Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

What Web search engine can I use/adapt to find reviews etc. that may be as much as 12 years old?

In the last 2 months I've been put through the wringer by other editors about the Retrospect (software) article, on which I did a major expansions starting about 13 months ago. The expanded article was considered much too long (10 screen pages) and not in an encyclopedic style. The other editors and I cut the article to 2 screen pages, but that was done in part by condensing the features sections into a single 12-screen-line "Small-group features" section. That degree of condensation was possible only because there are some other articles about what I will call the "pure IT requirements of backup", so that I could use a single-word term for a feature and provide the explanation via a link.

I ended up having to leave out 14 out of 34 major Retrospect features, and realized those 14 features were all added since 2005 and implement what I will call "sociological requirements of centralized backup". I also realized that—starting around 2005—developers of client-server backup software began to copy each other's features, so that I could write a separate article titled something like "Enterprise backup features" that would discuss such features from a cross-developer point of view.

Unfortunately there do not seem to be any Wikipedia articles covering "sociological requirements of centralized backup", so I would have to write longer explanations—such as I had in the un-cut-down version of the Retrospect (software) article—to explain the features. One problem is that the different developers have used different terms for the same feature. Another problem is many such features were developed prior to the last two years, so that Google Search tends to leave out reviews pertaining to them. So I need a way of either adapting Google Search or using another "less helpful" Web search engine to find these reviews, and also—failing reviews—developer documents that mention the features.

Any suggestions? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DovidBenAvraham and welcome to the Teahouse. I think your question is in two parts, and I can probably only answer half. You can easily do an "Advanced Search" with Google and specify a custom range to search From or To. Just look for the Settings>Advanced Search Options at the normal Google search page. Try this. You could also search on Google Scholar, which looks at more academic publications, or even JSTOR. Then there are Metasearch engines you could use, which eploy multiple search engines to help you, like Dogpile. Here's an article listing 23 other metasearch engines you could also try if youi really hit a brick wall.

As hinted at above, I'm probably not qualified to comment on the other part of your question, but I can see you have worked well and cooperatively with other editors to turn a quite long-winded article into a useful, encyclopaedic summary. This isn't always an easy thing to do, so well done on doing your best there. Sometimes, one's own enthusiasm and commitment for a topic can prevent one from seeing that "less-is-more". We always include references, not only to support the statements made about a subject, but also to help direct others to uncover further details if they are so minded. I'd suggest this is the way to go for additional, long-winded concepts. I can see you've already had the Wikipedia policies WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTESSAY mentioned a few times on the article's Talk Page. As I think you do appreciate, Wikipedia can only report and summarise topics if they are already notable and covered by reliable third-party sources, so I would question whether it would ever be appropriate to have a new article on "sociological requirements of centralized backup". However, you might like to consider expanding this section of the article on computer backup processes. I hope some of this reply is of relevance to you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. Where can I learn about all the operators after "search?" in the example you gave (although I think I've just figured out a fair amount of how you restricted the search to articles no later than 2008)?

I think creating a new section with sub-sections in the Backup article is a wonderful idea. I linked to a number of sections in that article in the "Small-group features" section of the "Retrospect (software)" article, and it helped tremendously for definitions of terms I used. In doing so, I noticed that the Backup article seems to be as much a summary of well-known facts and terminology as of highly-referenced sources. I hope to find as many third-party sources as possible, but maybe putting the new section in that existing article would earn me some temporary forbearance.

Perhaps I should have written something like "socio-legal requirements of enterprise centralized backup" above. My basic premise is that, starting around 2005, developments that had as much to do with social and legal changes as with the advent of cheap high-capacity HDDs forced new backup requirements upon enterprises. The social changes were the emergence of "backup administrators" who are considered part of office management rather than IT—and hence don't have access to the tightly-secured rooms where "backup server" computers operate, and the expansion of computer-dependent record-keeping within enterprises. The legal change was more-stringent requirements for enterprises to be able to retrieve their records no matter what (I was told by an insurance company executive 20 years ago "Our Midwestern subsidiary bought your apartment mortgage from the bank that issued it, but the mortgage records were stored in a basement that was flooded by the Mississippi river so they've been destroyed—but despite that we'll notify the official NYC property records office that your mortgage has been paid-off"; this would be legally unacceptable now—and I needn't even bother to mention the effect of the WannaCry malware on the operations of the British NHS). The resultant requirements for client-server backup of enterprises include: "console" apps for "backup administrators" that often feature a "high-level dashboard", automated transfers from disk to tape for safe off-site storage, user-initiated backups and restores to reduce the workload of the "backup administrator", "Instant Scan" technology and block-level incremental backup to fit more more client computers into the nightly "backup window", and automated "data grooming" to reduce the size of fast-retrieval on-site disk backup storage while meeting regulatory requirements. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad to have helped, DovidBenAvraham. For 'Advanced Search' operators, just try Googling: "Google search operators". Here is one useful page. This is another with an Infographic. I'm of the era where I had responsibility for backing up my own work data onto 40Mb [sic] tape drives each evening, and then again weekly, and putting them in my museum's fire-proof safe. I still worry a bit that you're itching to write an essay on the social changes of backup routines, rather than tracing down and condensing existing sources to summarise those changes. I like the idea that Wikipedia consists of well-known facts, with each one always supported with evidence that any user can comprehend. Maybe there's a fascinating blog post you could create and put some of those detailed ideas into, whilst just condensing down other published sources here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nick Moyes. The only purpose of my proposed new section in the Backup article is to briefly describe the features that all enterprise-level backup apps seem to have added since 2005. That way I can add to the Retrospect (software) article a new "Enterprise features" section containing the single sentence "Retrospect implements all of the features listed in this article section except for ...." JohnInDC will hardly be able to object to that. The "social and legal changes", which will probably be exactly (with references) the two sentences I wrote about them above, will be just a lead-in to explain why all enterprise-level backup apps seem to have added most of the features described in the new section. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, would you please tell me where you got the Google Search operators you used above in "https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=retrospect+software&lr=&hl=en&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A2008&tbm= ". The URL works very well, even when I change it to use Google.com and the name of another enterprise backup program in place of "retrospect". The reason I want to know is that the URL gives me multiple pages of returned URLs, not just one page as Google Advanced Search does. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, DovidBenAvraham. I didn't get the search terms from anywhere, really. The long text string of terms was simply what the Google Advanced Search page created after I set the parameters (namely, "retrospect software" and the Custom date range entered via a pop-up window, of "To 12/31/2008". As far as I can tell, I get multiple pages of search results directly from the Advanced Search window, and also when (on that results page) I subsequently change the time setting from "Past year" to "Custom Range". Multiple pages are returned whether I'm searching on Google via Chrome or via Firefox. Normally, one only gets one page of search results if there are so few results that a second page isn't needed - but that's rather stating the obvious. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm suffering from a lack of GoogleFu and a lack of observation. I figured out this morning that the search operators you supplied are what Google Advanced Search puts into the URL when a search is specified. I finally noticed earlier this afternoon that in fact below the Related Searches list there is a multi-page access bar. I just figured out now how to get the Custom Date Range pop-up, which is—on the results page—to click on the Tools button to get the Any Time dropdown and then to click on that dropdown to get the Custom Range item. Because this new article section requires that I find old reviews of various backup software apps in order to get descriptions of the "enterprise" features, I'm going to have to become a much more skilled Googler. Sorry to have bothered you. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How post first article with numerous references and several photos

I have written an extensive researched and referenced article and was hoping that getting it on Wikipedia would be easier. How or where do I find a simple outline on the steps needed to try and get this published? I have tried to figure this out but felt a bit overwhelmed. Many thanks for your help and guidance rgromanRgroman (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rgroman and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several possible routes, but I'd recommend that you put your new article in WP:Draft space first, so that you can receive guidance before submitting it for review and publication in main space. If you haven't already read it, there is some good advice at WP:Your first article. Dbfirs 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For your photographs, please read Wikipedia:Uploading images. Dbfirs 07:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up a Wikipedia entry as part of a small contract

Hello!

I'm a former freelance writer/editor (now in a new career) who has agreed (as my last editing job) to edit the Wikipedia page of a former colleague/artist (among other writing and editing tasks) – her page included some typos as well as incorrect information about her. She is paying me for this, though I have no financial interest in advancement of her career. I've made some edits to her page and have received a message saying I need to reveal my connection to my employer to avoid COI, which is fine.

But holy cow, I'm finding this a quagmire (absolutely no disrespect intended), and the small contract I have to do this edit for the artist is not sufficient to spend much more time trying to figure out how I can finish this work legitimately without jeopardizing her page. I see (I think) I need to create a user page to draft an article, but I am merely editing one that already exists, and this will be the only time I ever do any work on Wikipedia.

Do I need to create a user page? And if I do, what precisely is it that I'm putting in that box if I'm only editing the page?

Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated! And thank you in advance! FletcherJulie (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello FletcherJulie. You perhaps should have looked further into what Wikipedia is about before accepting this job. We are a volunteer-edited encyclopaedia. The consensus of the community of editors is that editing with a conflict of interest, especially editing for pay, is not compatible with that mission and is strongly discouraged. So first and foremost my advice would be that you should not be editing an article on somebody you know, and you certainly should not be editing an article in return for money.

However, if you insist on doing so, in order to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use, you must disclose which article you have been paid to edit and who is paying you to do so. You can do this by placing the {{paid}} template on your user page, as well as the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on the talk page of the article. Furthermore, to comply with the community's conflict of interest policy, you should refrain from editing the article directly, and instead make use of the {{request edit}} template (placed on the article's talk page) to ask another editor to make the changes on your behalf. – Joe (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition, please bear in mind that every piece of information added to Wikipedia must be supported with a citation to a reliable source. I have edited Laura Taler and removed most of the content you recently added because it was not referenced. – Joe (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why so many people accept paid editing jobs while having no idea what is involved. I'm glad plumbers generally don't operate like that. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to a module

Hello. Is there any way to add a redirect to a module within the Module namespace?  — Jaspet, 01:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• You will probably have a better chance of getting an answer by asking this at WP:VPT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you; I will ask there. — Jaspet 12:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this draft page ready?

With many thanks to all who have commented so far! The draft is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_Brierley

I'm now pretty sure that the notability is ok - the guy was a well-known singer-songwriter of the 60s, with many recordings and performances, book references etc - and I've stripped the text down to only that which is referenced properly. Having said that, I have left in a quote from a book about the 60s which might be a bit gushing. Very glad to have some comments on this page - and, once again, many thanks to all those who have contributed so far. Fenderstratuk1 (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Fenderstratuk1 Welcome back to the Teahouse. It's not looking at all bad, though you could strengthen your draft a little further before submitting it. At first glance it looks like it might meet WP:MUSICBIO, which is key. In terms of layout you should put his name in bold in the lead sentence; clarify birth name/stage name; put references after punctuation, not before, and it helps a lot if you cite your references with more detail. I've just changed one of them for you as a demo - both of our editing tools offer easy ways to quickly insert reference details (something I'd not realised existed for my first year of editing here!). The Dusted ref looks a good independent source, and you could also include details of his current life as a photographer. By giving a name to each reference you can use it again within the article without having to repeat it. (See WP:CITE for more details}. Finally, I note Brierley gets a brief mention in a list of many other notable musicians who sang about the state of the 1960s world on p 290 of "Electric Eden: Unearthing Britain's Visionary Music" (alongside Cat Stevens, Ralph McTell and Sandy Denny) which you might wish to consider. Hope this is of use. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Page rejected / Is a company winning a government department national award enough to make it notable?

Hi. I've submitted a very short page about my company, making two simple statements. One refers to a trademark we have just registered (hardly major news, but verifiable). The other refers to us being named national winners of an employer of the year award by the UK government Skills Funding Agency, complete with a link to the relevant page on the .gov.uk website.

Is that likely to be enough? If it is, rejection might just be a result of the very clumsy way I've entered the content (first ever Wiki page). If not, I'll stop wasting everyone's time!

All thoughts gratefully received.

MartelloTwo. MartelloTwo (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@MartelloTwo: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that your draft has already been declined. Seeing it, I must agree with the reviewer that the sources given do not adequately indicate your company's notability. If you haven't already, please review WP:ORG, the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. In short, they call for sources that give in depth coverage of the company(not just mere mentions) in a range of independent reliable sources(not just one or two). If there was several news stories in reputable, mainstream media about your company, that would help immensely. Right now the page just tells us that your company exists and that it got a couple of (pardon my unfamiliarity) what seem to be minor awards.

You also list a Wikipedia page as one reference; this is not permitted as Wikipedia articles cannot be used to reference other Wikipedia articles. If you merely wanted to link to the article, that is done by placing the target article's title in double brackets like this: [[Page Name Here]]. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

331dot THANK YOU - most helpful. I shall take a look at the section you mention. You have raised my hopes a little in that, if I can find national press reports, we may yet get approved.

MartelloTwo (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding to what 331dot has just said, I think you may still struggle to demonstrate notability to Wikipedia's standards for an organisation on this encyclopaedia unless you receive in-depth coverage. That said, I do think the National Apprenticeship Awards themselves deserve a page, as there seems to be both UK government and significant media coverage to them over the years. (The fact that this is a 'red link' shows no page for them exist yet on Wikipedia). If it were to be created, then within that article it would be quite acceptable to list individual section winners on a year by year basis, but each still wouldn't merit a page until sufficient third party sources write about them. Other than that, I would recommend LinkedIn and other traditional routes to promote and raise awareness of your company. Hoping this helps, Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Gap in text caused by image

At New River (Kanawha River), how do I get "Few highways cross the gorge," to be continuous text? I don't like "Few" being separated from "highways". Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

For me there is no gap in the text. The positioning of images will vary according to what size of window you have chosen, and what size of text. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow—you are right. I adjusted the window's size and the gap in the text disappeared. Interesting. And thank you, David Biddulph! Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: The occasions when you might need to ensure a sentence doesn't break between lines is when you have measurements followed by the units that the numbers relate to. In that circumstance you can add a 'non-breaking space' (but definitely not to keep two ordinary words together, for the reasons David Biddulph explained). See Controlling line breaks for how to do this. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to "Controlling line breaks", or MOS:NBSP. That is certainly good to know, Nick Moyes. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Article on a New Topic

Hi there, I submitted a draft that was rejected on the topic of Manure Pumping. There is no pertinent information on the topic of spreading organic manure over fields, nor on the equipment used in the process. There are retail outlets to buy such items but no general information.

I added several sources on topics about the process... there is not a lot of information 'out there' yet. And people 'in the field' just have the knowledge. Tradesmen typically just do, but now we want our info online. I plan to rewrite in a more encyclopedic tone. Not sure if you have any other suggestions here... would be open to them!Webcopy (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Webcopy. Welcome to the Teahouse. It's fantastic that you're keen to share your knowledge and enthusiasm here. And I know from experience how frustrating it is to have an article turned down at Articles for Creation. But all is not lost, and you can easily work on it to make it more appropriate for re-submission. Have you read this helpful guide: Wikipedia:Your first article? I do think you may have tried to hit the ground running (no pun intended). Many people - me included - started off very slowly here, learning the basics of editing, often just making very small changes to existing articles at first, then sussing out how to insert good quality references to reliable sources, and how best to follow the style guide used across all pages. (Writing headings IN CAPITAL LETTERS is a big no, no here, for example) It's important to realise that Wikipedia isn't here as an instruction manual or a promotional website, but to summarise known facts that have been reported by reliable third party sources in a simple, clear way for everyday users to understand. So, how about first looking at related articles that you could improve upon - just making small changes at a time, or discussion ideas in an article's Talk page if you're not sure whether you're doing the right thing?. Take a look at Manure spreader (which you also arrive at if you type Muck spreader) or Reuse of excreta. If you start gently and improve your editing skills, in time it might be OK to branch out and create a whole new article on the actual processes. Could this be a useful way to go forward? Alternatively, stand back, look at what you've drafted and pretend to be a fussy, neutral observer. How does it compare with similar articles you've seen on Wikipedia, or how is it better/worse? Try stripping the contents back to the bare essentials and ensuring everything has a good, clear reference to support what you say. Blogs are not seen as good sources, whereas published agricultural manuals and government guidance would be far batter. Consider other issues to cover in a neutral manner such as levels of application and timings, pollution (eutrophication) of watercourses etc. Hoping this helps for starters. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Webcopy. The advice from Nick Moyes is excellent. I had a go at basic copyediting and formatting of Draft:Manure Pumping to bring it more in line with Wikipedia style and formatting guidelines and to make further editing easier. One problem was that much of it was written in "telegraphic" or "recipe" style rather than complete sentences. It still remains a little confusing to the general reader and assumes too much background knowledge. You'll need to work on that. One BIG problem is that I had to delete all the definitions in the "Equipment used in liquid manure pumping" section. They were copied verbatim from the source used as a reference. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. I will leave some further guidance on this at Draft talk:Manure Pumping. Make sure you read it carefully, including the blue-linked pages. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflicts enquiry - adding references

Hello. I am working with an entrepreneur who has an existing Wikipedia page (not set up by him), and he has noticed that it has a lot of facts that are not currently referenced (it has a banner at the top about needing citations). He asked me to look into it to help get the banner removed. I am new to Wikipedia, but have been reading through a lot of the policy pages about conflicts of interest, which seem to apply to me here. I understand I will need to add a note on my user page, and also that it would be better for me not to directly edit the article. I have been researching to find secondary sources to verify the facts in the article, but was wondering how it would be most convenient to suggest these - should I just insert a note and list of the references in the talk page and use the 'request edit' tag? Thanks for your advice Stephkatep (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Stephkatep. Welcome to the Teahouse. That sounds like the best way to approach any perceived conflict of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

badges

when I've completed 7 missions where can I find my badges Niamhlangton (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Niamhlangton Well done for completing your missions. I can see all your badges from the Wikipedia Adventure on your User Page. Just click this link. You might like to add a few words about yourself (nothing private - just your interests in editing Wikipedia) there too. If anyone sends you a message, you'll see an alert at the top of any page, and can see all your messages on your Talk Page (which is the Tab next to it). Hope that makes sense and that you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia! Come back with questions any time. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Submit the draft for review.

Please advise as how can I submit the draft of Professor Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Syed_Hasan_Askari) for review by wiki team so it can be published. Thanks in advance. (Syedahmerraza (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't, because it has been deleted as a copyright violation. This would not have happened if you had read and complied with the advice you received (on your own user talk page and elsewhere) after your previous attempt at Syed Hasan Askari had been deleted as a copyright violation from the same source. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

When is German Month?

I know Asia's not one country, but do you have countries' months? What about German Month? Thanks in advance, GermanGamer77 (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, GermanGamer77. I'm not sure I quite understand what you're after, but it's not really an appropriate question for this Teahouse (which is here to help people with the practicalities of how to edit Wikipedia). Perhaps a Google search, our a visit to the wonderful world of the Wikipedia Reference Desk, might assist you? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I think the question is if there is a German equivalent to WP:Wikipedia_Asian_Month which is featured in a banner currently. RudolfRed (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, RudolfRed, and my apologies for not understanding the question. I cannot answer this myself - hopefully others can do better. I cannot see anything listed related to Germany on this category page for editathons (see here), or on this list of Wikimedia User Groups. If you don't get an answer here, perhaps asking on the Talk Page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany might help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember ever seeing any special months set aside for other countries or people groups beyond women's history, LGBT, or Black History Month in February. It seems like there was once a Wales editathon in April or spring, but I don't know if that's an annual thing like Asian Month. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

interesting thing

Did you know that if you type any single letter after the Wp: prefix into the search box, all letters are redirects to a different thing? Try it: wp:a, wp:b, wp:c, wp:d, wp:e, wp:f, wp:g, wp:h, wp:i, wp:j, wp:k, wp:l, wp:m, wp:n, wp:o, wp:p, wp:q, wp:r, wp:s, wp:t, wp:u, wp:v, wp:w, wp:x, wp:y, and wp:z. Bardic Wizard (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bardic Wizard, welcome to the Teahouse. The targets are listed at Wikipedia:Shortcut directory#Shortcut alphabet. Most two-letter combinations are also redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I just thought it was interesting. Bardic Wizard (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

expiration

Hi there, Do user pages expire if they are not used for long periods of time? Thanks in advance, Emma Molloy Emma Molloy (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Emma Molloy: No, User pages do not expire. Draft pages may be deleted if not edited for six months. RudolfRed (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose one question not asked here is what happens when users expire? I am guessing that as years pass there will be a growing 'dark universe' of Users who no longer edit because they are no longer alive. I know there is a Retired template, but perhaps a need for an Expired template. David notMD (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We do actually have guidelines for handling pages relating to deceased Wikipedians. For those interested, it can be read here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Frustrated, trying to create an article..

My article for Blue Knights International Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club, was rejected under speedy deletion for promoting the club. My intent was not to promote the club, but to create an article containing basic facts, so the club could be listed in the Wikipedia listing of active motorcycle clubs. Apparently, it cannot be listed, if there is no accompanying article for the club.

So, I took the most basic info and created a factual entry. It was in no way promoting the club.. just had the origin and basic member criteria as well as how many members and chapters it comprised.

Any tips?

I don't have to write it, if someone else wants to do it. I just wanted to get the club included from an encyclopedic perspective.

~Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B006:5A58:19D7:DB41:8CEF:FD49 (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If the club is notable, in terms of being the subject of significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject, an article can be written. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mark94066. The article Draft:Blue Knights International Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club was speedily deleted for two reasons: one is that it was written in a way that seemed like unambiguous promotion. I can't see the article, so I can't comment on that. However, it was also deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation of this website (see the speedy deletion criterion G12). Content on Wikipedia cannot be copied directly from other sites, for legal reasons. Dairy {talk} 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm sorry, but I think the reason you are frustrated is that you are trying to use Wikipedia for your purposes, and not for Wikipedia's. "To create an article containing basic facts, so the club could be listed in the Wikipedia listing of active motorcycle clubs" is exactly what we mean by promotion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in your club - or any other subject - if several people who are completely unconnected with it have chosen to publish substantial information about it, in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. (That is what we mean by the jargon word "notability"). Part of the reason for this is that every article should be mostly based on such independent writings (Wikipedia has almost no interest in what any subject says about themselves), so if there are no such sources, then there is nothing that can be written in an article. Sorry to be blunt. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there an article on lofi hip-hop and if there isn't an we make one?

If you haven't noticed, there has been a profusion of channels on youtube that are part of this genre such as Ambition Syros and Arurian Music, who all post lofi hip hop tracks. One can trace back the influences to DJ Okawari and Nujabes, so there is a extensive history on this genre Valorzard (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Valorzard It's only acceptable to create a new page on a topic if it meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines - basically, you can only write about a subject if you can cite reliable, third party sources which talk about that topic in some depth. Unfortunately, that would exclude Youtube and Facebook-type of accounts, but music media publications (not personal blogs) would be fine. As this is an encyclopaedia, everything really has to be in a neutral, non-promotional tone, and be verifiable by references; anything else will get deleted. If you visit the Hip hop music page, you could read that and follow links to see if your sub-genre topic has ever been covered. You could either pose your question on that Page's Talk Page (see here) or consider starting a new section within that article. As you've appear only to have made one other edit in the past, might I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:Your first article, or even try the Wikipedia Adventure tour to learn about the requirements for editing articles yourself? Good luck with your Wikipedia journey!. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How to create collapsable rows in a table?

I'd like to create collapsable rows in a table for states in a list of countries. This is the page I'm editing: Age_of_consent. I've tried these instructions in various different fashions, to no avail: Help:Collapsing#.22innercollapse.22_and_.22outercollapse.22. Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wisdomtooth32. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for that challenging technical question. As far as I can tell, you have succeeded. You currently have created a table which is shown expanded by default, containing three additional elements which are all collapsed by default for the countries of Australia, Mexico and the US. Each is then individually expandible and sortable, and the only criticism I might have is that you have the sub-header of "Country", rather than "Country or Region" for each one. You look to have fixed your own problem, but if you're still struggling with it, perhaps you could explain precisely what you still want to achieve? If you're after the three countries starting off expanded, then I think you'd need to put the "innercollapse" command in each element. (I've just tried doing this for Australia, but we've had an edit conflict, so I won't mess around whilst you're working on it). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for criticism of COI content

Hi, a while ago I posted the first version of an article on Siemens` Mindsphere software and asked for the community`s opinion. You can find the original discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=prev&diff=800784030#Request_for_criticism_of_COI_content

The initial criticism was that it was written too subjectively, so I`ve re-worked the article based on the feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=800784030#Request_for_criticism_of_COI_content

I`m confident that this version is much better in terms of guideline compliance and would kindly ask again for your opinion. Thanks!David F. Erhard (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• The page seems to be User:David_F._Erhard/sandbox/MindSphere. @David F. Erhard: At a glance, it is OK-ish (could pass in mainspace, at least as far as promo problems are concerned), though it could be better. I see a few sentences that provide little to no informative value and reek of marketing happyspeak. I encourage you to read the "Bob Dylan" example at WP:PEACOCK to understand what I mean: we want the hard, cold facts.

1. MindSphere stores operational data and makes it accessible through digital applications (“MindApps”) to allow industrial customers to make decisions based on valuable factual information. (especially the "valuable factual information") - what is that operational data, which digital apps have used it, which customers have used it? If the answer to any of these questions is "we do not know yet", the related part of the sentence should be omitted, and otherwise the hard data should be given.
2. This information can be used to optimize products, production assets and manufacturing processes along the entire value chain. - same thing: very vague
3. To help customers create their own software applications and services, MindSphere is equipped with open application programming interfaces (APIs) and development tools - the first part of the sentence can be omitted without loss of information for an encyclopedia reader.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I read Your first article but cant make a article

i want to know how to fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by P500p500 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because of WP:Autoconfirmed article creation trial a new user is not allowed to create a new article directly in mainspace. You would need to create a draft and submit it through the WP:AFC process for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Is "All Events in City(allevents.in)" Notable enough to have an Article?

All events in city(allevent.in) is featured on some famous news like The Hindu,CNBC,etc and also Your Story. Imbdb (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If this is about the web site https://allevents.in, I doubt it. Maproom (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@maproom

Please explain your doubt... Imbdb (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have failed to find any evidence that the subject is notable, which here means that it has written about in depth by multiple reliable independent sources. But if you can find such sources, an article about it may be possible. Maproom (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@maproom

These are some articles I was able to find

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/specials/emerging-entrepreneurs/where-everything-is-event-worthy/article7575702.ece

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/magnolia-image-consulting-foodella-all-events-in-city-sparrow-design-firm-tradohub-eswasthya/1/715754.html

https://www.indianweb2.com/2014/12/09/ahemdabad-based-startup-events-city-provides-event-listing-20000-cities-worldwide/

and Here is an Interview on CNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhey5kJbRug

Please have a look Imbdb (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

None of those helps to establish that the subject is notable. The first three are based on interviews with the subject, and so not independent. The fourth is to a Youtube video: Youtube is not a reliable source (and anyway that video is not available in my country). Maproom (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Logo, Title, Links

Hello. Was wondering if someone could help me with three things:

1. Logo: How long does it generally take to get non-free image approved? Would like to include logo in infobox but do not have autoconfirmation.
2. Title: It appears from TOC that I put the title of the page in wrong as it is showing as an item. Wondering how to fix.
3. Links: Generally making sure I did links correctly and wondering if I should separate out ISBN info into list. Here is link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StephenAdams/sandbox Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenAdams (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi StephenAdams.

1. A non-free image can only be uploaded to an article in mainspace, so you'll have to wait till your draft is live before you upload one.
2. You'll have to move the page to change the title, but since it's a draft you can just wait till it's accepted. The title will be changed during the move to mainspace.
3. We don't do external links within the text of an article the way you have them. It would also be best to list the ISBN with each book. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I understand I need to remove external links in body of article, but is it okay to leave links to authors' official websites and Amazon pages within "Authors and Books" category? Appreciate your time! StephenAdams (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You can use them as references just to prove that author wrote that book, although it's much better to have a book review or something from a second or third-hand source for a reference to back up the fact that So and So wrote Book X. If the authors have Wikipedia articles, you should also link to their names using double brackets like this: [[Jane Smith]]. Some of the books may have articles too if they were on the New York Times bestseller list or something like that. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How to amend the title of an entry?

My old friend Michael Cassano (sic) is in Wikipedia as Michael Casano. His entry says that his name is often misspelt, as iundeed it is here. I have his autograph in a book The RAF at War so have conclusive proof of the double s in his name.Buxheimer2 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Buxheimer2: Both of the sources cited in the article Michael Casano, a Telegraph obituary and a page at what appears to be the official RAF site, spell his surname Casano. Those are reliable published sources, and we can't just change the spelling on the basis of an autograph you say you have—that would be original research. If, however, you can find published sources that spell his name Cassano, you can post a requested move on Talk:Michael Casano, detailing those sources, and editors will then discuss the advisability of changing the title. Deor (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I remember a former request to change a date of death, made by someone claiming to be the deceased's spouse, according to which the "RS" newspaper used had it wrong. In such cases we can invoke WP:IAR to omit the information and leave a comment as to why the RS was not used; but when the problem is about something that cannot be omitted (such as the name), this puts us in a bit of a bind.

@Buxheimer2: Unfortunately, as written above, we are bound by what reliable sources have written, even when they are wrong ("reliable sources" mean "usually subject to serious editorial control", not "always right", of course). However, have you tried contacting either of those sources? If they correct, we can certainly follow suit. It will probably be hard to convince the Telegraph (they might ignore you because they do not have the time to check thoroughly), but the RAF website might have more time to investigate, especially if you can prove you served with the subject. Should you choose to do so, I would say your best chance is the contact listed for the Air Historical Branch at https://www.raf.mod.uk/contact-us.cfm. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

His service records here [1] use the spelling "Michael Casano". Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What is a good faith edit?

I've been hearing of these "good faith edits" all over the place but don't know what they are! Can somebody explain? ^{ブレーデン}Braden1127 _布雷登Let's discuss it! 19:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. Please see WP:GF for the answer to your question. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that page explains the theory: a "good faith edit" is one which has been (or is presumed to have been) made with good intentions, as an attempt to improve Wikipedia. In practice, the term is usually applied when the the result was not in fact an improvement. Describing something as a "good faith edit" usually means "I acknowledge that you meant well, but ..." Maproom (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Maproom! ^{ブレーデン}Braden1127 _布雷登Let's discuss it! 01:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

creating a new entry

I would simply like to create a wikipedia page for the company I work for as marketing directorJames Greensill Capital (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@James Greensill Capital: Hello and welcome. Since you are here as part of your job, you will need to read and comply with the paid editing policy at WP:PAID, which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Please also read about conflict of interest at WP:COI. It is highly advised that you not directly create an article about your company, as it is usually difficult for someone in your position to do so objectively. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes, and cares little for how your company wishes to be portrayed. All information good and bad about your company can be in the article about it as long as such information appears in an independent reliable source. You cannot lock it to your preferred text or prevent others from editing it.

Once you comply with the policies I mentioned, and if you have independent reliable sources (WP:RS) that indicate how your company is notable with in depth coverage (see WP:ORG) and that are not press releases or mere mentions, the only way you will be permitted to create a page is to use Articles for Creation. If all you want to do is tell the world about your company, you will need to use another forum. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Can news stories (not interviews) make an article noteworthy? It depends?

First, thank you, Sulfurboy, for taking the time to review my first article submission (Raising Buchanan).

The reason I created the article was because I wanted to get ahead of the stories about Andy Dick being fired from that film. (I fired him.) Production wrapped Oct 30 so it has not yet been released. People other than myself (I'm the producer and have no public comment) have been quite vocal about the incident and Andy Dick, himself, told me that this will end his career. So I'm thinking that Andy Dick's page will certainly be evolving considerably, and that there will be multiple mentions of Raising Buchanan.

This is really the only reason I think that the film is noteworthy at this time. Until it is released, it's really no different from any other unreleased film. I'm happy to just sit on the article and amend it as the Andy Dick situation evolve, but I'm afraid that it may get removed in the interim, from lack of progress. Should I just copy the formatted file to a text file and hold onto it offline, outside of Wikipedia? 216.9.188.6 (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This may perhaps refer to Draft:Raising Buchanan, and User:JGrub may have forgotten to log in? --David Biddulph (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct on both counts. User JGrub here. JGrub (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JGrub. Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. We have had many articles over the years about unreleased films, usually after principal photography begins. These articles usually discuss the signing of various stars and production details, which have been reported by reliable, independent sources. The jarring thing about this draft article is the level of detail about the plot, which I consider inappropriate about an unreleased film. After all, the general public and most (all?) professional critics have not yet seen the film, so the plot description is inside information which we do not allow.

Wikipedia is not a tool to "get ahead" of a story about an actor getting fired, so that is also a demerit for your draft. Hire a press agent and tell your side of the story on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, IMDb and so on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a social media site or press release reprint service. Yes, I recommend that you keep an offline version of your draft, but you should let editors unconnected with the film write an article about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen, for this information. I committed a couple of blunders in my first attempt at an article. As well, I failed to communicate clearly to the community (Teahouse). Your explanation proves invaluable to my education.

In my attempt to learn from example, I spelled out the entire plot (reluctantly) in order to conform to similar films already in Wikipedia. Per your explanation, I see that it was the wrong thing to do (for a pre-release) and I've reduced the plot (gladly) to a short synopsis paragraph.

The other blunder (and miscommunication) was in saying I was trying to "get ahead of" the story. I see now that this implies a defensive posture and I hope you see, from the body of the draft as written, that I've maintained neutrality in simply stating the details of the film and made neutral reference to a news story -- or at least I think I have, not having an outsider's perspective -- and have not offered up any defense or "side of the story".

What I meant to convey is that I wanted to provide a baseline template article so that anyone who wanted to record newsworthy subjects, and at the same time reference Raising Buchanan, they would find an existing page that can be linked to, for the benefit of someone who, for instance, was on Andy Dick's page or Bruce Dellis' page and saw the reference to the film. It seemed to me that there's a large effort in creating a page from scratch and by taking the first step, it would make it easier for others to fill in the details as they evolved.

All that said, I'm happy to file the draft away in a safe place for now, if now is not the time for it.JGrub (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

HI

Hello everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brie Larson (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Brie Larson. Welcome to the Teahouse and well done on completing the Wikipedia Adventure tour. Hope you found it fun. If you get stuck with anything, we're here to try and help you. Newcomers often receive polite reminders from other editors on the their talk page about edits they've made. These may seem intimidating, but really aren't meant to put you off - just to offer guidance to improve the way you edit this encyclopaedia. The key thing is to take it onboard and avoid repeating those early mistakes (we all made them). Hope you stay around and make some great contributions to the fifth most visited website in the world! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting table

Can somebody please help me reformat the table I made in the article regarding the People Mover bus system in Anchorage? The fare table merged with the table describing the routes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkmatechamp137 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have moved your message to the foot of the page, as that's where new messages go & it would have not been noticed at the top of the page above the headers. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It's always useful in your question to link to the article in question, in this case People Mover (Anchorage). Does this edit help? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Declined?

Hi there! I'd really appreciate if someone could explain what exactly I need to change about this article to have it submitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Zumbyes I feel as though it expresses the credibility of the group through its participation in well known competitions and being a part of well known albums and it is referenced by multiple legitimate sources. Thank you for your time! Jrubenstein (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jrubenstein. Several of your references are to other Wikipedia articles. Those references should be removed immediately, because one Wikipedia article can never be a reference for another Wikipedia article. Even more important is that none of your references are to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic of the Zumbyes. University affiliated sources are not truly independent and do not establish notabilty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jrubenstein since I made a typo the first time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328

Just made a bunch of changes to the references in the article, includes some mentions from the New York Times and notable a cappella institutions. Jrubenstein (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me how to delete my account?

Couldn't find a link. Thanks. I guess it was better not to have an account. At least my edits were respected and not mass-reverted when I was just an anonymous IP user of Wikipedia. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, see WP:Account deletion for more information. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I see no reason to continue being a part of the Wikipedia community if one power user is able to mass revert tons of my edits for no good reason. I couldn't do the same thing to him without getting my account banned or permanently blocked. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beauty School Dropout: Sorry to hear that, I would encourage you to perhaps seek other options and take a look at dispute resolution. Nobody wants to lose a constructive editor. Kosack (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beauty School Dropout: Usually people say the opposite; that IP users' edits get reverted. I'm not sure what specific edits you are referring to in your edit history, but if you feel your edits were reverted without cause, you should discuss the matter on the article talk page, or with the other user. Wikipedia operates by consensus. If you have logical and/or policy based arguments in support of your edits, please offer them. Just making something "sound better" for example is a matter of personal opinion that not everyone may agree with. If discussion does not provide you with a satisfactory result, you can, as suggested, make use of dispute resolution procedures. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beauty School Dropout: Most of your edits have not been reverted (from a glance at your edit history), you were given a reason why some of the edits you made were not an improvement to the encyclopedia, and it looked like you acknowledged and understood that. Anybody can make mistakes when they are a new editor, but an experienced editor should not allow unconstructive edits to stand just because they were made by a new member of the community. I'm not sure what else the other person could have done, to be honest. --bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

How to engage an editor who is insisting that his knowledge is above reliable sources?

I do not know where to turn to. This editor reverted an edit I did for a Edit Request. After bringing it up on his page, providing (forwarding) the references provided with the request ... he still disagrees and refuses to share any reference in support of his statement. --G (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey G. The short answer, which you may likely already know, is that if there are no sources to back it up, then it shouldn't be added to the article. If you're feeling particularly generous, you may try to find sources to back up the claim on your own, and add it to the article once you've found them. If you don't have time for an independent search, the editor doesn't seem to be able to understand our standards for verifiability, and would prefer to leave the edit request open, then you can probably just let them keep it open. Leaving it open just means that it's still in the queue of unanswered requests, and that editors on the English IRC channel are notified of it. That just makes it more likely that the editor will get a third opinion, and one that will mostly likely back up your attempt to explain our requirements for sources. GMG^talk 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. He reverted again. I am leaving that topic, just requesting him to leave the edit request open. He hats the edit request also promptly calling it vandalism. --G (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to include external opinions on my page?

There are comments or written opinions about artists that I am writing about. Would it be considered promotional if I include these on the page? The comments are from magazines, television, websites and books.

Erwin Lackner (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Erwin Lackner. As a general rule, it's good to try to avoid using individual opinions of commentators unless they're 1) published in sources that meet our standards for reliability, and 2) the opinions themselves are somehow singularly important. Usually it's better to summarize critical reception rather than using selective quotes, or quoting individuals and opinions that are not themselves outstanding in some way. In the interest of meeting our standards for neutrality, it's also important to summarize all of the critical reception, which includes negative reception if it's available. For a more detailed opinion on these types of sections, it may be helpful to read the essay Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. GMG^talk 11:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Make public page from Sanbox

I have used Sandbox to practice writing a factual summary of what my company does. How can I transfer this text to make a page called Elgood Effective Learning? Christopherelgood (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a submit button, but before submitting you need to make a declaration regarding paid editing, & you need to read about notability, references, reliable sources, & WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Christopherelgood: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In short, you should not do so, at least as your page stands now. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which hosts articles about subjects considered to be notable and supported with independent reliable sources. It is not for promotional purposes like merely telling the world about a company(you don't have to be selling something).

If this is "your company", you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(see WP:COI for more information). That means it is likely difficult for you to write about your company with the proper neutral point of view). You should review WP:COI as soon as possible. If you are employed by this company, you will also need to review and comply with the paid editing policy at WP:PAID, which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use(in other words, in order to be allowed to use Wikipedia, you must comply with WP:PAID if you are a paid editor)

Please understand that having a page about your company is not necessarily a good thing. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, or in how it wishes to be portrayed. We are only interested in what third parties state about it. You cannot lock any page about your company to your preferred text, and you cannot prevent others from editing it. All information, good and bad, can be in a page about your company as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. See WP:PROUD for more information(it is about people, but the principle is the same). Please keep this in mind.

If all you want to do is tell the world about your company, you will need to do so in a different forum such as social media. If you have independent sources that indicate how your company meets the notability guidelines at WP:ORG and feel you can write an appropriate article, you will need to use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review(after you comply with the policies I state above).

I know I have given you a lot of information, and I apologize, but this is important. If you have other questions, please add them to this section. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Why on earth did you submit the draft for review, given what you were told above? Doing so was a waste of your time, but more significantly a waste of reviewers' time. More importantly than that, you were specifically told to look at WP:PAID, yet you have continued to edit without making the required declaration. Doing so is a breach of the Wikimedia terms and conditions, and if you continue to do so you are liable to be blocked from editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I want to create a Page here

I have signed in as Dr. Obiora Okonkwo. I want to publish my short profile on that page. I have tried twice and it was deleted for violating the Wikipedia U5 regulation.

Ging forward, how can i effectively create a page for Dr. Obiora Okonkwo and publish my profile which will be available to other readers/

Thanks for your assiatnce

waiting 41.73.7.146 (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your page at User:Dr. Obiora Okonkwo is not suitable as a user page. Please read about autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Dr. Obiora Okonkwo and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place for publishing profiles, so you cannot create a page for yourself unless you are WP:notable in the Wikipedia sense. To have an article about you, you need to have been written about in independent WP:reliable sources. Sorry to disappoint you if you have not been so written about. If you can find sources, then please read WP:Autobiography. User pages must not pretend to be articles, they are to tell readers about how you intend to improve Wikipedia. Dbfirs 13:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

How to make a wikipedia page go live?

Basically the subject line. Any help is appreciated.

Once I've completed the page and all how do i make it go live and remove "draft" from the very top as well?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravell (Musical Artist) (talk • contribs)

@Ravell (Musical Artist): Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate template to allow you to submit the draft for review, but I would encourage you to not do so yet. Wikipedia is not a place for users to have social media-style pages about themselves; this is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to meet notability guidelines, in this case those for musicians located at WP:BAND. Please click on that link to review the guidelines. If you can demonstrate with independent sources that you meet at least one of them, please incorporate those changes into the draft before submitting it.

I would also note that Wikipedia highly discourages users from creating autobiographies(though it is not forbidden). Please read WP:AUTO if you have not already. I would say that you are doing the correct thing by submitting a draft first, but you should be prepared to get feedback about it. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also encourage you to slim down the social media links you have posted; a link to an official website and a couple social media platforms is usually OK, but Wikipedia is not a link farm or other place to list all your social media accounts. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I mistakenly made this account with the username under the artist I represent. I'm the artist's manager, Anthony van Atten. Unfortunately I had not realized if it appears it's an autobiography one is writing on themselves it'd damage the possibility of the page being published. I can definitely remove the social media links. I can certainly add more credentials and reference links. Will me having the artist's name as my username still be an issue? Ravell (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You must immediately make the declaration required for paid editing. You must also change your user name, see WP:CHUS. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You will also need to familiarise yourself with the conflict of interest policy. But to distil all these links into one sentence: please don't continue with this draft. This is an encyclopaedia, not a LinkedIn substitute. Surely you can see how having artists' entries written by their managers undermines people's confidence in our reliability and objectivity? If Ravell is notable, a volunteer will create the article in time. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not mean to offend anyone here. Ravell (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I speak only for myself, but I did not take offense from your comments. However, these points we have brought up are extremely important and necessary in order to maintain Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. Managers posting about their clients generally does not fit in with what Wikipedia is about. If all you wish to do is tell the world about this singer, you should confine your efforts to actual social media or their official site. If you are interested in being a Wikipedia contributor in general and not just specifically for this person, you need to comply with the policies mentioned here, especially regarding your username which you should request be changed as soon as possible. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I now see your username change went through, thanks. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Think we should let AnthonyvanAtten know, that he is always welcome to edit WP providing he abides by our editing policies. In my view User:Ravell (Musical Artist) &Draft:Ravell has been created for the all the wrong reasons and should be deleted for now (i.e. Blatantly promotional). They can always be resurrected 'if' Ravell becomes encyclopedically notable at some point in the future. Also the draft has no RS and we don't even know if Kat Bein released the image [2]– he did not certainly submit an OTRS ( if Kat is a woman -my unreserved apologies). These days with computerized MIDI , lots of people are now recording artists and they have to do something special if to rise head and shoulders above the primeval pond of wanabies. Suggest to the OP that he is in the wrong place to promote his clients. Aspro (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

what is poetry?

what is poetry?Rosegold12334 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rosegold12334: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has a nice article on poetry, which you can reach by clicking on this: Poetry. If you have any other questions about using Wikipedia, please add them to this section. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

why isn't my page live?

why isn't my page live? how do i index it and make it go live NitaSa (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@NitaSa: You asked this a couple weeks ago, and got an answer, which you can read by clicking this. To answer you again, your sandbox is not part of the encyclopedia and as such will not show up in search engines. I think it needs much work before it is ready to be submitted; please read Your First Article for more information on what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You also need to read further specific advice about bare URLs and about circular references. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

New Article Draft

Hi, I'd like to have someone review a draft article I've mocked up for Kara Goldin. How can I go about doing this? Here is the link if that helps speed the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kara_Goldin Arnold.kevin729 16:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold.kevin729 (talk • contribs)

@Arnold.kevin729: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will shortly add the appropriate template to your draft so you can submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

Could someone please tell me how to award a barnstar — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMN81 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@TMN81: Look at WP:BARNSTAR. There is a section there that shows how to give one. RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks.

Awarding self barnstars!

LilUzi25 has awarded themselves a whole bunch of barnstars. I am not sure of the etiquette of whether to just revert the edits. Thoughts? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a little unusual but it doesn't do any harm. I don't see any benefit in involving yourself. Generally it's a good idea to avoid editing others' user pages unless you're sure they'll approve, or its absolutely necessary to prevent disruption. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have however notified them about their username. – Joe (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Listen, I awarded myself those to set goals. I have high expectations for myself. Understand? LilUzi25 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)LilUzi25

Why does it matter whats on my account. Why are you "admins" stalking me. Why is it that every time I submit an article to be reviewed it gets declined by the same people? And yes, I know that my username is named after Lil Uzi Vert. He's my favorite rapper. What do you expect? LilUzi25 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Plus, don't decline another one of my articles if I submit it for review. I know when I have enough information, references, and when I've cited enough sources. `LilUzi25 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

why does wikipedia say I have no user page?

I have been editing on Wikipedia for about a month. When I click on my user ID at the top of my page, it is telling me I don't have a user page. Is the user page different from having a user name?LADscribe1355 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi LADscribe1355. Yes, having a userpage is very different from a username. You must create your userpage yourself; see Wikipedia:Userpage. However, some editors choose not to have a userpage. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)LADscribe1355 - Yes, those are two different things. Your user page is where you can tell the community about yourself, your editing interests, etc. The Wikipedia Guidelines for this can be found at WP:UserPage. To create a userpage, click on the user ID on the top of your page (*as you described above*) and edit /almost/ to your hearts content. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 22:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi, LADscribe1355 Welcome to the Teahouse. I have just taken the liberty of creating your user page for you and adding a single line of text that you can remove or replace as you wish. The reason you got the message saying you hadn't got a Userpage was simply that you hadn't ever hit the Create page tab to start editing. So there was nothing there to be seen. Hope this makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC).

Thanks all for the advice and the help. Lois74.72.182.71 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I create a WikiProject?

hi. imma Xze. how do I create a WikiProject? Xzelion (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xzelion. Welcome to the Teahouse. The process involved in bringing a new group of like-minded wikipedia editors together into a Wikiproject is outlined on this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject. But as you're a brand-new user, I'd really recommend getting familiar with the basics of editing Wikipedia collaboratively by either doing the WP:ADVENTURE or by reading this guidance on creating articles. Getting a brand new WikiProject going on a new topic is a great idea, but is not for the faint-hearted. It really takes commitment. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

wiki page

my page got declined and it said this was the reason why: This submission's 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—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

i am using notable sources and these arent just mere mentions, ive already refernced the golden role and the beginners for citing and it is still not helping.

Qjp2000 (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Qjp2000. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse to ask your question. I've taken a look at Draft:Adam_Fell, and I know you must be frustrated from having two rejections. But, honestly, there really are a lot of big problems you still need to address before what you have written could ever be accepted into the main area of Wikipedia (aka mainspace). The clues are in the helpful feedback left for you by two separate reviewers at Articles for Creation which you need to read, understand and act upon. I have looked at all your online references and cannot find anything other than the merest passing mention of Adam Fell, if at all. Unless you have used some non-online sources which cover him in depth - or I've missed something because of the lateness of the hour - there's nothing there that makes me agree with you that you are "using notable sources that aren't just mere mentions". They all are, and most don't mention him at all, but just support the existence of companies and products which you say he is associated with. (This article you cited is the best source I could find, and it's nowhere near enough to meet our notability guidelines for people.) Do look carefully at this subsection of our guidance. Can you honestly say your references show "in depth coverage"? I can't. The fact that Quincy Jones calls him his "right hand man" simply isn't good enough to merit an article on him here. Maybe it's OK for LinkedIn. The feedback you received gave clear links to the guidance you need to read and apply before you resubmit your draft. In addition, the style of writing, layout, and the way you have actually inserted these rather weak references is also not yet of a quality, style or format acceptable for an encyclopaedia entry. So my advice is to keep it draft form for now. Focus on the sources - if you can't find reliable third party sources that have genuinely written in depth about Mr Fell, you should give up there. Of course, if you can find those sources, then you can work on putting the whole article in order. So then you might like to read WP:Yourfirstarticle. Finally, I am rather concerned about your Username. It suggests you have a very close link with Quincy Jones Productions. Is this the case? If so, you must declare your conflict of interest, according to our policies, as we tend to frown on articles being written by involved parties purely for promotion. If this is an issue, and you do plan to carry on editing this article, I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Sorry this all must sound rather negative to you, but I hope it all makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do some editors get away with editing baseless and obsecure edits, and later revert them?

I have been trying correct incorrect information and I have tried to delete unsourced edits from the 'Pakistan Army' Page under the Propaganda/(controversy) section, the edits have been done out of hate towards the Pakistan Army, with inaccurate and ridiculed information. How can I edit it and prevent it from being reverted, I have also had warning from another user for entering 'unconstructive edit' when I am just correcting 'Page Vandalism', Please can you advise? CorrectionLab 3000 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi CorrectionLab 3000 the information you are removing might not have references against them but have entire pages dedicated to them. I have opened a discussion on the talk page regrading your edits. Please refrain from editing disruptively on the page until your content removal have been resolved. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Updating information Help

Hi I would like to update some Bangladeshi celebrities information in wikipedia. Are you able to help?

since most of them are bengali newspaper link. It's hard for me to publish the page or update the page.

Jannatul.tasneem.moon (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jannatul.tasneem.moon: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure which pages you are referring to, but if you don't feel comfortable editing the articles you want to, you may post what you wish to do on the article talk page of the articles you want to make changes to. If you click "Talk" at the top of the article, it will take you to the talk page where you can post your request just as you posted your comment here. Your sources do not need to be in English as long as they are independent of the subject and reliable, click on WP:RS to learn more about this. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with template messages

Hello there, Thanks for replies on this topic so far. I have one last question regarding my first edit on Stuart Roy Clarke's page. The problem - the reason for two message templates - has been identified as someone who edited or created the source before me. Something I have no control over. So, what's the best action here for the page? Delete it and start again? I also was wrongly identified as being a "sock puppet" on the WP:Articles for deletion/The Homes of Football. I am a photography student. I would like to create some articles on my favourite female photographers - another project I am working on now - and thought a good place to start would be editing a pre-existing article with readily identifiable flaws before I create wholly new content.

However, I am finding Wikipedia to be a bit a of confusing and somewhat intimidating space to work. The argument on the WP:Articles for deletion/The Homes of Football page about Clarke's notability deteriorated into quite a harsh argument between two contributors. Clarke is notable. Google him.

Remove message template: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. Hello, Last month I posted in the Tea Room regarding the message templates on a page I was editing about a photographer: Stuart Roy Clarke. It was my first edit on Wikipedia and I chose this subject as I'm a student of photography and had been doing a project on photography and football, where Clarke's work featured quite heavily. So, I felt that he was a good subject for my first edit as I felt I knew quite a lot about hm and his work. This was discussed with @David notMD and I hoped I clarified that I do not have a close connection with the subject. Can this message template now be removed?

I was a little disheartened after my first attempt at editing seemed to attract these message templates but am going to try again. I am going to address the citations issues on this page and hopefully the need for that message template too.

Best, Encyclopediadia (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of the edit history is that it's nothing to do with your edits, but because of someone claiming to be Stuart Roy Clarke editing the article. - X201 (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) The tag on Stuart Roy Clarke was not specifically referring to your involvement. If you read WP:Articles for deletion/The Homes of Football you'll see that quite a number of accounts were under suspicion, including HomesOfFootball and StuartRoyClarke, so even if you have no connection with the subject it appears that other contributors do have, so the message template to which you refer seems justified. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Encyclopediadia (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

make article

Hi

I try sometimes to make an article but I cant and finally directed to help page instead of edit page.

what can I do for making article?A.R.Rostamzade (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, A.R.Rostamzade, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months editing existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it. Have you read your first article?

Looking at Draft:Ahmadreza Yalameha, I see that while you have started on some of the easy but superficial parts of the draft (the picture, the infobox) you have not really begun the important part, which is

1. Find several reliably published sources where people who have no connection whatever with Yalameha have written in depth about him
2. Forget every single thing you know about him, and write an article based only on what those independent sources say.
3. Make sure you do not use any evaluative language at all (such as "valuable") unless you a directly quoting an independent source.,

When you have done that, you can add uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources.

Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest; but that template should be placed on your User page User:A.R.Rostamzade, not in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

how many people edit a day?

how many people edit a day?Poppytree123 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard to say - the average edit count per day is in the region of 40,000 at the moment, but most editors will make multiple edits over the course of a single day. Assume your average editor makes around 10 edits per day, that would mean that the answer to your question is in the region of 4,000 people editing per day. But that's a very approximate figure. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• A metric that we have is the number of active editors, i.e. registered editors that made at least one edit in the last month. It does not say how many made an edit in the last day, nor does it count the number of non-registered ("IP") users. There are 29k of them on en-wp as of September 2017. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Or, forget the numbers. Why not Click this link, then sit back with a cup of tea, and Listen to the sound of everyone editing Wikipedia live, right now! Music to our ears. But if you do want more figures, WP:STATS is a good starting point for further information. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well that wasted a good 20 minutes of my day... :) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Contribution

Greetings friends! I am here from nearly 3 months but have less than 50 edits in article section. I want to contribute to an article but do not find any article my type. Is there a category or something where stub articles are listed to I can freely edit them ? Waiting for your answer—Big Hero 13:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome @Big Hero: Wikipedia is a a work in progress as such there is always work to do which we can never finish. There is general category, Category:Wikipedia backlog which have many subcategories listing thousands of Wikipedia articles needing attention. From needing reference to general cleanup you'll find them subcategorized to specific problems they have and work on the ones you like. You can also visit Wikipedia:Task Center for more on that. I Hope you'll find this helpful.  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok I will try my best.—Big Hero 15:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Publishing a New Article

I've working on an article recently about a Youtube channel, dshermz. It's a smaller channel so there are not many resources for information about the channel. Luckily, this youtuber happens to go to my school and I got an interview. I was hoping to publish a wikipedia article on who he is and some basic info about his channel. This would be helpful because it would be a recourse for information since I could not find any myself. My writing keeps being rejected due to a lack of sources cited and I don't know how to cite a private interview. Any help would be great.

Thanks, LilyLilyg73440 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lilyg73440, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the reason you can't work out how to cite a private interview is that you may not cite a private interview. Please understand that Wikipedia has hardly any interest in what anyone says about themselves. An article about that youtuber or their channel should not include any information that has not been published in a reliable place: none. And it should include hardly any information that comes from the youtuber or their friends, family or associates. The only information Wikipedia is interested in is what has been published in reliable places (such as major newspapers or news-sites, or books from reputable publishers) by people who have no connection with the subject. If several people who are not known to them have written reviews or articles about the channel, and had them published somewhere (not just their own blogs, or social media, but somewhere with a reputation for editorial control) then there can be an article based on those reviews. Otherwise, probably not. Please read about notability and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

references newbie user

I want to use the same reference twice in two separate parts of an article. I am getting two identical references at this point which is OK but seems unnecessary and perhaps would indicate that I don't know what I am doing.Mosesos (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mosesos, and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about not knowing everything about editing Wikipedia: it is a huge beast. The answer is that you can name the reference the first time you use it, and thereafter refer to it by name. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I had a submission removed and have a question

I recently contributed a sentence to the article The Good Doctor" (TV series). I saw that my quote was removed saying "it's never a good idea to begin a sentence with "And". The direct quote I added began with "And". What do I do in a case like that? I was simply trying to stay true to the quote in the magazine. Here's the exact sentence from the magazine. "And the October 9 episode received 18.2 million viewers, making it the most watched of any primetime program that week - beating out NCIS and The Big Bang Theory."One more question. Is there a way to get in touch directly with the editor who removed a contribution?

Thank you for your help. I'm still learning!

Mjr524 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Mjr524 - the Manual of Style, MOS:PMC, states "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced". I understand that some people dislike starting sentences with a conjunction, but 1.) there's nothing wrong with that; and 2.) you're quoting from the reference. I see nothing wrong with it. In regards to contacting the editor, I'd say to WP:Ping them via the article's talk page, so that the conversation is in a centralized, but relevant, location. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Mjr524. If I could add to what NsTaGaTr has suggested, I've looked at your edit and the revert and can see both sides of the concerns. And it's nothing major. Basically, what you inserted was not a quote from a person, but was really just a line from a magazine stating a fact. So the best thing I'd suggest is to rephrase it in your own words (rather than cut/pasting it as quote.) (So, how about: TV Guide Magazine reported that the October 9th episode had been the most viewed primetime show that week, attracting 18.2 million viewers, and beating NCIS and the Big Bang Theory - plus citation). Had it been Mr Smith, the head of TV Magazine was stated as saying "And the October 9th episode...etc.", that might have been different, and would have deserved a full quote. There's more on quotations and formatting at Wikipedia:Quotations. To contact an editor, first find out which one you want to discuss a matter with (such as a revert) by going to the View History tab and looking to see which editors made the change. After their name you'll see a talk link in brackets. Click that to go to their Talk page, than click the Add Topic tab to start a new section on their page. Give it a sensible title (usually the article name) and politely ask about their changes or reverts. Emails and text messages always sound far harsher or terse than we mean to be, so always consider how you word your question and respond to replies. A simple discussion tends to be informative and constructive. I hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. I guess I just felt that the information was so specific that I decided to quote it. Your suggestions are very much appreciated!

Mjr524 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

talk link Dubious

Hi I added {dubious} to a statement, can't make it link to Talk#section, only to Talk page, instructions in [WP:Template:Dubious#Usage] inscrutable. This is minor and I'm sure that I'm missing something simple, but I like to do it correctly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Twins_in_mythology&oldid=809668032

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

how to submit a blog aur website on wikipedia ?

i want to know that how to submit a blog or website on wikipediaDainik Tricks (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? As in for a reference or a new article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I bring up a page of a name that originally had the meanings and origins behind it in the description but was changed to an actor's bio instead?

Please go search "Komal" and you will find the main article being of an actor's bio and info. It used to be that of a name and its meanings and origins. I would tired to move the actor's info as titling it as "Komal (actor)" but it got rejected. Here's the only list of articles with "Komal" in them but no where a singular non referencing to any partcular person but of a name descriptive context can be found. Kpatelboston 17:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Small Business - big in our sector/ notability

Hi,

I've had our page request rejected for not being notable enough. But that feels spurious?

We've received significant coverage from our peers and i've shared not just a couple, but over a dozen links from notable and independent sources.

It seems unfair that only larger business seem notable enough for a profile - they will naturally accrue MSM coverage - in the modern context it's TOTALLY correlated to financial clout or fundraising record. What because I've not needed to raise institutional money, I can't make something notable? It feels anti-competitive for the little-guys.

Is this what the community wants? We're a specialist, and by the terms of our industry and practice, rare. Were we a creature, rarity would be a valuable factor. In fact, we would be the evolving fish, crawling from the goo!

Our page was neutral, suitably. I didn't publish it purely for the kudos. But as an insurance startup, establishing fact and trust and credibility are important. Why should a giant firm like Apple - renowned for squirrelling funds offshore to avoid taxation - enjoy the privilege of a page, merely based on their size?

I see no distinction and feel for professional equality, that in our sector, by any measure, we are indeed notable.

I implore an editor kindly review or look at this, as naturally for our business, a wiki page would be a HUGE honour. Is there any kind of appeal process?

I fear this will shatter my faith in what the platform stands for. As it is, I don't understand the criteria's application in this case.

89.197.12.27 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)