure out how to. Is there something I have to do in my preferences? I see people talked about disabling them in the talk page, but I couldn't quite follow the instructions. Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page and switch redirects

Windermere Steamboat Museum has been renamed Windermere Jetty. How can I change the page name of Windermere Steamboat Museum to Windermere Jetty? How can I set Windermere Steamboat Museum to redirect to Windermere Jetty? Thanks :) ▲RedScrees (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ▲RedScrees.

Done GMG ^talk 20:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unassessed Articles

Hello, using this article as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Jordan

The article is Unassessed, yet it was created on 16 February 2012‎, why is it Unassessed? I have been doing some studying on assessments and I was unable to find a reason for a five year article to remain 'Unassessed'. Thank you Vwanweb (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vwanweb. Normally it just means no one has bothered to assess it yet. Out of about five and half million articles, there are actually very many that haven't been assessed. Besides that, I wouldn't worry terribly about it. Article assessments other than the top tier Good Articles and Features Articles tend to be fairly random and not very well held to an objective and consistent standard. GMG ^talk 21:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreenMeansGo, thanks for help and the realization that there are over five million articles awaiting assessments. I will follow your guidance, I won't worry about it! Just wish the wikipedia assessment writings would reflect an example of an article that may take years for assessment. My readings so far have documented that assessments are performed once a week? Thank you very much for taking the time to help me, I appreciate it. Vwanweb (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Vwanweb, it looks like the total is 577,638 total articles that have not been assessed for quality. The 5.5 million number is round about the total number of article on the project. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. GMG ^talk 21:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting article for review/request

Hi- I'm trying to submit an article of a company for review. I can't figure out the article wizard. I need to disclose my relationship with the company. I am also ok with submitting a request for someone else to write the article but I can't figure that out either as I'm unfamiliar with source code and it doesn't seem to let me enter the request with a visual edit. Eszgordon (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to be re-submitted?

Hi Teahouse. I did some work on my article Draft:Fig Tree Books LLC and was wondering what you think. Is it ready? Had notability issues but I reorganized links and cited sources, thinking it's okay now. Please have a look and let me know. Thank you! StephenAdams (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a userpage

Girdlast888 (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Girdlast888: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To create a userpage, first review the userpage guidelines at WP:USERPAGE, then you can click your username above, or at the top of the screen to access it, then edit. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

[1]

@@ Line 569: / Line 569: @@
 == How to create a userpage   ==
 [[User:Girdlast888|Girdlast888]] ([[User talk:Girdlast888|talk]]) 23:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
+:{{replyto|Girdlast888}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To create a userpage, first review the userpage guidelines at [[WP:USERPAGE]], then you can click your username above, or at the top of the screen to access it, then edit. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 23:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)