Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, 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

Does not come up in Google search

Hi there, I created an article for Jeremy Bronson that was accepted and rated as "Start Class," but for some reason it doesn't come up when I Google his name. Is that to do with the article's rating? I've seen articles that have been rated as stubs come up when Googled. Palofpups (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia have nothing to do with Google or how they choose to sort their search results; if you have a query for them, you need to follow the instructions here. The Jeremy Bronson page is only a couple of days old, so it's possible it just hasn't been crawled yet. Although Google's search algorithm is a trade secret, it's fairly well known that PageRank is based on incoming links; given that this article has no incoming links, it may well be that this has a very low ranking and is just buried a few pages down in the search results. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If an article is brand new, it takes it a couple of hours to turn up on Google--server lag or something. Incoming links or not, Wikipedia tends to place in the first page of search results. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Theresia Gouw - Image Usage Question

I reviewed Draft:Theresia Gouw and neither accepted nor declined it, but left a comment about the redlink to an image of a headshot, asking either that a headshot be provided or the placeholder be deleted from the infobox. I then received the following on the talk page from User:Hrasato:

Hi Robert. Per your comment about uploading an image of Theresia Gouw or deleting the headshot box... I uploaded a headshot image earlier and provided permission from Theresia Gouw, the copyright holder, as instructed. The image was subsequently deleted saying that there wasn't permission. I left a message and have received no response. Can you help me and suggest how I should proceed? I would like to use the image I originally uploaded but am not able to re-upload it. Any advice is much appreciated! Thanks Robert! 

My question is what the author should do next. I know that situations like this are common because Wikipedia takes copyright more seriously than most of the world-wide web does. Should the image be used as non-free content in Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at the reply which User:Hrosato (without an i) received at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/September#File:Theresia Gouw.jpg? It doesn't appear that the editor followed that advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to limit a "random article" search to only certain topics/portals?

Is there a way to limit a "random article" search to only certain topics/portals? For example, say I wanted to find only random articles from the "science" portal... is that possible? Thanks Bzzzing (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Special:RandomInCategory function will give you a random article from within a given category (or you can use this site). I'm not aware of anything that will pick a random article from an entire category tree, which you'd need to do to get all science articles; the processing power required would be immense. ‑ Iridescent 19:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of a picture which does not have copyright permission

File:Rusty-Liam.jpg.jpg is obviously a television screen grab, but it is claimed as the contributor's own work. Is there some way I can tag this (equivalent to a CSD)? Gronk Oz (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It is at commons:File:Rusty-Liam.jpg.jpg, and at the bottom of the tools menu on the left there is a menu item to "Nominate for deletion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. Maproom (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:V.M. (Raj) Shetty

I reviewed Draft:V.M. (Raj) Shetty and declined it as being written in a non-neutral tone, to praise rather than describe its subject. Its author, User:Miha dani, then asked me to review changes. I evidently overlooked that note, but am asking now whether other editors still think that the draft has a non-neutral tone, and whether it establishes notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It still seems somewhat promotional, but that's not what I concentrated on. Instead, I noticed another problem: it may need some more sources early on. Nearer to the end of the article, it seems that, at a glance, sourcing is better, though. Remember that WP:BLP applies to the Future article, so they need to make sure to source as much as possible. — Gestrid (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources question.

Hi there I recently added new info to an article called Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures, my edits were then removed and the person who did so said the following:

"I reverted your edits to Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures in the hopes that you can reinstitute related edits but adhering to WP:SECONDARY. The gist of this guideline is that Wikipedia seek citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style. For example, the reverted edit cites Chem Comm, a journal that publishes thousands of reports each year. Wikipedia hss no interest in keeping up with such a gusher of details. If you have questions, many editors can offer advice and help. Happy editing"

My main source for the edits was a review of the literature in Chem Comm (so a secondary source) as well as stating more information given in primary sources listed in their references. I did not add anything that I thought of myself (apart from 1 line of clarification to make it easier for a new-comer to the topic to understand). I would greatly appreciate it if someone could look at my edit and tell me if 1) My sources are ok and 2) if they are not ok what sources should I use for relatively new areas of chemistry like the edited article? Should I have just removed the stuff that comes directly from the primary material and just kept my secondary source which is this: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2014/cc/c3cc47842d

EvilxFish (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, EvilxFish. If another editor reverts you, and you want to discuss it further, the thing to do is to engage with that editor on the article's talk page (or that editor's user talk page if there is some reason not to bring the discussion to the attention of other people with an interest in that article. If you cannot reach agreement with that editor and any others who may join the discussion, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine thank you for the answer much appreciated. EvilxFish (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:SIMSOLID

I reviewed Draft:SIMSOLID and commented that it still read like an advertisement, but that I was neither accepting nor declining because I had too much history. User:KenWelch then wrote:

Hi Robert,
Your comment, "Remove commentary from the body of the article" is unclear. Which commentary exactly are you referring to. We have attempted to make each statement in the article a concise unbiased factual representation of the SIMSOLID product. Please let us know where the wording goes off base and we will correct it.
Your other comment, "This still reads like an advertisement" is unclear as well. Every statement we have put in this page is a factual description of the product. There is no offer of sales nor claim of any feature not fundemental to the product description. Our view is that this is an unbiased decription of a technical software product. It would help if you can give me the specific sentences with the wrong tone along with a alternate form that works on Wikipedia so I can get this corrected.
I am just not clear what needs be adjusted.
Thanks and regards,

The commentary is the sentences "Based on initial review …" and "Edited to comply with comments made …". These should not be in the body of the article. Maybe he didn’t know to use AFC comments instead. This time I do know who "we" is. In this case, my concern is that the draft reads like an entry in a catalog. Maybe I should have said that it failed to address notability because it is what the vendor says rather than what others have said. I will note that it is hard for an editor who has an interest in a product to write about it for Wikipedia. Do other experienced editors think that the draft clears both the neutrality bar and the notability bar? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@KenWelch: My main concern is whether this software is notable as Wikipedia defines that term, namely as having received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The software was released ten months ago. Let's look at the sources: The first two trade publication sources were clearly generated by company PR, and include phrases like "according to the company" and "Ken Welsh says". PR generated coverage is not independent. The third source may be the best since it reports on another company adopting the software, but I suspect that this was also the result of company PR. None of the company website sources are independent. There is an academic source published in 1972 which obviously does not mention the software. There is an article in another publication written by Ken Welsh, which is not an independent source. I would expect indisputable evidence of notability to accept an article about a ten month old software package, and I do not see it here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I am simply trying to present a factual representation of a new notable technology. I do not agree that the references were PR generated. In fact, the company has no PR resources - SIMSOLID is an all engineer company. The references were all from independent requests for comments. For example, the reference to funding by NEA (a well know and respected Silicon valley venture fund) is independent. The adoption by Serapid was documented independently by a very well known and respected industry source, Bruce Jenkins. The article by engineering.com and deskeng.com were due to market interest in the technology. All statements, tone and content, were modeled after another similar company in our industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimScale. It is not clear why this company is acceptable to wikipedia and the SIMSOLID entry is not. If there is opposition because the initial posting was from a company source, please note that is the same for SimScale. In fact the references by SIMSOLID are, in my opinion, more notable in the FEA industry. I would ask that you reconsider this opposition. If there are specific words that need to be adjusted I will absolutely follow the recommendations. But to leave the entry out entirely is not something that I agree with. Thanks and regards KenWelch (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@KenWelch: Please read an excellent essay called Other stuff exists. In brief, we have well over five million articles on Wikipedia and no editor can possibly review all of them or even a small fraction of them. We have probably well over a million articles with serious problems. So, trying to defend a problematic article (or draft) by pointing to the existence of other problematic articles is considered unpersuasive by experienced editors. We work 24/7/365 to improve or delete any articles identified as problematic.

As for SimScale, that article did not go through the Articles for Creation process. The original author just plunked it into the main space of the encyclopedia without asking for a review. You are doing the right thing, while they didn't. My guess is that it survived the New Page Patrol because it was written and referenced better than a large majority of new articles, most of which are junk. Your job now is to convince reviewers that your software is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. You haven't convinced me, but I am just one of many experienced editors. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:John Robert Mills - Copyright Question

I reviewed Draft:John Robert Mills. I declined it due to ongoing copyright issues that were noted by previous reviewers. User:Moonbouncer54 then wrote:

Hi Robert. You have declined to accept the page on John Robert Mills on the grounds of copyright infringement. I don't think there is any copyright infringement for the following reasons:

 John Robert Mills died in 1998. Shortly after his death an article was put together as the basis of an obituary and for publication in the Institute of Physics (IoP) magazine. The article was a combined effort between John Mills's two sons and a work colleague, Ken Slater. Ken Was a member of the IoP and as such, the article in the IoP was attributed to him. Ken slater has since died.  John Mills's two sons are directors of CCC Trading Ltd (http://cayley.co.uk) and as such have re-published the article on their website  The almost identical text has been used on all published material (Obituary, IoP article, Website and Wikipedia draft) because all have been written by the same team, albeit one has since died.  There is, on the website (http://cayley.co.uk/john-robert-mills/), a permission statement at the bottom of the page that reads: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In particular, CCC Trading Ltd gives permission for the use of text contained on this page to be used by Moonbouncer54 on the Wikipedia page relating to John Robert Mills. For verification please contact the site owner of CCC Trading Ltd (T/a Cayley Chemicals), Philip Mills by email: cayley@btinternet.com" This over-rides the footer copyright.  So far as pictures are concerned, these are reproduced under the Open Govenment Licence V3 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/)

We are of course willing to make any changes necessary to satisfy your requirements to approve the Wikipedia article but would appreciate any advice as to what we should do. Or, in light of the above, may we re-submit for consideration without further modification. 

First, who is “we”? Second, other than that, do other experienced editors agree that the copyright issues have been addressed properly? If the author can answer who is "we" and other editors agree that copyright has been addressed, I will accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moonbouncer54: @Robert McClenon: Although I am not a copyright expert, I know enough to see some areas of concern. Do we have evidence that the journal which originally published the article has agreed to Creative Commons licensing? Since Ken Slater is dead, do we have evidence that his estate has agreed to Creative Commons licensing? There is also an attribution problem. Supposedly, Slater and the two Mills sons wrote the article, but only Slater is listed as the author in the references. My recommendation is to abandon trying to use the Slater/Mills article word for word, but instead to write original content, summarizing all of the biographical source material. This avoids all of these copyright debates, but the attribution issue should be addressed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that the copyright holders of http://cayley.co.uk are the legitimate copyright holders—which I've no reason to doubt—than this is definitely legitimate for use on Wikipedia per the disclaimer at the end of this page. Although, Moonbouncer54, be very sure this is what you want; a lot of people don't fully appreciate the implications of you irrevocably agree to release your contribution, and it's not possible to restrict the reuse of something once it's released under CC-BY-SA; you're not just giving the rights to Wikipedia, you're giving irrevocable and irreversible consent for anyone to use the material for any purpose, be it using the text in a hatchet-piece about how much they dislike the article subject, to photoshopping the faces from uploaded images into hardcore pornography (both of these have actually happened in the past); while both of those are unlikely in this case, it's extremely possible that the image will be picked up by commercial photo libraries and resold as stock photos over which you'll have no control. (I'm certainly not trying to put you off—we have literally millions of photographs, all of whose uploaders feel the positives of making them publicly available outweigh any potential negatives—but if you have any issues with this it's better you know before you start.) ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Response from Moonbouncer 54. Moonbouncer54 created the website for Cayley Chemicals and volunteered to help the two sons of John Mills (Philip and Nick Mills, both directors of CCC Trading Ltd t/a Cayley Chemicals), not that I have ever been involved in any Wiki related activity before, but probably more able to teach self the basics. Its a steep learning curve though and all the advice so genuinely offered really is appreciated. But the reason for volunteering is that having read the original article, the IoP article and the Telegraph Obituary I really believe that John Mills was a great man who made a major contribution to military and navigation technology and deserves an entry in Wikipedia.

I'll discuss the points made above with Philip and Nick. Its a very good point that Iridescent makes and I think needs to be considered very carefully. Clearly we cant change the author of the article in the IoP, so how Cullen328 should we change the attribution? For info, the reason Ken Slater was the named author was entirely because he was a member of the Institute and therefore recognized by that organisation. And thank you Cullen328 for you contribution and advice. It is appreciated.

My personal view is that the Wikipedia draft should be re-written and then remove the CC-BY-SA from the website, but I'll see what the others think. Robert McClenon - would you agree that this both reduces the risk of 'abuse' and avoids any copyright issues? Moonbouncer54 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moonbouncer54: If the Mills sons were not listed as authors in the original publication, then they should not be listed in the reference here. Perhaps we can think of them as research assistants rather than as authors. I do believe that writing new content summarizing all of the cited sources is the most clear-cut and cleanest solution to any potential problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Moonbouncer54 hasn't yet answered my question of who is "we". Wikipedia has a policy of one account, one person. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Robert McClenon I didnt make it clear. 'We' refers to myself and the two sons of John Mills. But they take no active part in Wikipedia and have no access to my account. So I am helping them with the page from a tech perspective only.

How To Embed a comment that was noted by Wikipedia

My comment was noted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dollar_auction page.

Please see comments: There is a "2 or more precommitted bidders" auction initiation criteria that has been ignored for quite some time.

Is there a code, how I can embed that code into a page? MikoFilppula (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How to handle an article with conflicting facts, however

In the biographical article on Will Ryan, I found two conflicting facts. However, I'm not sure which one, if either, is correct.

The article states: In summer 1966, Will's earlier band, Wead, played a gig in Wellington, Ohio. Appearing on the same bill was Akron-based girl-group The Poor Girls, featuring 17-year-old Chrissie Hynde.

I posted the following to the Talk page of the Will Ryan article, but wanted to know if there's anything more I could/should do to edit the article itself to point out the discrepancy: I know that Chrissie Hynde was born 09/07/1951 [1], making her 14 years old in summer 1966. I could find no other reference to the cited concert in Wellington, Ohio, so I'm not sure whether the 1966 date is in error (and should be summer 1969), or Chrissie Hynde's cited age of 17 at the time of the concert is incorrect (should be 14-year-old Chrissie Hynde).

I've just signed up as an Editor and this is my first contribution, so I'd appreciate any guidance as to how to handle. Wmcfairhill (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Jump up ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrissie_Hynde. Missing or empty |title= (help)

Many thanks, wmcfairhill Wmcfairhill (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wmcfairhill, and welcome to the TeaHouse. You did well to spot that discrepency. I notice that statement on the Will Ryan article has no references, making it hard to verify as you say - that's a good lesson for any new editor to learn early! Looking around, I found a couple of places which make almost word-for-word the same statement. But they both look like PR release which come from Will or his agent. So I suspect the error is his, but that doesn't help to get to the truth. Other editors might have a better idea, but all I can think of is to tag that statement as {{Dubious}} and point to the existing question you put on Talk:Will Ryan. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Wmcfairhill, it looks like the problem has gone away - another editor (Fylbecatulous) removed that statement, saying it was "unsourced, unsubstantiated and name-dropping". --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wmcfairhill There was a locally successful all-girl group called the "Poor Girls" active from 1965 to 1969 that originated at Firestone High School in Akron, Ohio, the same school that Chrissie Hynde attended. However, she was never a member of that group, though she was friendly with the members and attended many of their performances. My source is a book called Rock 'n' Roll and the Cleveland Connection by Deanna R. Adams, page 161. You can read it on Google Books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hynde's own autobiography talks extensively about the Poor Girls and at no point does she say she ever performed with them—while autobiographies aren't generally considered reliable sources, one would assume that in this case she'd have remembered if she were a member. The main significance of the relationship between Hynde and the Poor Girls was that they introduced Hynde to both animal rights, and to the music of the Kinks. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did my article get rejected @DavidMonroe?

Hi my article got rejected and I couldn't understand why? Could you please tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopiecarpenter (talk • contribs) 10:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As was explained in the two messages left on your user page, you did not cite any reliable sources. In other words, you need to tell us of some professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about Avahan Masih. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The article was Draft:Avahan Masih. No draft article will be accepted without references. It is true that providing references to an article is hard. Creating a new article complete with its references is the hardest task in Wikipedia. Many new editors want to contribute to Wikipedia by creating a new article, but there are many other ways that are less hard that new editors can contribute to Wikipedia. As noted, references are needed for the draft to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This draft article is either a hoax, a sick joke, or the work of someone with a mental illness. The draft states that the article subject is mentally ill, and has also topped the Billboard charts, which a Google search shows is ludicrous. There is a list of "pseudo-references" including one alleged Daily Mail headline "How Taylor Swift's DJ main squeeze Avahan Masih gutted Scottish salmon for the Queen, stacked supermarket shelves and got a makeover to launch his $100 million career". This draft should be deleted, and the editor warned, and blocked if hoax editing continues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This editor also vandalized Avahan, an article about an anti-AIDS initiative in India. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged the draft for speedy deletion as a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to not get any more notifications saying my articles are reviewed?

Its kind of annoying. Pyrusca (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you looked at the Preferences link (at the top of any page, leading to Special:Preferences), Notifications tab, "Page review" item? --David Biddulph (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks man. Pyrusca (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

2 Items with the same name?

there is a Wikipedia page for an item called a "Fire Fan", there is a new app that is also called "Fire Fan", I am new to Wikipedia, and have read that it would be inappropriate to do an entire new page on something so new, and something that have very few articles regarding what it is an how it works etc. The word itself FireFan comes up at the top of google for the other Fire Fan and leads one into that article to learn about the Fire Fan, some dance with a fan.

I did an edit under the first sentence just to basically say "If you are searching for information or Fire Fan the Sports App. please click here.

Well someone deleted it. Could you please help direct me as to what would be appropriate. Answersforyou (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Answersforyou. You're right that Wikipedia would not properly contain an article on this new product at this time – until it becomes notable, as we use that word here to essentially to mean the world taking "note" of a topic by publication about it in reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat it in substantive detail. I can think of no place anywhere in the article mainspace where this product would properly be mentioned at all.

1. When we have existing articles on topics with the same or confusingly similar names, then we enter into some type of disambiguation scheme with their titles.
2. However, we generally do not disambiguate against not-yet-created titles.
3. When there is a good reason to mention and link a topic that does not yet have an article that shares the name of an existing article, we would pipe the wikilink to a disambiguated name we think would work as a DAB if the article was created. Often this takes the form Name (description). For example: [[Fire Fan (app)|Fire Fan]], so the link does not take one to the existing article on the unrelated topic. In this case, we might not do this, might just use [[Fire Fan]], because the existing article is at a different capitalization. This would be complicated by the fact that there is an unnecessary redirect at the title case title. I would go into that more fully, except that we only do this – link the name of a not-yet-created article – when we think an article is warranted, which would not be true here. See WP:REDYES.
4. Even if some type of dabbing was necessary, the existing article on Fire fan would not usually contain any mention in its text, as you added. Rather it would likely be in the form of a hatnote.

I understand what you're saying about Google and other search results, which might be far from ideal from the perspective of an insider like you who has a personal interest in a business. I don't mean this to be cold, but Wikipedia is maximized for its readers; from that vantage point, Wikipedia "does not care" about such an issue. So while I personally sympathize, I do not think this should be addressed at all on Wikipedia's end. You might try to address it elsewhere, e.g., by better SEO, but not at Wikipedia. By the way, I see you're editing by a new name and not the name you made the reverted changes to the article. That is good since the prior account name was problematic. See WP:CORPNAME. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That was a very informative answer! Thank you so much for the education and direction. Answersforyou (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Check date values message

I am seeing this on an article I edited, and can't figure out how to edit this to fix it, or exactly what the problem is with the date:

"Home In Munger Place". The Dallas Morning News. 8-14-1908 – via Newsbank.com. Check date values in: |date= (help);

AnnexTX (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@AnnexTX: Welcome to the Teahouse. Dates in template date fields must be formatted in very specific ways. Try August 14, 1908 (with a comma) as the best format stylistically for an article about US topics. If it was a British topic, 14 August 1908 (no comma) would also work. The shortcut to the section of the Manual of style concerning date formatting is MOS:DATEFORMAT. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Computer model names and uppercasing

I would like some guidance on the use of casing when describing the name of a computer model. The case in point concerns the Markal model article, about an energy model almost always written as MARKAL in academic literature. Under MOS:TMRULES, the correct setting would be Markal, but this is not a trade-mark. The POLES article, another energy model, uses POLES throughout, as does ACEGES with ACEGES. I am tempted to do likewise for the MARKAL article, but wanted to check in first. I would also like to rename the page to MARKAL, usage which does not seem (on my reading) to either conflict with or be supported by WP:TITLE. Any advice on casing gratefully received. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Can a Wikipedia article cite another Wikipedia article?

...or another Wiki project, like Wiktionary or Wikibooks? How about Wikisource? Reason is Immortal (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. No, see WP:circular and WP:V#Self-published sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You may, and often should, link to another Wikipedia article, or occasionally to Wiktionary. It may be appropriate to copy one of the references from the linked article into the edited article as an additional source. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Reason is Immortal: Agreeing with all of the above, Wikisource could be seen as sort of an exception, but only insofar as it includes complete copies of reliable sources that can be linked to in a citation. It's only "sort of", because you are not citing Wikisource as the source, but are citing the source contained there and then linking to the content there. See {{Cite Wikisource}}. There are also certain templates, specific to a single source, whose documentation note that the source is available at Wikisource and how to cite the content there, such as {{EB1911}}. Oh, there is one actual exception but it's a rare thing. In an article about a Wikimedia project, citing pages from the project as primary sources might be warranted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Second opinions

Could a couple of you weigh in on Draft:Caryn Marooney? An editor has declined this submission about the global head of PR for Facebook and while I really do understand their perspective based on the somewhat limited volume of sources, I think the subject's very senior position at one of the world's most important companies might overcome that. Please note my WP:COI disclosure on the Talk page of the article.BC1278 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@BC1278: Welcome to the Teahouse. Here is my opinion. I do not see any significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. What I see are the sort of routine announcements of corporate career changes that are generated by press releases. "Global head of PR" for a big, well known corporation is not a job title that comes with a presumption of eligibility for an encyclopedia article, such as national, state or provincial legislator, Olympic athlete or major league baseball player. Her job may be important to paid Facebook insiders, but those of us who are volunteer encyclopedia editors are likely to insist that the topics written about by paid contributors pass the General notability guideline without question. This draft does not meet that standard, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "senior position" is another thing to add to the list of things that Notability isn't, BC1278, along with fame, popularity, importance, influence, and significance. As I see it, notability as used in Wikipedia is principally about Verifiability - a core issue. If there are few reliable independent sources, then there is almost nothing which can be put in such an article. Sorry. (Thanks for being open about your COI, by the way). --ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine If you look at the sourcing, you'll see a bunch of coverage about her (I think 7 sources) from reliable independent sources over 10 years. The question is, is the coverage "significant" since all but one of the articles are pretty routine. That's a subjective judgment call and I leave it to the independent editors to decide, which is why I submitted it for review.BC1278 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: Those sources are not independent because the coverage was obviously generated by PR efforts by the involved companies. As a PR professional yourself, you ought to know that just as much as experienced editors here do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I sometimes engage with editors who argue that a reliable source is not reliable (or as you say, "independent') because in their judgment the source has been manipulated by a company, or as you say "generated by PR efforts." But that's not the Wikipedia policy WP: RS - a source is reliable and independent if it has an editorial review process, including fact checking. The sources I refer to that confer notability, such as Re/Code (run by two very famous Wall Street Journal journalists), PRWeek, AllThingsD (a Wall Street Journal owned tech publication), Business Insider and Media Life Magazine, all pass the test of being independent reliable sources. These are mainstream media publications. In this case, they ran their own stories about Caryn Marooney after deciding for themselves whether company announcements warranted the coverage. They didn't just reprint press releases. For a tech publication, or a media publication, it's significant news for their readers that Facebook has a new head of PR. If they choose to report their own story on it, as is the case here, then the story is a legitimate source. If we excluded articles as sources where Wikipedia editors decided that they suspected a company announcement or PR campaign was how a story originated, we would exclude most news about politics and business. Every announcement from the White House, every quarterly earnings report, every investment ever made in Uber or Airbnb - these are all generated from PR efforts. That doesn't mean the news is unreliable or the source isn't independent - it's still the job of the reporter to check the facts and use their judgment as to whether a story is newsworthy enough to include in their publication. Again, I think here, this is a close case because there is not much depth of coverage in these articles. The reporting is of events, rather than profiles of the subject. I have a COI so I leave it to others to decide if there is enough significant coverage. But the sources I mention above are both independent and reliable.BC1278 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: I never said the publications are not reliable. That is only one factor to evaluate. We disagree about whether they are independent. But it is clear that they are not significant. They are routine personnel announcements. If notability was already established, they would be useful for documenting career history. But they do not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm not disputing the decision about this article, so this discussion now is purely theoretical. I'd merely remind you as to the official Wikipedia policy on independent sources: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective (i.e., a neutral point of view). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." WP:IS The sources I mention above all meet that criteria, and some of the individual reporters are even well known, like Kara Swisher at Re/Code. Whether or not a story in a reliable source had as its genesis a company announcement or PR campaign has no bearing on its independence - there is no such Wikipedia policy. These are real stories, not just reprints of press releases. I have engaged before with Wikipedia editors who refuse to consider as independent the entire mainstream business press, such as Fortune Magazine and The Wall Street Journal for the same reason you articulated. Business journalists at mainstream publications are just as independent as political, cultural or sports journalists, all of whom frequently decide to write stories originating from PR.BC1278 (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)BC1278

Removal of content

Is it reasonable for an editor to remove content (A LOT of content, important ones) by using this policy. For example, the main content of a record label's article would be the history, list of artists and discography. An editor removes a big part of the artists and discography section by using that policy and saying it's promo content, but they're the actual artists and discography of the label. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@ReZawler: I'm not commenting on any specific instant because you haven't highlighted one but yes. That said, if you disagree then this into the lines of a content dispute and part of the WP:BRD cycle. You response should be to discuss on the article talk page and explain why you think the content is not indiscriminate or promotional. Nthep (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Update info on C. elegans

Hello. I have a new piece of information I believe Wikipedia has not added on the page on Caenorhabditis elegans. The Smithsonian Magazine reported in 2014 that researchers were able to simulate (/upload) a C. elegans mind into a Lego robot. I feel that this is an important breakthrough and needs to at least be noted on the page of the species, but I am quite unsure as to how. Biologists' help would be very welcome.

Thank you, —Aɴᴀɴᴛᴀɢɪᴛᴀ ☍ / 13:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anantagita and welcome to the Teahouse. You would need to be very careful how you phrase such a statement. A comment that the worm's brain was "uploaded" into the robot is a misrepresentation of what happened - they programmed a robot that could mimic some aspects of worm behaviour by simulating some of the structure of the worm's nervous system in software. The logical place in that article would appear to be in the section "Research use".--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:: Thank you, Gronk Oz. This is exactly what I was looking for, a guide on how to include such an information in the page. Can I just use your wording, like, "In 2014, a group of scientists from the OpenWorm project programmed a robot that could mimic some aspects of the worm's behavior by simulating some of the structure of the worm's nervous system in software." Would that be acceptable?

Thank you, —Aɴᴀɴᴛᴀɢɪᴛᴀ ☍ / 15:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Anantagita, with the reference you gave above. I see that you have already done the right thing by proposing this change on Talk:Caenorhabditis elegans, so if you're not sure then you could copy the proposed wording there and see if anybody has any comments. Or you could be bold and make the change yourself; if somebody objects then you can have a discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Restore deleted article

Please could you help me restore a delete page of a notable person Bryan Balser. All information was factual and majority was referenced. Someone deleted the page and now doesn't exist so i can't talk to them. Is the article and all the hard work retrievable?Derick Balser (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your user talk page still contains a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Balser which explains why the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's terms. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

David Biddulph, Derick Balser contributed to that deletion discussion. Derick Balser, you can request the article be undeleted into Draft space for you to work on: see REFUND. A Google search does not seem to bear out your claim that he "Gained national media coverage as an individual player throughout High school", but if you can point to such coverage, he will probably meet WP:GNG. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Assistance in editing a live biography page

Hi, i am new to wikipedia. I wanted to add new contents, change some titles, update the page style to the present biography page and update photographs. It says that the page is temporarily locked. Could someone help me with updations or could someone guide me to do it on my own. Thanks so much in advance Nairk (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nairk: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking about Deepika Padukone, that article is semi-protected because of ongoing disruption. Editors with accounts more than four days old and with more than ten edits are free to improve the article. Please be aware that your edits must comply with our policies and guidelines and must be referenced to reliable sources. Since this is a Featured article, it is held to very high standards. In the next few days, you can suggest improvements at Talk:Deepika Padukone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I need help in TALK section with advocating edits/corrections/verifications to my employer’s article stub

I need help in TALK section with advocating edits/corrections/verifications to my employer’s article stub. Specifically, I want to use footnoted information from Forbes to show that my employer had 2015 sales of $2.4 billion and ranks in Forbes Top 200 Privately-held companies. Using Dealerscope (a trade journal), I want to document that my employer ranked in the Top 20 U.S. consumer electronics (CE) retailers in 2015. In the Infobox section, I want to use footnotes from reliable sources to verify the names already shown as the two company founders and update the Key People, Revenue, and Number of Employees. My understanding is that I can only suggest a need for the article stub to be updated and if that is OK’d by Wikipedians, I can markup proposed changes on a template in the TALK section. Although I use Wikipedia daily and have made monetary contributions using my credit card, I’ve never worked with editing or trying to use the TALK section to advocate changes to an article stub. Any suggestions you can make would be greatly appreciated 4119Leap (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

First, read the conflict of interest guideline and make the required disclosure on your user page. Second, thank you for stating up front that you have a conflict of interest. Third, there is no special procedure for requesting the edits on the article talk page. Go ahead and request the edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@4119Leap: Welcome to the Teahouse. The method most likely to be successful is to post on the talk page the exact language you are proposing be added to the article, followed by properly formatted references to reliable sources available online. Please read Referencing for beginners and also read about the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you have done your homework for these, so go ahead and put the request on the article's page using the {{request edit}} template. This will automatically add the request to the lists of edits requested and Category:Requested edits. You could also mention which page it is here and somebody might help. For an example of how this worked out in the past, you could look at Talk:Stelio Stefanou. (P.S. thanks again for beig up front about your interest.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Problematic editing

If an editor saw some behavior/pattern of editing that suggested a serious problem (e.g., potential homicide, suicide, terrorism, etc.), does Wikipedia have any way of dealing with that? I see no issue of concern, but am just curious about Wikipedia's policies & practices. 32.218.34.117 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:EMERGENCY for guidance on how to handle such issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What if there were not a specific, overt threat? Say, for example, an editor demonstrated an obsession with suicide, terrorism, or mass murders and the editor's pattern of edits was considered by a psychologist as evidence of a potential future danger? 32.218.34.117 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@32.218.34.117:, the answer is the same, refer it to WP:EMERGENCY and let the WMF team deal with it Nthep (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Go to WP:EMERGENCY anyway and seek advice from experts.

Unless you are an expert yourself (in which case you probably wouldn't be asking), there is no way of knowing what may be serious and what may not. Even for experts, this is often very difficult to distinguish. So, if in doubt, always treat things as if they were serious, act accordingly and get the appropriate help. --Josy (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't be so condescending. One can be a behavioral expert without being a Wikipedia expert. 32.218.34.117 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you were a behavioral expert, you would not have interpreted my contribution as being condescending (it wasn't. There's no shame in not being an expert).

You also would not have repeated the question here but would have asked all further questions at WP:EMERGENCY. --Josy (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. 32.218.34.117 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

article about railroad bridges in my home town.

I recently went to a gathering of Wikipedia editors and announced my intent to make an list of the railroad bridges that either carry the railroad or pass over the railroad in the city of Brockton, Massachusetts. A Brockton noteworthy fact is that its the first city to outlaw railroad grade crossings. I feel that this information illustrates the city growth over time. I was told it isn't worthy of Wikipedia, but I still feel it is. Should I drop the idea? Bobmodikiw (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bobmodikiw:. Welcome to the Teahouse. If several reliable published sources have devoted significant coverage to these railroad bridges and the ban on grade crossings, then a Wikipedia article may be acceptable. It is all about the quality of the sources. Please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think that a fact should be in an article and another editor thinks that it isn't worthy of Wikipedia, that is a content dispute. Read the dispute resolution policy. It will say to discuss on the article talk page, and then will provide some options if the discussion is inconclusive, including requesting a Third Opinion, and a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Yana Zhdanova

I reviewed Draft: Yana Zhdanova and declined it on tone grounds, as not written in a formal neutral tone. The unregistered editor then wrote on my talk page:

Dear Robert, I thank you for your comments about the article Draft: Yana Zhdanova. The initial article was submitted on the first of September and read by you on 7 October. I made the changes you suggested, in a more formal tone, although the article was already written without any peacock, promoting terms at all. Moreover, the sources are published, reliable, and independent (The New York Times, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Euronews, Newsweek, The Guardian, Time Magazine etc) quoting Femen group opinions even if these magazines, newspapers, the author or the reader of this article do not agree with these opinions. The new submission was made on 7 October, and on 21 October I sent you a message on this Talk page, which remained without reply. If I am not mistaken, it's the only unanswered message here, apparently because of so many mesages and articles you have to go through. I am aware of the fact that you will not necessarily be the person who will read the new submission, however, just in case you will, I want to point out that the tone of the new submission is more neutral, formal, encyclopedic, archival than many existing Wikipedia articles about Art, History and Politics.I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Patrice.

I still have issues with the tone, which appears to be written from the viewpoint of the Ukrainian feminist movement. For example, “The naked breast of the FEMEN members will gradually become the screen for feminist messages since it is considered by this group to be an efficient way to draw public and media’s attention. Therefore women’s body is transformed by the FEMEN activists into a weapon, for they decide by themselves how and when to use it, whether to cover or to show it.” Do other experienced editors have opinions on the tone of the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have copyedited about a third of the article and have left two commented out notes in the text regarding the material you excerpt above, and about one other — that they cannot remain as written, using Wikipedia voice and so forth.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears that you are saying that you mostly agree with my criticism that much of the tone is inappropriate to be expressed in the voice of Wikipedia as it is written. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yep, agreed 100%. There is also now an issue of a false quotation. See my comment on the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Fuhghettaboutit - I declined the resubmitted draft as still having non-neutral language and citing your comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Signals through the Flames: a documentary on the Living Theatre of Julian Beck and Judith Malina

Starting on this for me is difficult. I have done some research on it and it is determined at the Internet Archive that the film is public domain. There are some internet available sources for it. I have one. I was but have not yet submitted it to the Internet Archive for historical purposes.

The film was made in the early 80's. There is no reference to it under Living Theatre Julian Beck or Judith Malina or anywhere else.

The film is a documentary of the experimental theatre troup The Living Theatre which still exists in New York City. The biographical notes on the Wikipedia for Judith Malina and other sources can give the history. It has interviews with the two principals: Julian Beck and Judith Malina, excerpts from filmed work and documentary footage of Living Theatre actions and performances around the world.

Mystic Fire Video is the production source. Mystic Fire Video was simply created by a bookstore called Mystic Fire. There is no known copyright information further. I consider it a valuable document which should be included in the wiki entries for Living Theatre, Judith Malina and Julian Beck.

Making wiki entries has always stymied me. I don't understand HTML or the format elements.

loninappletonLoninappleton (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Loninappleton: Welcome to the Teahouse. The documentary film is already mentioned in the Bibiography section of The Living Theatre. If you are interested in writing a separate article about the film, please start by reading Your first article and our Notability guideline for films. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Deep House Brothers

Hi,

I submitted the last page by mistake regarding this... apologies.

What im looking to do is create page about the band where they came from background in the music and why its important to them is this possible?Aytrixtech (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ayrixtech. It may be possible; but only if there has already been substantial material published about them by people who have no connection with them. In that case you can create an article, based almost entirely on what those independent sources say about them. The article should not talk about what is important to them unless an independent sourcew has written about this. Please be aware that writing an acceptable article from scratch is hard: I always advice people to spend at least a few weeks improving existing articles before trying it. In any case, please read Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ughh

How can I report a pending changes reviwer for not doing the job properly? This person reverted my sourced edit about a record label's sub-labels by saying it's promo! I'm sure this person never bothered to check if they're right or wrong.- ReZawler (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Start with doing your own homework instead of blaming others. See for example this removal or this removal or this removal or this removal. The Banner talk 18:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I apologize for causing any inconvenience but I felt upset about having my edits dismissed as PROMO, which is not true. If you have said it on the edit summary, it would have been easier. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 08:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Restore

Where can I appropriately ask an admin to restore a deleted page to draft?- ReZawler (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ReZawler. Please see WP:REFUND. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Is my contribution ready to be move to main article?

Hi, I am a new student user who is working on a existing article(Seiko.) I am wondering if anyone can review my piece and see if it is ready to be move over to the main page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jerrylin1208

Thank you Jerrylin1208 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, Jerrylin1208, because it has almost no references, and the one it has not indepndent of Seiko. Every single fact you mention should ideally be cited to a reliable published source: without sources, Wikipedia articles are nearly useless, because you can never be sure that what they say is reliable.

Also, a Wikipedia article should not use a value-laden term like "innovation" unless it is quoting an independent reliable source: please see WP:NPOV.

Thirdly, a problem with your draft section is the tone (though if the other problems were fixed, that wouldn't be an obstacle to inserting it into the article). For example, contractions like "that's" are almost never appropriate to a Wikipedia article: "that is".

Two more points that are not directly answering your question: you have tagged that as a user sandbox, but actually it is in the wrong place: you have put your draft in your User Page, which is supposed to be used for personal information about you as a Wikipedia editor. I suggest you MOVE it to User:Jerrylin1208/Seiko_section or something like that. Finally, a much better place to ask for feedback on material you are intending to introduce to the article Seiko would be the talk page Talk:Seiko, but you have not so far posted there. --ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback ColinFine, I will improve my draft base on these advises. Jerrylin1208 (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Review of article draft.

Hello,

I have recently completed the draft of the article "Effects of overtime" and moved it to the main space. I was wondering if someone would be able to review the article and provide any feedback he or she may have. Thank you very much for your help!

Corbin Apple (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I took a quick look through it, and it looks fine. Could use some pictures/graphs/illustrations here and there, but other than that, I like it.

The Phase Master (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, I will try to make those additions as quickly as possible.

Corbin Apple (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Menu

I would like to have Green Tea Ginger Twist. If that's unavailable, Maté Laté would do. - ReZawler 16:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me here, Hostbot. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) - ReZawler 16:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, hey! In response to your previous questions, no, there is no place to "report" someone on Wikipedia, but if you do have a problem with a PCR, dicuss it with an administrator or the user themselves, even though you'll probably not even get acknowledged. But one question, WHY DID U CREATE 238 REDIRECTS in a day?!?! WIikipedia is an encyclopedia of NOTABLE THINGS: to be honest, I'm pretty sure 90 percent of the articles you've created will be deleted by tomorrow. Anyway, bye!
P.S. Sorry if I come off as harsh, but I'm just being honest. Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 ^{𐍄𐌀ℓК} 18:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you for your question. I do not really count how many redirects I have created but I do it with sole intention of sending the readers to the relevant pages so they do not get misguided by not being able to find the article they wanted to find. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 08:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Was looking at the entry for second person narrative, and someone had flagged that it should be included in the overall narrative page/article.

How do I support that? As I fully agree with the person, it is a short page that easily could be and should be a sub section of the narrative page.

What all is required to make one of these proposed changes happen? As I see some thing flagged for over a year.

DonnyRedlinezo6 (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Redlinezo6: Welcome to the Teahouse. The proper place to comment on that proposal is Talk: Second-person narrative. However, consider the possibility that the current page should be expanded instead of being merged into Narrative. Do a Google search and a Google Books search. Take a look at reliable sources discussing Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Haunted Mind, an example of this unusual narrative style in literature. The merge proposal is very new. The tag requesting more reliable sources goes back over a year, but reliable sources are readily available with a simple Google search. My initial impression is that expansion of the current article is a better solution than a merge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! It was the first thing on wikipedia that I noticed an editing error, just a misplaced word, but then I noticed there was the merge request.

I am definitely going to look at what you suggested, I have had an interest in the 2nd person ever since learning the terms for the different narratives. They taught us in school the 1st and 3rd person and that was it. I always asked, who is the 2nd person then? And then I learned about breaking the 4th wall, and how I guess the reader/viewer is the 4th person.

As far the as the Talk section for that page, would I just make a new section on that conserning the merger?

DonnyRedlinezo6 (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Redlinezo6: Yes, start a new section and make your comment there. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Editors have wrongly accused me of unconstructive editing

What do I do if editors have wrongly accused me of unconstructive editing?Vroy0001 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vroy0001: Welcome to the Teahouse. When I look at your edits, I see you adding unreferenced promotional content. So, the accusations are not wrong, although you may not fully understand our policies and guidelines since you are new. Please study them. Every substantive assertion requires a reference to a reliable source. Please read Referencing for beginners. If you plan to edit Wikipedia as a "freelancer", then please read and comply with WP:PAID. This is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Find out if a topic name has been changed

I notice that the body of the article for Hyoscine hydrobromide in its oldest revisions makes absolutely no mention of "hycosine hydrobromide" and only uses the term "scopolamine". Hycosine hydrobromide is the British term for what Americans call Scopolamine.

This makes me suspect that originally the title of the article was "Scopolamine," not "Hycosine hydrobromide" and that a British editor changed it at some point.

How can I find out if the title of an article was different at some point and when it was changed (and by whom)?

Also, the policy of the Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that when there is difference in terminology between British and American English, then the term to be used is whichever was used first. So, if the article was originally created with the American term, then the American term or spelling will be used, and conversely if the article is first created with the British spelling/terminology first, then it stays British. Is that correct?

If this is true, and I find that the title of an article has been altered in violation of this policy how do I get the title reverted to the original title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 06:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, John Chamberlain. You can check title changes at the Move Log. And indeed, the log shows that the article was moved from Scopolamine to Hyoscine hydrobromide by Doc James, citing the reason as "moved to INN". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is correct we go with INNs generally. This is not a spelling difference per say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's odd that the title of the article is "hycosine hydrobromide", but the structural diagrams and chemical formula in the infobox are not for the hydrobromide. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Pinging Doc James. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes people shorten "scopolamine hydrobromide" to simply "scopolamine" [1]

If you look at these two pages [2] and [3] they have the exact same content. Same Cas Number etc.

Americans do not have scopolamine butylbromide which is why I think they do this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Doc James what is "INN"? (WP:INN is obviously not relevant.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry International nonproprietary name is what INN stands for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Scopolamine is the generic name for the drug. The only people who call it "hycosine hydrobromide" are British as far as I know. I was unable to verify the allegation that hycosine hydrobromide is in any way a more generic or accepted term for the drug. What is the evidence for this? If there is no publicly available evidence I recommend the article be moved back to the originators title per Wikipedia policy. John Chamberlain (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Pinging Doc James

User:John Chamberlain Please read this International_nonproprietary_name#Comparison_of_naming_standards. Ie there can be more than one generic name.

The naming guideline for medications says "The article title and the first name to mention in the lead should be the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) of the drug" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The evidence that you ask for is perhaps the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, ref 8 in the Hyoscine hydrobromide article? --David Biddulph (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

And there was also talk page discussion on this point [4]

This is also the name the UN uses[5] aswell as the name we use here in Canada. If the USA would switch to the same units and names as the rest of the world that would be a good thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Who agreed to this? As far as I can see this entire "style guide" is written by "Doc James", an otherwise unidentified person obviously of British origin and biased towards British spellings and nomenclature. I cannot find any public source of "rINN" names and none is listed in your self-serving "style guide" as far as I could see. Requiring people to use names from a list and the list is not publicly available is ridiculous. Also, I still have found no evidence to even validate your claim that "hycosine hydrobromide" is the rINN for Scopolamine anyway. Pinging talk. Scopolamine is a generic name and is the ORIGINAL title of the article which by Wikipedia policy is supposed to be the term used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually was not involved in putting together that section of the guideline and no I am not of British origin :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Maliibu N Helene- Singing Group- Island Records

Hello, I was trying to start a page for a music group that I am a fan of. I first heard about their song thru a DJ Mustard who is on Wikipedia. I then went to Island Records website, Verified Facebook and Twitter accounts, and purchased their songs on Apple Itunes. I then went to Vevo and watched the video which has Island Records trademark at the end listing them as the producers of the video. The girls in the duo are also listed individually under other Wikipedia pages for "Hairspray Live" and "Maliibu Mitch" as well as under DJ Mustard produced songs. They were also in articles on Bet.com, Revolt TV, Spotify, Soundcloud, Trendio, among others. I was told by a editor on here the above mentioned are not "reliable sources"?? Really? Itunes, Verified Facebook, Twitter, and Island Records a well known record label are considered not reliable sources? Please explain- thank you Sarahmelanie9688Sarahmelanie9688 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find the explanation by reading WP:reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with review of a draft and final publishing of the article

Hello, I was trying to publish an article about this Indian personality Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari. I made the changes that were suggested, in a more formal tone. Could anyone please review how to improve it and help to get it published? The sources mentioned in the draft are published, reliable, recognized and independent in India. There seems to be a citations issue, which I couldn't figure out. The article has been in the making for quite some time and would really appreciate any help on getting it published. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phosphenes296 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)