Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

Draft:Chaz Ortiz

I reviewed Draft:Chaz Ortiz and declined it as not showing the subject’s notability. User:Hturnt inquired on my talk page, saying:

I am requesting a review because i believe this subject to have adequate notability; perhaps not to everyone, but the topic of skateboarding is a very large one and it is growing rapidly. The fact that one of the most famous skateboarders, Chaz Ortiz, does not have a Wikipedia article was surprising to me, as he is known by anybody who skateboards or watches Street League. Also, the sources that I listed are ones that cover all sports, and some that cover all of skateboarding. These sources both have coverage of a specific person of the sport of skateboarding, so I believe it is notable.

I am a little puzzled by the comment that he is well known by anybody who skateboards or watches skateboarding, when the draft says that he is ranked either 23d or 13th, depending on ranking. Will other editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does not establish notability to an adequate standard. Referencing is poor in my opinion, with a heavy emphasis on primary sources and minimal application of reliable sources. Therefore, the article itself does not do enough, in my view, to establish notability for the subject, irrespective of his ranking internationally in skate parks. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are two solid cites in there, from Rolling Stone and ESPN, providing the subject substantial coverage, and that's absolutely enough for a GNG pass; there is no way an article with those two cites would fail at AfD ... quite aside from that he's got nearly five hundred Google News hits. [1] I agree that the draft has some issues, but that's a content problem, not a notability one. Ravenswing 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the author to join us here, but am inclined to accept after a resubmission, based on the general notability assessment by User:Ravenswing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: and @Ravenswing: Would I be permitted to edit the Draft:Chaz Ortiz? Or is that considered "bad form"? Since the two of you have decided it is notable, I would like to help this editor get their page accepted. They haven't edited since the draft was declined. The external links in the tables need to be changed to text and wiki linked, if possible. Let me know if it is #1: okay to polish this up and #2:submit it for @Hturnt:. Or I could "polish" and wait and see if they return. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tribe of Tiger - Huh? Why wouldn't you be able to edit it? If it were accepted, you would be able to edit it in mainspace. The author hasn't responded to my invitation to come here anyway. Draft space belongs to the community. Go ahead and improve it, either before or after it is accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Anyone working on an article to improve it is a good thing, and you need neither Robert's permission, my permission, or anyone else's to dive in and help. Ravenswing 04:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great! Thanks for the replies! Cheers, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the changes that were made to my draft and believe that since the external links were removed and my sources were confirmed to be adequate, my article should be reconsidered for publishing. Anything else I can fix to make sure it can be published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hturnt (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hturnt: I think everything is good to go! Great job! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmaker seeks help in adding external links to 4 documentaries on his Vimeo site, pertaining to 4 Wiki biographies

I am a retired documentary filmmaker, and recently uploaded my four best docs to my Vimeo page, just to keep them available to the public. I'm not selling them, and they cannot be downloaded, just viewed with online streaming. Wikipedia already has a biographical page for each of the four subjects, and my wish is to add the Vimeo URL to the "External Links" section of those pages. I have read through much of the info on how to encode, on markup, etc., but it feels like a very long and steep learning curve for me and my 83-year-old brain! Any help or advice will be much appreciated. Kelvin52 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kelvin52! Sure, I'd be happy to help; what are the four articles? Ravenswing 07:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelvin52. I think I can help. What are the four articles and the Vimeo URLs? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mission accomplished! Thanks for your help, Ravenswing!Kelvin52 (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page message from guest

Hello from en.wiktionary. Could not find 'Feedback', so I left a message at Template_talk:Greek_language#Periods 17 FEB 2018. I did not know how to alert or whom (with {attention} {ping} etc). I was wondering if anyone read it. Thank you, sarri.greek (talk) 2018.03.03. UTC 00:41 Sarri.greek (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sarri.greek. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing if anyone has read any post. The problem with templates is that very few people watch them. Often the best way is to ping individuals who have previously edited that template, and I can confirm that two other editors who did just that are both still very active at the moment. The other way to reach people is to consider where a particular template might get used, and to post a message on the appropriate wikiproject - in your case Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece. Or use the "What links here" button to find articles using that template, and post on the most likely candidate - in your case Greek language. Hope this helps, regards Nick Moyes (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick Moyes. I proofread a lot, I never edit. But my messages go un-noticed. Same problem at wiktionaries. There is no designated 'watcher' for each page. I presume (being new around here), that this is an inter-wiki.. problem. Ok, thanks, I'll follow your suggestions. sarri.greek (talk) / Sarri.greek (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I fear that most editors (like me) work within the one language project and don't stray beyond it. To be frank, I don't think I've ever tried to 'watch' pages on other projects I've edited - I'll give it a try - but there are certainly no designated 'watchers' for any pages. As you know, all volunteers simply follow their interests and desires, so it would be impossible to establish a formal system, I fear. Nice idea though. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passcode to join an event

I'm trying to Join an Event, but whenever I click on join, It goes to a page informing me that the passcode is already expired.

Where can I get a passcode for Join 'wiki4women UNESCO 2018-03-08'?

Or Can I go start researching, writing and editing even without the passcode, and even without joining the event?Hazellamaria (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to relate to the following event, which requires a Wikipedia login: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/UNESCO,_Ambassade_de_Su%C3%A8de_en_France,_Ambassade_du_Canada_en_France/wiki4women_UNESCO_2018-03-08?enroll= --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hazellamaria welcome to our friendly Teahouse, and thanks for expressing an interest in wanting to join the #wiki4women UNESCO event. I see your problem and (as soon as I've answered here) I am going to send a personal email to John Cummings who has organised this event. It's possible that a password is needed for those physically wanting to attend UNESCO's International Women's Day editathon in Paris. I'm honestly not sure, and rather confused by this, myself. I can only apologise, but we will find out for you!

Secondly, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop you researching/writing/editing before you sign up to the event. In fact, I would actively encourage you to do this. You might like to use your own user sandbox to work in (see the link at the very top of the page in desktop view). For a list of ideas for creating biographical articles about women see this list of redlinks, arranged in various orders), and you might also like to see Ten Simple Rules for Women in Red, or this longer "Primer for creating women’s biographies".

Come back if we can help you in any other way. Looking forward to seeing lots of activity on International Women's Day on 8th March! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've now emailed John - so hope to have this sorted out soon for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Hazellamaria: and @Nick Moyes:, thanks very much for the message, I've messaged the person who set up the sign up and hope that it can be fixed very soon. Please can you try signing in again? If you still get the message can you copy and paste it here? I've tried the same link and it works, so it may have been a temporary issue that is now resolved.

Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Thanks for responding so rapidly. There's no change in the function over the last couple of hours. I'm first prompted to sign in as a cross-platform user via OAuth, which works easily. This takes me here. The 'Actions' box at the bottom right of that page has a link to 'Join programme', which I presume Hazellamaria assumed she needed to do. Clicking this link then prompts for a password, displaying the following text: To join this program, you need to get the passcode — or link that includes the passcode — from the facilitator. Enter the passcode to join: With the incorrect password entered, the next page is a Programmes and Events Dashboard which displays (note the typo) this message: Incorrect passcode. :-( The passcode for enrolling in this course in incorrect. Please ask the instructor for the current passcode to enroll in this course. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick Moyes:, the password has actually expired. I corrected it, should work now. Thanks for joining! Kvardek du (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kvardek du. This is a ping to @Hazellamaria: to ask if you would try to join again now, and let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bosman Twins or The Bosman Twins - How to get page restored.

The Wikipedia page for jazz artists The Bosman Twins was deleted. The Bosman's didn't do anything wrong, but yet their page was deleted. They are in fact notable jazz artists, with a global following. There is evidence. They are notable and recognized as international artists, as is evidenced by them being featured in a new book, "All That's Jazz". This book was commissioned by Tomahawk Press, written by Sammy Stein, and includes jazz artists past and present. Their music has been played on jazz radio stations all over the U.S., right alongside other jazz greats. I've seen artists' pages on Wikipedia who doesn't have 1/2 credentials and their pages just indicate: There are issues with this page. Those pages were taken down.

How do we get the page restored? How can I appeal this decision? Is the page at least archived?Pr1775 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article The Bosman Twins was deleted in May because it was created by a user who abusing multiple accounts to evade a block. If you want the article restored, you can make a request at WP:REFUND to do so. Iffy★Chat -- 10:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pr1775. It's unfortunate when an article is deleted only because its creator is behaving disruptively; but I'm sure you understand that this is to avoid rewarding disruptive behaviour. However, please understand that a Wikipedia article is absolutely not for the benefit of the subject (it doesn't belong to them, they have no control over the contents, and sometimes it will contain material that they would prefer it didn't), so it is not a "punishment" for the subject when an article is deleted. (Note also that I am not using the phrase "taken down": that is something that happens to "pages" on social media. This is an encyclopaedia, which consists of non-promotional articles). --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pr1775, rather than restore the page that was deleted I would suggest that you and others start it from fresh at Draft:The Bosman Twins and when it is ready it can be moved to The Bosman Twins. Occasionally it is better to start fresh than to salvage. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Notability

I have been asked to create and publish a wikipedia page on the Northern-English artist Tony Huggins-Haig. Could i please get some advice as to whether this is a notable enough, or acceptable subject to have as a wikipedia page? Many thanks MichaelHuggins91 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MichaelHuggins91. Welcome, and thanks for coming to ask before plunging in. Creating a new article that is accepted is difficult, and I advise you to get some experience editing existing articles first. I suggest you start by studying your first article, which has a lot of useful advice, including pointing you to where you can read about notability. But a quick summary: the article should be almost entirely based on where people who have no connection with Huggins-Haig have chosen to write in some depth about him, and been published in reliable places, such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. If you can find enough such independent published material to say anything substantial about him, then he is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word) and an article is possible. If you can't then he is not currently notable, and not article will be accepted. In any case, things said or published by him or his associates are of little relevance.

One other point. From your name, and the fact that you "have been asked" to create the article, I'm guessing that you are a relative. This does not prevent you from writing an article on him, but it makes it more challenging, because your conflict of interest may tend to make it harder for you to write sufficiently neutrally - in my mind, the fact that you have been asked to write it is of greater concern than your relationship. At the least, you should be open about your COI, and expect to submit your work for review Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, thank you for your help. I just have a couple more questions if that is okay?

Firstly, what would you classify as "in some depth". Is there a certain size article needed for example? Secondly, do the articles I currently have about his work in the art community, etc have to be digital (or have digital copy) or can they also be physical paper versions? Does there have to be a certain amount of cyber-based 'evidence' on Tony? Would it be more advised to have a third-party who isn't connected to Tony or the family?

Sorry for all of the questions, I just need to get all of the information before I begin writing and then jump through hoops of rewrites or get turned down. I hope you understand.

Thank you again! MichaelHuggins91 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelHuggins91: Hello, sources do not need to be online, as long as it is possible for someone to verify them. (like a book in a library) As Colin indicates, you will need to read WP:COI. If your relative is paying you, you are also required to read and comply with WP:PAID, the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you know something to be true - for example, his date of birth - can only include that in the Wikipedia article if there is a published source to reference that fact. This is why it is harder to create an article about someone you have a connection to. Does not preclude you, just means references trump knowledge. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to hire someone to create a wikipedia page for me. How can I do that?

I need to hire someone to create a wikipedia page for me. How can I do that?Rsgraves1 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsgraves1: - please provide more information, so that we can give a concrete answer. Hiring people to create articles (not pages) is really not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What exactly do you want your potential employee to do? Stormy clouds (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this concerns Sinner, an article which you have attempted to create yourself, there is a litany of issues. The article would struggle to avoid deletion, as it lacks notability. For an article to be created about the book, it must receive coverage in reputable and reliable sources. In your sandbox, you have used citations which are not permissible, and do not establish notability - particularly, do not use Wikipedia articles as citations, as they are user-generated, and so are not allowed. Moreover, your username indicates that you have a relationship with, or are, the author of the novel in question - this means that you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing anything which is associated with you or someone who you are closely related to. Finally, regarding your initial query, you should not hire anyone to create an article here, as it is a violation of our paid editing policy, and will likely result in any article created being deleted and removed from the encyclopedia. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of free publicity. Any edits made must conform to the relevant guidelines. So, in summation, and to succinctly answer your question - I need to hire someone to create a wikipedia page for me. How can I do that? - you don't. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Rsgraves1. If you mean, you want to hire somebody to create a Wikipedia article about you or something you are associated with, my advice is a very strong DON'T. If you go ahead, they will be required (by our terms of service) to declare that they are in a paid capacity, and will be required to write it in a neutral manner. They (and you) will not have control over the contents of the article, and will not be able to prevent other editors changing it, even in ways that you do not like.

If you are philanthropically proposing to pay somebody to improve Wikipedia, then I'd say, cautiously, Go ahead! Your agent would still have to declare their paid status, and probably find themselves subject to people who were suspicious of your motives; but we all contribute to Wikipedia in the way we choose. --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rsgraves1 I would add that Wikipedia would not have a "page for you", it would have an "article about you", and only if you met the notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BIO(there are also more specific ones for certain professions like musicians or athletes). As Colin notes quite well, you would not have exclusive control over such a page, and it may not be a good thing for you for there to be an article about you here; see this page. Your best bet would be to wait for an uninvolved party to write about you, which would be one indication that you meet the notability guidelines; however, if you still want to proceed, your agent/employee would need to use Articles for Creation(after they make the declarations Colin mentions) to submit a draft for review by an independent editor. Your agent would need to have independent reliable sources that discuss you in depth, and they would need to forget everything they know about you and only write based on what those sources state. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsgraves1: - given that you are apparently Rebecca Soler, please refrain from editing that article as well, as you once again suffer from a conflict of interest. Rather, use the talk page to bring up issues you have, and other editors may address them for you if you can bolster your points with reliable sources. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

interesting pages

A friend of mine once showed me a page of odd articles but I can't remember what it was, can someone help?2602:306:32CF:34D0:549:C629:342D:4B87 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia List. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jerome-Adika Vincent Sator Jr

I reviewed Draft:Jerome-Adika Vincent Sator Jr and declined it, saying that it appeared to be written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. Its author User:Powerd By AMAS then replied (twice, probably by accident) on my talk page, asking me for examples, and saying that they thought that they had been careful to be neutral. I would like the comments of other experienced editors. My first observation was and is that referring to the subject as “multi-talented” in the lede sentence in the voice of Wikipedia is non-neutral. That is just one point at the beginning. Other than that, I notice the specific example: “His on-air charisma and technical skills behind the scenes, catapulted him into the film and television industry. ” Beyond that, I had issues with the overall tone, but it might have been just my personal response. Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gods, no, you're dead on. It's a superficially well-written article, but it's dripping with peacock verbiage, devoid of inline cites to back it up, and quite free of reliable sources which meet the GNG. There was a quickie resubmit which I just declined. Ravenswing 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Express Entry (2)

I reviewed Draft:Express Entry (2) and asked that the author consolidate that draft with Draft:Express Entry into one draft for review. I said that both drafts relied too much on the primary source of the government’s information and not enough on secondary sources. User:Onkreukbaar then wrote on my talk page:

(I thought this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry would be an easy post to start with. Now I know none of them are easy. :)
A few questions before I start consolidating my Express Entry Post with the previous one.
Would Immigration Agencies count as secondary sources? All reputable agencies are legal experts and work daily in the interpretation of the Canadian Immigration Law. I am thus inclined to think that the immigration services (those who can prove that their author is a qualified Immigration Consultant and also boasts a good reputation amongst users) would be the most up to date secondary source available. What is your opinion?
There are other secondary sources but they usually focus on the amounts of people who use express entry, and not the details as pertains to its inner workings.

I will comment that the original poster may have thought that developing a new article is easy. It isn’t. I will also comment, and this isn’t addressed to the original poster, that the user of second person language addressed to the immigrant in Draft:Express Entry suggests that the language was copied from the government’s instruction brochure.

Comments for a new user who has found writing a new article to be harder than it seems?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also a discussion regarding this on my talk page, where I just pinged Robert about 0.5 seconds before seeing this thread. GMG ^talk 17:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the first draft is very highly likely to be copied from somewhere, even if we can't definitively say from where. Not going to hurt my feelings if someone applies a pretty common sense G12. GMG ^talk 17:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't reject out of hand the validity of the government website for information about the program, but the elephant in the room is the complete lack of sources attesting to the subject's notability. That, of course, can't come from the government sites. What makes this program notable? If the article creator can't come up with independent, third-party cites to answer that, there's no point in proceeding further. Ravenswing 17:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ravenswing and User:Robert McClenon I have included some high quality secondary sources, to address the problems you highlighted regarding notability and secondary sources. Is what I did correct? Can I resubmit or is my number of secondary sources still insufficient? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry_(2) Onkreukbaar (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from another language

Hi there, I wanted to create an English page about the Froissartage (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froissartage), to help English speaking friends to understand what it is. So my question is can I reuse the French version and just translate it into English ? I'd still say it's a translated version and add a link to the french version if needed, and I would use the french sources too. Thank you for your answers.

Captain Hornblower Captn Hornblower (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer.

Captn Hornblower (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier High School (Louisville)

Just curious, but what do you think about my edits on the article St. Xavier High School (Louisville)? I’ve added several citations to the article but I just would like to know what you think about the article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 20:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truth to be told, the article gives the impression that the high school is a Potemkin front for an athletics club; the amount of prose you devote to sports for this ostensible educational institution is about five times that devoted to academics. You've also got a number of the superlatives sourced to the school's own website; if, for instance, the article makes claims of notability such as it's the only school in Kentucky to win a particular honor four times, you need some outside source to say so. Ravenswing 22:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: I’ve been trying to find a source for the sentence “and had been the only school in Kentucky to have won a state championship in every Kentucky High School Athletic Association (KHSAA)-sanctioned sport open to boys before the KHSAA began sponsoring coeducational championships in archery and bass fishing in the early 21st century” but I can’t find one. I need help finding a source for the sentence. —LovelyGirl7 talk 23:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find one myself, which suggests that it's best left out of the article; one of our catchphrases on Wikipedia is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Ravenswing 23:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: since we both can't find one ourselves, do you think I should remove it? I also can't find sources for "With the conclusion of Project X, St. Xavier now boasts some of the best high school athletic facilities in the nation" either. Should I do the same with that sentence (remove it)? --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some concerns about the sourcing too. I can't tell whether you added them or simply moved them, but there are several citations that claim to be from the KHSAA but are not. Additionally there is a citation ourpoting to be from Sports Illustrated that is actually from "somerandomwebsite.com". There is also a considerable amount if superlative content sourced to dead links on the Courrier Journal's website. Now the CJ is one of the finest newspapers in the country, and is certainly a reliable source, but given the overall promo tone of the article, I think actually looking at them is in order. John from Idegon (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help restoring a biographical article

Hi, I've monitored a biographical article for several years, and it was suddenly deleted, with what I find to be very suspicious reasoning, as even a three page Google search reveals the newsworthiness of this biography, as it is a writer/journalist who has greatly impacted the modern fitness industry as a pioneer during the 80's and 90's and recently published a rather revolutionary book, BioLogic Revelation, that many experts believe will greatly disrupt the modern fitness industry. I can't help but believe this was the motivation for "someone" to remove a meaningful article. I have discussed this with someone at the Help Desk, and after sending a wealth of verified third-party references that I found in just a couple minutes of Google searching, they said they would "move it to restore it as WP:DRAFT where it can be improved to address the issues identified in the deletion discussion before being re-submitted to article space." I personally have only made minor edits in the past, so is there someone on your team that can right this wrong, even if it has to cite just new web-archived articles? I wouldn't even know where to begin. I know the deleted article cited mostly hard copy magazines and newspapers that have never been archived on the web, but I read somewhere that those are entirely acceptable, as evidenced for the 5+ years the article remained on Wiki with no interruption or objection. Thank you KaySorin (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Help desk discussion, the deleted article Wayne Caparas, and the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Caparas. --bonadea contributions talk 23:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KaySorin - the article was deleted as a result of a discussion at Articles for Deletion - for posterity, that discussion is here. The admin who deleted the article has made over 43,000 edits here, so I would be hesitant to claim that their rationale for deletion was because many experts believe will greatly disrupt the modern fitness industry. The article was deemed, by consensus, to fail the general notability guidelines, meaning that it was not sufficiently referenced, and lacked citation from reliable sources - online or printed. As evidenced by Bine, the length of time with which the article was on the site means nothing, unfortunately, so this rationale (as evidenced for the 5+ years the article remained on Wiki with no interruption or objection) is worthless against a lack of compliance to guidelines, which the deleted article apparently suffered from. It is also worth noting that Wikipedians are specifically instructed to not right great wrongs, as you have urged us to do. Finally, disputes are not handled at the Teahouse - for a prompt AfD-related response, try the talk page - just don't expect to overturn consensus without a substantive reason to do so. I am sorry if this is not a satisfactory answer, but it is the best I can offer. On an unrelated note, you mention having made edits to Wikipedia in the past, but your account's first edit was mere hours ago. Please divulge any alternate accounts you have used, as at present you are a single-purpose account. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-time contributor at WP:AFD, it's quite common for people who disagree to ascribe malicious motives to the people proposing deletion. Trust me that there are very, very, few Wikipedians who go around cackling "HaHa, today I will destroy another few random articles for No Good Reason!" and trot over to AfD to do their dastardly work. Generally, the explanation is far simpler: nominators run across articles they do not believe meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Without access to the deleted article, and just what I can find looking up Wayne Caparas on the web, I'd agree with the nominator. I could find only two reliable sources on a Google News search, and both quote him only in passing; neither provide the "significant coverage" of Caparas himself WP:GNG requires. This new book of his (published last April) hasn't cracked the top two millionth of Amazon's book sales ranking, nor the top 700 of the sub-sub-sub category of quick workout books, and there are zero mentions of it on Google News; if "many experts" believe that this book will have an impact on the fitness industry, there's little evidence of them saying so publicly. A straight Google search of Caparas doesn't fare much better: the top hits are his Linkedin page, his Facebook page, his YouTube page, his IMDB page, the original Wikipedia article, his book's webpage, his Twitter feed, his Allmusic page, and the various other sites we normally associate with devoted self-promoters. Ravenswing 23:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the book is a new publish, and I believe the PR effort has been held up by a companion video series that is due to launch next month. You can find the expert endorsements at the publisher site and several other sites. I know the author is a senior now like me, so most of his most notable accomplishments were documented before the internet started archiving everything. I guess that's an unfortunate reality. Whatever the case, as a fan of Wikipedia, I believe the article is justified. If you read the publisher's content or the interview I found, I "hope" you'd agree. Finally, I really had no idea how Wikipedia editing works. When I suggested there might have been a malicious reason the article was deleted, I was inferring someone exposed in the book came to Wikipedia and deleted it themselves. Now I know better. Glad to see real gatekeepers exist around the clock. Keep up the great work. KaySorin (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer Stormy clouds' question above, I didn't know until this session that there was a login, so when I made my minor edits I must have been able to do them without logging in. I guess that explains why I was never alerted to the deletion discussion even though I clicked "watch this page" at some point in the past. Thanks again for all the clarificationsKaySorin (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, KaySorin. A couple things to mention: as a general rule, reviews on a publisher's website are solicited by the publisher, often from other authors in the publisher's stable, or for other considerations, and are usually not considered independent reviews, such as can be found in newspaper or industry sources. Another is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance -- as an encyclopedia, we can only take notice of what reliable sources say, and therefore whatever the reasons for the book not catching the public eye, the fact that it hasn't means it has no bearing on the author's notability. Ravenswing 23:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the gratitude expressed by Ravenswing, and agree with their two caveats mentioned directly above. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KaySorin. Because I am an administrator, I was able to read the deleted article and the deletion was completely appropriate. The article had a highly promotional tone in violation of our neutral point of view policy and was poorly referenced. I read the various links you provided at the Help Desk, and none are adequate for the purpose of establishing notability. We need significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Passing mentions, blogs, IMDb, publisher bios and book endorsement blurbs are useless for showing that this person is notable. By the way, the deleted article contained a number of edits from your account, but those edits were removed from your history when the article was deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the thoughtful replies Wikipedians. It would seem like the standards for "notability" have changed over the past decade, is that the case? I'm really enjoying Wikipedia through this process, as I had no idea how engaged on so many levels you all are. I'd love to start working toward joining your forces for more than just an occasional edit on a subject or person of interest. So thanks for the inspiration and the speeding of my learning curve. For future reference, since the article was considered to be "poorly referenced," how would I use a magazine or newspaper article as a "quality" reference if it is not archived on the web? I see that most the references in Wayne's old article appeared to fit this category. Is there a place in your database that answers that question? Also, is there a place where "notability" is addressed methodically? In order to avoid diverging subjective standards, it would seem necessary to have some sort of empirical milestones involved in the decision-making process. If so, I'd love to learn more about that as well. Thanks again all! KaySorin (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, KaySorin. There have been no significant changes in how we assess notability in the last ten years, although there may have been a few minor adjustments. Please be aware that this is literally "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and that includes writing new articles. With over 5.5 million articles, there are at least a million or more with very significant problems. Although millions of people have edited Wikipedia, there are less than 5000 highly active editors who maintain article quality. It is entirely possible for a low-visibility article to sit there without an experienced editor noticing it for years. In this particular case, the article came to the attention of Edwardx, a highly experienced editor with over 88,000 edits on a wide variety of topics. I assure you that this editor has no grudge at all against Caparas, but is just working very hard as an unpaid volunteer to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia.

To learn more about notability, read that link, plus Notability (people). The shortcut to the section about authors is WP:NAUTHOR. One important place where the disputed notability of specific article topics is addressed is through the Articles for Deletion process (abbreviated AfD), where we discuss and debate dozens of articles every single day. The shortcut to today's debates is WP:AFDT.

Printed newspaper or magazine sources which are not available online are perfectly acceptable, as long as they are properly cited with complete bibliographic detail. For a newspaper article, that bibliographic information would include the complete article title and subtitle, the author's name, the newspaper name, the city of publication if not part of the newspaper name, the date of publication and the page number. It is also wise to include a one or two sentence quote from the newspaper in the reference, that helps verify the content. Online sources are preferred when available but not mandatory.

Inevitably, there is a certain amount of subjectivity in all of these assessments, which is why we operate on the consensus model of decision-making. Administrators or experienced editors close debates and make decisions, but they do not count noses or count "votes". Instead, they evaluate each editor's arguments based on how closely they adhere to our established policies and guidelines. If someone advocates keeping or deleting an article based on personal preference rather than solid reasoning, their opinion will be "discounted", which means it will be pretty much ignored.

I hope that I have answered your questions and given you useful information. I have taken the time to write such a detailed response because your questions have been insightful and perceptive. I also hope that you will continue to edit Wikipedia, and you can ask other questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Edwardx, since I messed up the original ping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KaySorin, I regretfully disagree with Cullen328 on a couple points ... more by way of that he's articulating the ideal, and I'd like to acquaint you with a little more reality. He's right in that the standards of notability haven't changed much over the years, and most of those changes are technical fiddles. There used to be a one-size-fits-all notability standard for sports biographies, for instance, and several years ago that was devolved to the various sporting Wikiprojects. What has changed, however, is the community's willingness to enforce them. Deletion discussions used to be dominated by head-count decisions, and knee-jerk Keep votes along the lines of "Seems notable" or "The article could be improved" were both common and often devoid of any critical examination. This doesn't much happen any more, and in particular, our practices on how biographical articles of living people are handled have tightened up considerably over the years. Ravenswing 04:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect for Ravenswing, I see things a bit differently, at least based on my participation in AfD debates over the past eight years. Yes, there are a few ill-informed votes, both now and then, but those are usually ignored by closing administrators. The main change that I see is far fewer nominations of obviously notable topics, although that happens occasionally. In my opinion, the debates are usually of a fairly high quality and most contributors make policy based arguments. When reviewing old AfD debates, I see the type of thing that Ravenswing describes in the 2003 to 2006 time frame. These days, disagreements arise mostly from editors with strict interpretations opposing editors with more lenient interpretations of policy. I rarely see what I would call "slam dunk keep" nominations these days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I have to laugh at some of these comments, when you consider that Jack Carlson (rower) as an article is allowed to persist on the project. BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Carlson (rower) says basically "Notable but needs improvement." Hardly unique around here. WP:SOFIXIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a terribly curious comment. There has never been a point in Wikipedia's history where a medalist in the World Championships in a significant sport didn't qualify for an article, and never will be. Sorry if you disagree that sports is a notable field of endeavor, but you're rather overwhelmingly outvoted. Ravenswing 18:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks... every enlightening discussion. Glad to see diverging views. KaySorin (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted, now back up

My page on Cynthia Charlotte "Lottie" Moon Clark got deleted earlier. It seems that the issue was mainly about a bad source. I've fixed that now, but could someone look at it and tell me if it is likely to be deleted again and if so, what I can do to fix it, I would really appreciate it. Also, I've been working on her sister's page, too. Her name is Virginia Bethel Moon. Do my changes to that page look alright?

This is my first time editing on Wikipedia (I participated in an edit-a-thon) and I really enjoyed it. 222H (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine, but it probably needs renamed. That's a bit of an unwieldy title. Also, it says it was deleted per G6. Did the article have a different name before it was deleted? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How could I rename it? And, yes, the name has remained the same.

222H (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@222H: I suggest you name your article Cynthia Charlotte Moon. Wikipedia already has an article for Lottie Moon (1840-1912), who was a Christian missionary in China. The person who reviewed your article was probably getting Google hits for this (more famous) Lottie Moon. I'm not really sure how to rename a draft, but the reviewer or someone else can help you. I searched for sources and found two good print books, and I will post them on your user page. You still need to finish the end of your draft either way, because it stops in the middle of a sentence. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: I am confused why you refer to it as a draft: it is in mainspace. I've moved it to the suggested title, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A lad insane: It still had a "big box" at the top when I looked at it (@2:00 or 2:00 UTC) so I thought it was still a draft. Thanks for doing the move. Like your user name, BTW. Cheers! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: What do you mean by "big box"? Was there a "this article is a work in progress" maintenance tag or something? I can't find it in the history. And thanks about my username :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A lad insane: Sorry, my bad! The big box was on the editor's talk page! Since it pertained to the article, and looks similar to the AfC "big box", I mis-remembered it as a draft. I apologize for the confusion. I was scratching my head and trying to figure out where the heck I had seen the box, but finally found it. Getting old.....?? Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I put inline citations

Hi, I have looked at a couple of articles, and I am not sure where to use inline citations (such as in infoboxes and lead sections). Could someone explain where and where not I should use inline citations?

Thanks

Peterye2005 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Peterye2005! Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources/WP:INCITE should have all of the information that you need. Essentially, citations should be used to cite sources and back up any claims made in articles or information that could be disputed. Include citations "allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it" (from third link). The third link contains information about how to add them. Hope this helps! If you have any questions, please let us know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I received a message from Wikipedia that makes no sense at all. "User talk:207.177.111.158 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia September 2011 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kira Buckland with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kira Buckland with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Breawycker (talk to me!) 17:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)" It makes no sense because I have never, ever contributed, or edited, anything on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I have never heard of "Kira Buckland". Not sure what to do about this or where to post it. Gary "Gig" Giegerich 207.177.111.158 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a dynamic IP address. The message is from 2011. You may want to consider creating an account. This will allow you to have a stable talk page and contributions history. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gary. You are editing anonymously using an IP address, which may be shared among many internet users. It seems that someone used the same IP address seven years ago to vandalize an article twice. I suggest that you register a Wikipedia account, which eliminates such confusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble getting this active

Having difficulty getting an architecturally significant building listed. I need help, please.

I'm also appealing any decision that this piece of architecture isn't notable or significant. Simply because the building hasn't yet been NRHP (not NHRP :-) listed doesn't mean it isn't significant - it's merely a superficial qualifier. In this particular building's case, it was not listed because the owners saw no benefit in doing so. Having personally listed buildings on the NRHP I can say this particular structure chances of getting listed are quite high - if the owners decided to go that route. It was built by the most important early 20th century architects on the west coast. I can understand that if one isn't interested nor understands architectural history why they would brush this off since it isn't their purview. However, for those who are interested architectural history, this is an important building to reference.

As for notability references, what exactly do you want? I'm sure I can find something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masonic_Home_of_Washington

Apollodorus1982 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2018

Hello, Apollodorus1982 and welcome to the TeaHouse. Every article on Wikipedia (including architectural ones) should qualify as having a "Notable" subject (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term). Notability in Wikipedia is mostly driven by how thoroughly the subject is covered in independent, reliable sources. In addition, certain official recognition (such as NRHP) can also strongly indicate notability, but they are not required. So to establish notability, start by collecting the sources that discuss the subject - books written about it, newspaper and journal articles that discuss it in depth (not just a passing mention), television shows about it, etc. There is a good article that covers the topic here. Or for more detail you can see the "General Notability Guildelines" here. Good luck.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Category?

I was trying to add some categories to the page of an author (Peg Kehret). The author is a polio survivor. Unfortunately, there isn't a list for this. Is this deliberate to avoid linking people by a illness or is this something that could be added? Or should I use the category "poliomyetlitis?" I don't want to mess something up! 222H (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just found it! It's "People with poliomyelitis." 222H (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any interesting names of food named after Greek gods and goddesses?

i need them for a menu I have to create for a class. Please help and give me any you can think of. THANK YOU! Any types of food will work. Ashlyn2838 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ashlyn2838 and welcome to the teahouse. Unfortunately this question is not the kind of thing that this page is for. Please post your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities where answers will be forthcoming. MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashlyn2838: Do a Google search for "Nipples of Venus" a confection. You will see photos and receipts. Also, see Ambrosia. Look in the "see also" section for Idunn's apples, etc. Good luck! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typing in "foods named after Greek gods and goddesses?" into Yahoo gets plenty of answers. BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Wikipedia guidelines

Hi! Recently, I found a problem about Wikipedia guidelines. In WP:V, WP:REFB and WP:RS, and other guidelines about reliable sources, only paper sources(Such as books, journals and newspapers) are given as examples of reliable sources, no website sources. Does this means only paper sources can be reliable sources of Wikipedia? And any website sources (even notable medias with editor reviewing) are not reliable sources of Wikipedia? Or paper sources are more reliable than website sources? However, paper sources are much more difficult to find than website sources. This may mislead newbies. Omega68537 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Omega68537 and welcome to the TeaHouse. Yes, web sites are acceptable as references, provided they are independent and reliable. Even conventional media such as newspapers often make content available on the Web as well, which makes convenient links for readers who wish to follow up the source.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Omega68537. Yes, websites can be reliable sources, even though 99% of websites are not acceptable. Reliable source websites will meet the same standards as reliable books, newspapers and magazines. They will have professional editorial control and an established reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Citation templates, you can see that citing high quality websites is very common. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In medical arena there are reputable organizations with websites that are accepted as references: WebMD, Mayo Clinic, etc. This does not automatically extend to websites created by individuals or small organizations or companies promoting their own products. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

I have an article about a major facility in Mexico, which is in direct competition with other similar entities in California. The facility in question was started by a Media Mogul who has been at the centre of world wide politics and controversies for the last 60 years. He started said Enterprise in an effort to nullify the power of a major stateside Trade Union. Almost certainly all of the above has meant that the quality of printed and web media about this facility from our point of view (as described here) is minimal and pathetic. Yet we have photos that are undeniable proof of its existence and its high profile position in its industry. How to include an article for same? BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeckenhamBear. Wikipedia articles summarize what published independent reliable sources say about a topic. If such sources are, as you say, "minimal and pathetic", then it is not possible to write an acceptable article. Unpublished photos are not acceptable as sources. Your claim of a "high profile position in its industry" is what we call original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing that is published are photos of the facility, showing the huge size of it, only one of these is PD. Its own website is full of conflicting statistics, and obviously it's a sales brochure. Its facebook page has videos which are self explanatory. Others sources consist only of its name and location at best, or are at the best oblique negative references to it while highlighting how dangerous and crime ridden the neighborhood is. Thus warning off potential business from the USA. Is the PD photo and celluloid movie references enough for us? BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to get drafts reviewed?

Hi. I've created two article drafts, one of which was a request on a WikiProject page. However, I'm unsure of what to do next, I believe it has to get reviewed to go live. Can you guide me on how to go about that? Thank you, this newbie is appreciative of all help! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOneWorkingAccount: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to Draft:The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis and Draft:Suhail Chandhok. It appears that you have submitted both drafts for review already. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis" is already in an existing article, The Big Bang Theory (season 2). BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeckenhamBear. Thank you for the welcome. The link you mentioned redirects to a part of the main Big Bang Theory page. According to the project page, some special episodes need a full new page and it is that instruction I followed to create the page. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Episodes_for_creation Also, does the other draft look good? Appreciate your help! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Thank you for the welcome. Yes, those are the two drafts I'm talking about. So once submitted for review, there's nothing further that I need to do?TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your a man after my own heart. I was not aware of that page. However I think you may find a request such as "Episodes_for_creation" is not an automatic sanction for inclusion of said article. Especially from a loooong running series like this. Notability rules still apply. Oh, as a PS I would have separated out these two different requests. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! What a waste it would be in that case :(

P.S - I'm a woman :)

For Draft:Suhail Chandhok, there was already an existing, deleted article that I simply cleaned up in terms of advertorial sounding language and added a lot of references, which the original version was missing. Would that be enough to have it published?

Noted your suggestion on separating the requests, thanks! Will do so going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneWorkingAccount (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once submitted, you just need to wait for them to be reviewed. As this is a volunteer project, it may take a bit. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yes, fully aware of that. Just wanted to make sure it's submitted and there's nothing more that I need to do on it. Well, on to look for some other tasks now. Thanks! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any experienced Teahouse hosts available March 8, 12-6pm (Japan time) to man a Q&A forum for wikipedia editathon aimed at adding articles about Japanese women artists and women artists generally?

Hello I am organising a Wikipedia editathon with other professors at Temple University, Japan Campus.

Our participants will be more than half English Wikipedia users, however there were no locally available English Wikipedia experts, and on the day we are grateful to be joined by an experienced Japanese Wikipedia user but we are anticipating English Wikipedia specific issues to arise.

I am a new user and although I feel confident with the content guidelines, verifiable sources, citations, notability guidelines, neutral point of view etc, I do not feel confident with more complicated editing tasks and the review process etc. And participants will be even less so.

If anyone is available at this time and could we set up a way for students to ask and have questions answered during this time period I would be so grateful! How could we do this? We currently have a Japanese language project page set up... is that a good place? Should we make a translated version of the project page? https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E3%82%AA%E3%83%95%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%BC%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%EF%BC%8B%E3%83%95%E3%82%A7%E3%83%9F%E3%83%8B%E3%82%BA%E3%83%A0/20180308%E6%9D%B1%E4%BA%AC Louise000 (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Louise000, welcome to our Teahouse. It's absolutely fantastic to learn that you are also running an edit-a-thon for International Women's Day on Thursday 8th March. Please could you tell us all what time editors may be seeking help in UTC? This is the format most people seem to work in here. I shall be at Derby University, England, at our own edit-a-thon from 10:00 UTC to 16:00 UTC and (if we're not too busy) may also be online, monitoring the Teahouse for any IWD-related requests. I'm sure other hosts here will, as usual, be happy to help any editor. Are you aware of our own Women in Red wikiproject? I'm going to ping @Rosiestep and John Cummings: as they're both heavily involved in events during this month, and especially on International Women's Day on 8th March. I believe there may be a post going out to all the help fora to alert hosts thatt a number of new editors around the globe may seek assistance to edit or create articles that day. I don't know if ja.wiki has an equivalent of our Teahouse/Help desk or [live chat channel], but you could make it clear on your event page that questions can be posted on its own Talk Page - and you could ensure you monitor that, too. Maybe make a shortcut to help people remember and find your editathon page? I've created WP:Derby18 for ours - as even I can't remember its full title!

It sounds like you have enough experience - you should be absolutely fine on ther day. Most requests from new editors at edit-a-thons are likely to seek only basic advice on editing and on citing sources. It is what happens next that can be daunting for them. After the event they will want to enhance and to get their draft articles into mainspace, and may experience what might seem rather sharp treatment by article reviewers, or at the hands of page deleters. The best advice I can give you is to ensure that you capture the usernames of every single person attending your event. (Maybe a signing-in sheet or a huge whiteboard?). That way you can monitor each new editor after the event, see what subjects they are working on, give them a post-event welcome messsage, and help move their drafts into mainspace when you think they're ready, or offer support in other ways. I've been developing a handout to give participants before they leave our event to assist them further in the days ahead. Possibly this page may give you ideas relevant for ja.wiki and your event?

It's also a very good idea to encourage all new editors to put a description on their userpage about their interests in editing articles, and to state on any new draft or article that it was created as part of a themed editathon. Although I have no evidence of other editors' perceptions, my own is that if I see a new article about which I'm dubious regarding notability or content, I am likely to be far more supportive if I can be aided to appreciate the circumstances under which it was created. I'm therefore less likely to propose it for deletion, and more likely to want to help a new editor if I can tell it's not just another WP:POV/WP:COI article or WP:PAID work.

You asked if it's worth creating an English translation page. I think only you will know whether the time investment is worth it - but it can certainly do no harm, and would form a valuable record of the event thereafter, and perhaps encourage page creation on notable people in more than one language.

Finally, I imagine you have already read Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon, but there's another very good resource on planning and running these events here. And if you want more of my own view, here's a blogpost about an editathon I helped at last year, which might be of passing interest. Good luck with your event on Thursday. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Louise000. I am so happy to hear about your event. Two good places for the participants at your event to ask questions will be here at the Teahouse, as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. The Teahouse is best for general how to edit questions. Women in Red is the content gender gap project which specializes in questions such as "is she notable enough?", "do you have pointers about how to write a woman's biography?" and so forth. Happy editing!!! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick MoyesThank you, how do I make that short URL for the meetup page? We made one in English now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Japan/ArtAndFeminism2018 Louise000 (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep, John Cummings, and Nick Moyes: No worries I figured it out! Our event is (02:00)-(09:00) UTC time. I will follow suggestion to signpost our own talk page as a place for questions but extra help welcome! Louise000 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Louise000: well done for trying. Unfortunately I don't think you created the shortcut quite right as you've managed to create it in mainspace as AFTUJ2018, when internal shortcuts need to be in the format starting 'WP:' i.e. WP:AFTUJ2018. As you see, I've now created that for you, and have added the shortcut to your editathon's English language page. We'll need to get the other one deleted or abbreviations like these would clog up the genuine search function for normal users who might be looking for a notable articles such as this year's conference of the Association For Tickling Underneath Judges, or whatever. I suggest you just leave it for now and then after Thursday put {{db-author}} on the page to request speedy deletion of a page you created and only you have edited. If it gets deleted before then, so be it. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i have news channel called news1india in india want to publush my page

hi this is zeeshan want creat page in india for newschannel if any one can help me within the same i would really appreciate or guide me how to creat one Zee101010 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article first, it will help you a lot. FlyingShrimp (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a Wiki Page- Copyright

Hi. I have written a Wiki page about my lifestyle brand and I cut-pasted content from an article that I wrote, which explains my brand; as well as from my website; which I also wrote... and the page was deleted- never really published. How do I overcome that copyright (of my own work and writing) when I re-submit my text? It seems that an automatic cyber-bot found this information; so had no idea that I INDEED was the same author of my own work. Should I create a new account? Re-submit for a Wiki page.

The same thing happened to me when I added my name to Wiki... It found my website bio and called it copyright; but I am the author of everything that Wiki found to create their argument to delete my profiles. Please help me understand the best way to get these pages onto the Wiki platform. Thanks. CatherineGioia333 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To properly donate copyrighted material you need to follow the procedure at WP:DCP, which also explains what doing so means.

However, you state you are writing about your lifestyle brand. You need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you edit further. You should not directly edit about your brand, instead submitting a draft using Articles for Creation. Please understand that you cannot use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and that we are only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a published author, blogger, film-maker and others are asking me where is my wiki page. I see 1000s of wiki pages on other people. This is how I learn about them and their backgrounds. How are these pages created? Please inform the proper protocol...

And to branding. Maybe I used the wrong word... I conceived of a lifestyle "term"-word, concept that has generated much interest; and I want to make sure it is in wikipedia. What is the correct protocol to do that? When I listed it before; again the cyber bot found my own written work and deleted the entry because of copyright... but it is my OWN work, vision, idea, writing. Thanks for informing. cGioia333 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Focus on your business such that independent news organizations write stories about you without you asking them to. Subjects only get articles if there are multiple, independent, professionally-published sources about them.

2) Focus on your business so much that enough of these news stories appear that someone with no connection to you uses those news sources to write about your brand. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion.

3) Do not edit the resulting article, because you have a conflict of interest.

4) ???

5) PROFIT!

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333: I would add that any article would not be "your wiki page", but a Wikipedia article about your brand/business. You would not have exclusive control over it, and any content good and bad can be in it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. It is not necessarily a good thing for you to have an article about your business here, see WP:PROUD, WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I don't write an "article" about myself. Someone else independently decides to do so; and it appears? Also, on the term I conceived... I have been writing about it over the past few years; and now more so; also books... Shouldn't i be the one to write the term into the wiki space as an "article"? If anyone else did; it would then certainly be a copyright violation, yes? How else do terms that the author of the term conceives get out into the wiki public eye if not from the author him/herself? Gioia333 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333: No, there's paraphrasing and summarizing. Those are not copyright violations.

What happens is some news organization decides to write about your brand. They write about it. Someone else, with no connection to you, decides to write an article on this site. They would summarize, paraphrase, and cite the news articles, not your website. There's no copyright violation there. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, how can anything on the internet, as well, on Wiki, be written about me without my consent; if it is not me, the author of my life that writes the biography, myself? This is find strange. I am not aware of anyone else in my sphere of influence who has not had a hand in the writing of their own Wiki page??? Gioia333 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable Wikipedia biographies are written by independent, uninvolved editors, Gioia333. Although comments and corrections by the subject on the talk page are fine, the substantive decisions are made by other editors who summarize published reliable sources. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not LinkedIn, Facebook or Instagram. We have the right to include biographies of anyone who meets our notability standards, and exclude those who don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333:(ec) Your consent is not needed in order for a third party to write about your work. This happens every day in every news outlet in the world.

An important principle of Wikipedia is that as an encyclopedia it has a neutral point of view. See WP:NPOV. That cannot happen if people write about themselves or their businesses, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you have independent reliable sources, you can (as said above) submit a draft for an independent review at Articles for Creation. This may be how people you know write about themselves, though it is discouraged. (WP:AUTO) However, if your creation is not written about in independent reliable sources, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. We are only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. You cannot use Wikipedia to generate third party coverage, it must already exist. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333: There's a difference between biography and autobiography. This distinction is not unique to Wikipedia. In fact, it predates Wikipedia by centuries.

Also, regarding I am not aware of anyone else in my sphere of influence who has not had a hand in the writing of their own Wiki page -- could you please point to those pages and the users in question? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333:, a couple of other things, and apologies if this seems like a pile-on. First off, if you've coined a term that you want a Wikipedia article for, the bottom line is that you can't. WP:NEO is the guideline stating that we don't have articles for neologisms that haven't been widely written about in independent reliable sources. If the only sources you have for your term are your own works, then your term hasn't gained enough public notice for a Wikipedia article. Secondly, the overwhelming number of biographical articles on Wikipedia aren't written or edited by their subjects (I'd be astonished if as many as one in ten thousand have been), a practice as others have mentioned is strongly discouraged here. Like Ian.thomson, I would be grateful to see links to any articles you believe to have been. Ravenswing 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks. It does actually feel and sound like you are attacking me; which is not very kind or compassionate. I am not in your world; and simply responding at this time to others in my community who are asking me to put up a wiki page about me and my lifestyle vision... So, I guess what I will do is share with them your rather harsh responses for a "teahouse" dialogue and suggest to them that there is nothing I can do.

cGioia333 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333: Good idea, taking my quotes out of context and re-framing them to make me the bad guy will present you in a much more favorable light than explaining that you repeatedly ignored when multiple editors patiently explained that:

You have a conflict of interest and should not edit articles relating to you or your brand.
Wikipedia is not for promotion.
Subjects must be notable (i.e. mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources).

I mean, that was explained, but you kept asking how you can write your articles to about you and your brand. At no point did anyone try to stop you about writing about anything else, or working on any other subject. I mean, it'd be more responsible to use the three bullet points to explain why Wikipedia is the wrong model for you say what people keep asking you to do, but whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333:, it's regretful that you feel hard done-by that Wikipedia has guidelines as to what can and cannot be included on the encyclopedia, but we're not at all troubled if you choose to share that fact with others who might not have known. Ravenswing 23:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioia333: I'm sorry you feel that way. There is no intention to be harsh, just to tell you the way it is. It sounds like that what you want to do would be better accomplished on a personal website. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies between articles.

Refer to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Numbers

It says, "In general, write whole cardinal numbers from one to nine as words" but in the main article for the section,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers

it says, "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."

Please fix this discrepancy. It can cause confusion. I have no permission to edit either article.

175.193.153.88 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. In the future, you should be able to use the relevant talk page for these issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Hello! I have found a picture of a person that I'm writing about and I want to use it for my article. The photographer have taken the photo for a medical newspaper and they did then publish it. If it's still the photographer that owns the copyright for the photo what do I need to do to be allowed to publish it here on Wikipedia. Is it enough if I just email the person and he or she sends back and tells me it's ok? And if that is ok, does the language have to be in english or can we make the agreement in another language? Nimbo.lo (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nimbo.lo, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, I'm afraid that would not be enough. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to provide a sources that anybody can freely use, and so almost all of the material in Wikipedia is licensed under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse it as long as they attribute it. You would need the photographer to carry out the procedure outlines in donating copyright materials: they may well be willing to do this, but you probably need to make the consequences clear to them. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Nimbo.lo and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, plain permission is insufficient because the photo has to be released under an appropriate licence, and it's possible that the newspaper owns the copyright. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for details. Dbfirs 21:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update of Smoky Dog, wikipedia

Much is still happening with Smoky. For example she now has 11 memorials in the U.S. three in Australia and as of July 21, 2017, one at the 1st International Animals of War memorial in Pozieres, France. She also has been awarded-- 1)The first War Dog combat medal of Australia, backdated in 2012, in large ceremony at the Royal Brisbane Womans Hospital formerly the U.S. 109th Fleet Hospital where Smoky served as the first therapy dog in Aug.'44. The Aussies had no war dogs until the Vietnam War. Today a War Dog must serve 28 days straight in combat to receive the award. Research shows Smoky was born in Brisbane, Queensland at 101 Queen Street in mid 1943. At about five months old sold to a US Army couple. She served 24 months with the 5th USAAF serving 18 months straight in combat from New Guinea to Korea. In 2015 Smoky received the extremely rare and highest honor Animal Hero can receive, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, "RSPCA Purple Cross " medal of Australia. She is only the 10th recipient animal hero to receive the award for bravery in 164 years, dating back to Crimean war, 1864. In 2017 the United States War Dog handlers Association awarded Smoky the "Unofficial War Dog of WWII" its Service Medal and title of "MWD Smoky." Another memorial is underway. Sincerely, Bill Wynne, Smoky's owner trainer. Age 96. (photos available for proof) Can this be inserted in Smoky's Wikipedia? 2607:FCC8:67C9:800:78ED:8918:9F8E:EB43 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user. Yes, all that can be added to the article as long as there are references to prove it, like newspapers, magazine articles, etc. If you have them, could you post the links on the article talk page? Somebody can then use them to add the relevant information to the article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Jama Omar

Faisal Jama is a public figure and Somali  retired international Athlete. He have 3 National Records in 1500,3000m and 5000m

He was born in Hargeisa on March 24 1987. He is one of most decorated Somali Athletes He also played soccer where he was nicknamed Figo after the Portugal and real Madrid legend, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal Jama Omar (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Faisal Jama Omar - this is the Teahouse, where editors are able to ask questions regarding editing on Wikipedia. You appear to have errandly attempted to create an article here, which is not the intended purpose of this forum. Moreover, your username indicates that you have a conflict of interest in creating this article, and that it is autobiographical in nature. Editors are urged to refrain from penning articles about themselves, so please do not do so. If you wish to make another article, consult your first article prior to doing so. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hi, I recently created an article called Paper.io. I first created Draft:Paper.io and when I was finished with the draft, I moved it to the article. Right now, the draft is a redirect. Should it be deleted?

Thanks.

Peterye2005 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peterye2005. There's no need to delete the redirect, no. – Joe (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Custom username appearing in recent changes section?

Hello. This is just a quick question. Does my custom username colour appear in the recent changes section after making an edit? AllyGebies (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, AllyGebies. Editor names are rendered in blue on the recent changes page, and in article histories. Your custom signature only appears when you sign a talk page comment (or when another editor copies your signature). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting, AllyGebies, is that no custom signature for you is displaying at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So my custom signature isn't appearing (even when I put the four tildes in)? How do I fix that to show it for my signature? AllyGebies (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow each step at WP:CUSTOMSIG, AllyGebies. You must have skipped a step. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow each step. I went to the css user thing and put it in, and it made my name orange. I'm asking how to show the orange name as my signature. Unless I need to go in and put all that 'font' and 'colour' stuff in... AllyGebies (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied and pasted the 'UserBob' example into my preferences signature section, and changed the name and colour to my preferred one. Can you see my custom signature now? AllyGebies talk 03:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AllyGebies, yes. Rojomoke (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture change?

Hi, on the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer I would like to upload a current photograph of the author. This one prehaps - https://mises.org/profile/ilana-mercer?

Can someone help me out?

Thanks

kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome, Kc2290. The image you've suggested at mises.org does not appear to either exist in the public domain or be licensed for creative commons use and uploading it would, ergo, run afoul of copyright restrictions. You may want to check-out WP:UPIMAGE for additional information. Chetsford (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kc2290. We can never use a non-free image to illustrate an article when an acceptable freely licensed image exists. There are no exceptions allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Pictures to Wikipedia

Hi. So I have previously added pictures to Wikipedia for the infobox on biography pages. However, even when the picture is taken from a news article on the web, I've always run into a rights issue.

Rather than doing that again, can someone first guide me on what pictures are okay to use? Are pictures that have been published on news portals not okay?

Thank you for your help! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all images that you find in news articles are copyrighted, and not suitable for Wikipedia. See the advice in WP:Uploading images as linked in the section immediately above this one. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please block a vandal IP

I know this isn't the right venue, but nobody seems to have noticed my plea at WP:AIV, so I'm putting it here too. Could some admin please look at my post at WP:AIV and block the IP editor who I reported? This editor is actively vandalizing as I speak and is wasting the time of me and a couple of other editors as we try to revert this IP. If someone could block this IP editor, I would be very grateful. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Joe (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can not understand why the publication was rejected

Hello I do not understand why the article was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Global_Database From the start, thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.155.8 (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have articles on every and any company, and this one doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion. The links in the reviews you have received already will give you more information on how we assess that. Is there a reason why you are so keen to create it? – Joe (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 109.185.155.8 and welcome to the Teahouse. There is lots of advice on your talk page that perhaps you have not understood. Please use in-line references (see WP:Referencing for beginners), and find sources that are independent of the company. If you cannot find these, then perhaps the article is WP:TOOSOON. Dbfirs 08:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected four times, by four different reviewers? I think the message is clear. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please

can I get someone who is experienced to help me out with creating a page that is written in an encycopidian manner. many thanks, Noodlebomber (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Noodlebomber: - depends. When we last encountered you, you were attempting to create a promotional autobiographical article, despite such an effort being opposed to Wikipedia's guidelines. If you still wish to create this article, the answer is no, as the draft, amongst all its other issues, failed the general notability guideline, and thereby did not merit an article. If you are working on worthier pursuits, then editors will be more than willing to assist. What article/WikiProject do you wish to work on? Stormy clouds (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to work on an article about Mad Dex 2 (an android game) Noodlebomber (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already received a fair bit of advice, Noodlebomber, and I recommend you go to the link already posted to your talk page about how to create your first article. I hope and trust you aren't still planning to write an article about yourself? Ravenswing 08:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about your Noodlebomber article, then no. The draft has been repeatedly turned down and deleted, and the reasons have already been explained to you on your talk page and on this page at Wikipedia:Teahouse#why? and Wikipedia:Teahouse#why? (2). You have been told not to resubmit the article, and you have been given a level 4 warning for promotion over this article. Meters (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an article. is it good? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_dex_2 Noodlebomber (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noodlebomber I'm sorry but it is no good at all. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as an advert. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No use whatsoever. Where are the references to significant coverage in published independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability? You have been given many links on your user talk page to the advice, but you have obviously ignored everything which you have been told. In future, don't try writing an article directly in mainspace. If you have a subject which you believe is notable, write a draft and submit it for review through the WP:AFC procedure. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing articles

Can I share a Wikipedia page and if I can how can i share a wikipedia page to facebook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMprincess76 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MMprincess76. You can just copy the address of the article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse) and copy it into a Facebook post, like any other web page. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

I want to create a userboxes related to Ludo but I dont know how I can do that. Can someone please tell? Zayyam123 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a guide to userboxes at WP:UBX that should help answer your question. Iffy★Chat -- 11:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zayyam123: I can create one for you in case you haven't done that already. FlyingShrimp (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

software solution during neurosurgery

How can create an article regarding facts about this software as a reference all to read and learn about. I need help in doing so. So far there are old references and sources dated back to 2010 and articles that talk about it using its old title but not the current one. 82.81.105.153 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Advice on creating an aticle is available at Wikipedia:Your first article. If you have any more specific questions about the process, please do ask here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can I submit a page about a software training institute in kerala

Is it possible to submit a page in Wikipedia about a software training academy in KeralaRini Sebastian (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly yes, Rini Sebastian, but writing a Wikipedia article is not easy, and there are several challenges that you need to overcome.to do so. one to understand is that Wikipedia is not interested at all in what you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) know or think about the subject; and it has very little interest in anything that the Academy or it staff or associates say about it. You will need to find several places where people who have no connection with the academy have chosen to write in depth about it, and been published in reliable places (like major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. The sources do not have to be in English, but if there are English sources they are preferable). If you cannot find such sources, then the institute is not presently notable (in the special way that Wikipedia uses this word) and it will not be possible to write an article about it.

If you can find such sources, then it is possible to write an article, based almost entirely on those sources. The next question to ask is, do you have a connection with the Institute? If so, then you have a potential conflict of interest, and you are discouraged from writing about it.

If, given all that I have said, you want to continue writing the article, please start by studying your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can users who are not autoconfirmed users save drafts

Hi I'm organising an editathon in Japan. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFTUJ2018

Can users who are not autoconfirmed users save drafts? We will have several autoconfirmed users at the event but also people who will be registering an account for the first time.

Can those people save their sandbox to drafts? If they only have access to sandbox then they should be instructed to only work on one article during the day I guess. Louise000 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Louise000 - all editors can use the draft space to work on draft articles, this includes both newly registered and unregistered users. I'd recommend the use of the article wizard

- TNT^❤ 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there is noting to stop any user from creating more than one userspace draft; you are not limited to calling it .../sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi Louise000 there is no limit to the creation of userspace or draftspace pages. Users may create as many userspace sandboxes or draft pages as they like. It's only mainspace page creation that is limited to autoconfirmed users. As you are autoconfirmed you could move pages created by non-autoconfirmed participants to mainspace (after ensuring that they comply with the minimum standards of course). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Louise000: Will you have any administrators at your event? Or do you have someone with account creation permissions for both wikis? If not, I believe you could encounter problems trying to create lots of new accounts on en.wiki at the event. I don't know how ja.wiki operates, but there's a limit of 6 new user account creations per day from any single IP address on most wikis unless you get prior permission, or have an admin do it. I urgently advise you to check this. The work around is to ask as many people as possible to register prior to the editathon, or to do so on the day via their own mobile connection rather than the event's own wifi. I'm sure each wiki will have its own rules, though with account creation being more global, it's possible that limit applies in Japan on ja.wiki, too. Please read this advice how to get round the issues. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if external links to Google maps domestic residences are accepted in Wikipedia?

I am a new contributor working on my first article in the sandbox stage. Most of Wikipedia's style/coding issues are making sense to me, but I have run into a questions about two external links. I reference the homes occupied around 1910 by two key figures of the article and have linked the addresses to Google maps. Since the key figure in the article made an important move out of a small home containing six siblings and her parents, I think it is notable to allow readers to view the actual buildings to allow for more understanding. But, does Wikipedia permit external links to Google map sites of occupied domestic residences? Gracenoteseeker (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracenoteseeker: Ignoring issues of privacy for the current residents, a problem with the Google maps link is that Google Maps wouldn't necessarily confirm that that's the residence in question (especially since they incorporate feedback from any rando on the net). Wikipedia favors professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, especially secondary or tertiary sources. We do not use original research. If you have another source that establishes that that is the house in question, you should use that one instead of Google. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help with editing

I think I need help with editing my page. I am not understanding why the article was declined. I donate to Wikipedia. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Brphillipoc (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brphillipoc:: Thanks for stopping by. I hope I can answer your question adequately. The issue is primarily that the article does not indicate that the group you are writing about is notable by Wikipedia standards. Notability is proven by showing that multiple, independent reliable sources have written significant amounts of text about the subject. That means that people who are unconnected to the organization have written about it, and that that writing appears in reliable sources, such as published journalism or books or the like, and that the writing covers enough of the subject to allow us to write an article from those independent sources. So far, your article cites one source, the organization's own website, which fails the independence criteria. I hope that helps. You can read more at Wikipedia:Notability. --Jayron 32 15:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for donating, Brphillipoc. Nobody editing Wikipedia has any information at all about who has or hasn't made donations: it is completely irrelevant to all issues of editing the encyclopaedia, including reviewing draft articles. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

editing help

The Acquisition history section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabCorp has a kind of spider chart and I added a new acquisition to it, but can't figure out how to connect the acquisition to the larger tree. Can someone show me how to do that?

Thanks,

grbrumderGeorge R. Brumder (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A spider chart like that that is called a cladogram. Editing a cladogram on Wikipedia is a nightmare. If you are are lucky, a helpful expert may offer to do it for you. Maproom (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grbrumder: I think I fixed it. I've never worked with cladograms before, so if I messed it up, feel free to revert it. You can find my edit at this diff. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

external link was rejected

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and thought an easy way to begin would be by adding an external link from an artist page to a database that contains further information about them. Should something like this be a resource rather than a link? Should there be content added to the page with a citation to the database? Thanks for your help. LeslieatCMA (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, LeslieatCMA. This is your only edit with this account. Did you edit the artist page logged out, or with another account? Please give us the title of the article and an experienced editor can explain what happened. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LeslieatCMA: I guess you refer to Special:Contributions/ClevelandMuseumArchives adding links to Cleveland Museum of Art. The page histories show your edits were reverted as spam. All the links went to a general search page http://library.clevelandart.org/search_mayshow with no mention of the artists before you search their names. I tried searching April Gornik and the only content I could find was http://library.clevelandart.org/node/97313 and http://library.clevelandart.org/artists-makers-architects/gornik-april-0 where I see no information about April Gornik apart from apparently making a work called Moon-Cage which isn't even shown. My search efforts seem like a waste of time and I agree this is spam unless I'm missing some way to get to more information about April Gornik. The link would never have been added by somebody not from the website. See User talk:ClevelandMuseumArchives#March 2018. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I added the external link to Edris Eckhardt and April Gornik under a different account which I found out was inappropriate. They have since been removed. I didn't add any information in the body of the article that described the resource. Would it be appropriate to describe the resource in the article with or without an external link? LeslieatCMA (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LeslieatCMA: If http://library.clevelandart.org/node/97313 and http://library.clevelandart.org/artists-makers-architects/gornik-april-0 is the only information the site has about April Gornik then any link or mention of the site is completely useless. Think about what would be good for Wikipedia's readers and not for your own website. We are not here to drive traffic to websites with no useful content to our readers. You have a conflict of interest when you add links to the site. The first point at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided says: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Your site is extremely far from satisfying that for April Gornik. Mentioning this "resource" without an exernal link is even more useless. I haven't examined whether there is any useful content about the other people. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over whether to include "The" in a radio program's title

This is a relatively minor point, but I would like some advice. When I created the article Mayor of the Town (radio program) I used Mayor of the Town in the title and throughout the article because that is the way I found it in old-time radio reference books. Several weeks ago someone added "The", making The Mayor of the Town in the article (but not in the article's title). The edit summary was "fixed title - heard at beginning of every episode". I did not feel that reason outweighed the reference books, so I reverted the changes. I posted my reason for reverting on the article's talk page ("The" in title of program?).

Today the same changes were made again, this time with the edit summary "correct title of program". I reverted again for the same reason as before and added a note to that effect on the talk page.

Am I wrong in reverting? Am I making too much of whether or not to use "The"? I know that I have no ownership by virtue of creating the article, but I want it to have as much accuracy as possible. The changes were made from an IP address, so I don't know how to contact the editor directly.

I apologize for going on at such length over one word. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eddie Blick. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) for guidance on this matter, and work toward consensus on the article talk page. Stop reverting, since you could be blocked for edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Teblick. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't want to be blocked; I enjoy contributing to Wikipeida. Rather than run that risk, I have undone my second revert, leaving "The" as the IP editor changed it. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Sri Lanka

Hello, I want to publish an article about the current status and progress of Encyclopaedia of Buddhism because most of the scholars have a view that the encyclopaedia project has been deferred by Sri Lanka Government. There is no any trace of this encyclopaedia in the internet and their doubt is then reasonable. I am the deputy editor of this encyclopaedia and I have constructed the whole material referring to available recodes at the office of the Encyclopaedia of Buddhism. They are not published works, but files and other documentations. In fact they are first-hand materials. Owing to this fact, I can hardly draw the connection of facts in the article with reliable sources such as books, journals etc.. What can I do? Shall I write at the bottom of the article that I have constructed this article based on available documents at the office of the encyclopaedia? Note that reasonably Wikipedia does not publish this article, otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liyanagebg (talk • contribs) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Liyanagebg! Unfortunately, your suspicion is correct: if your encyclopedia has not been published, and hasn't therefore been written about by reliable, independent, third-party sources, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and we can only write about the things of which the world's already taken notice. Ravenswing 10:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?

what article do you recommend making since I have had no luck so far with my own? Noodlebomber (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Noodlebomber. Try writing well-referenced biographies of 19th century provincial or state legislators, or cabinet secretaries of smaller countries, or hit songs of the 1920s and 1930s. Those three areas alone could keep you busy for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, instead of fixating on creating a new article (something that's hard for Wikipedia novices to do), you could work on editing an already-extant article that needs improvement. There are hundreds of thousands of those kicking around Wikipedia! Ravenswing 10:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328, would writing about count Arthur strong be appropriate? Noodlebomber (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The way you wrote your failed attempt was totally inappropriate. It was malformatted, there were no independent references, and it went against the conclusions of WP:Articles for deletion/Count Arthur Strong which refered to the various existing articles, hence your edit has been reverted. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Auxesis_Group

Hi all Can you please help me about why this page got deleted after a month. It was verified and approved after a long discussion.

Here is the url for reference...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Auxesis_Group X4119 (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@X4119: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The page was not deleted, just moved to draft space(as you were able to link to it). The log and tag on the draft indicates that it may have been created by someone who did not disclose that they were paid to do so, which is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use; see WP:PAID, the paid editing policy. If you are the creator of the page, you need to return to your original username and request to be unblocked, and stop creating additional accounts. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No i am not the creator nor i am paid to do so the article was in draft space and it worked for a month.

X4119 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this must be moved to sandbox first to be verified fully before being live.

X4119 (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would i be paid for this ???

There is no reason behind this.. X4119 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to move it to a sandbox. It's currently at Draft:Auxesis Group, where you and others can work on it. However, there's a concern that people associated with its creation have been undeclared paid editors, and have violated Wikipedia's policy by using multiple accounts. Maproom (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any proof for that they are being pad for it.

Then one day someone will blame us that Wikipedia contributors are also paid for editing multiple articles. X4119 (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is possible.

To avoid any misunderstandings, I suggest that you answer these questions honestly:

Who do you mean by "us"?
What is your connection with Auxesis Group?
Have you, X4119, registered any other accounts?

Maproom (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

article

Hello, I have one question: For example, there is an article and I want to make this article in another language, what should I do? I have to make it as the new article in another language, or to edit and make a translation?

Sincerely, Tea

81.16.246.14 (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, 81.16.246.14. Are you seeking to translate an article from the English Wikipedia into another language (in which case you'd have to post it on the other language's Wikipedia, according to that Wiki's rules) or from another language into English? Ravenswing 10:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The advice for translating from the English Wikipedia to another language is at WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rude words in the entry for Kilmainham Gaol

Hello, I was reading about the Kilmainham Gaol in Dublin entry and someone has entered Poo & poo the New Gaol pee in paragraph two. Just thought I would tell you so that you can edit out this abuse. Thank you, from Mrs Waterworth 92.14.62.184 (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the heads up. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report Mrs Waterworth. If you find problems in the future, I just wanted to let you know that you are allowed and encouraged to fix it yourself :) There's an EDIT button at the top of the page. You can make corrections or improvements, preview your changes, and save. There's also a HISTORY link where you can view and UNDO edits that have been made to the page, or edit&save the last good version. Alsee (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presence n Wikipedia

Hello,

I want to know if someone can help us in editing our entry in Wikipedia. It has been rejected twice. If yes, where can I post my article? Thank you very much..

Rockjames630 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockjames630: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is "no". You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia and not free web space for your organization to maintain a webpage about itself. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what third party reliable sources write about article subjects. You have what we call a conflict of interest(please review that page) and as such you should not directly edit about your organization. As you seem to work for this organization you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare such status. If you just want to tell the world about your organization, you should do so on its own website or social media. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a page

Can someone help research and create a page for Victor Mochere?

197.232.70.177 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. I would recommend reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article as a good first step. Writing a brand new article can be difficult, even if you are experienced writing for other types of publications, since Wikipedia has a few special rules that you probably don't see much of anywhere else. If you feel that the subject meets our standards for notability, which usually requires sustained coverage in reliable published sources (normally things like magazines, newspapers and books), then you can create a draft using the article wizard and submit it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG ^talk 13:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:How Do You Live?

Hello,

I have created this draft it will be a feature film from Studio Ghibl. I have a question about putting it in mainspace. The film is in production, so could it be published yet? Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Artix Kreiger. Per our specialized notability guidelines for films, unreleased films are presumed to not yet warrants an article, unless they are high profile enough to qualify under our more general notability guidelines, which usually means receiving sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like magazines, newspapers and books. Since Studio Ghibli is a pretty high profile outfit, it may likely have already received enough attention to qualify for an article in mainspace. In fact, looking at news searches it does seem like it's gotten a fair bit of coverage, although much of it may depend on what portion of that coverage is in-depth, rather than routine announcements.

If you're unsure, you may want to consider submitting it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. This can be done by copying and pasting {{AFC submission}} at the top of the draft. GMG ^talk 13:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:NFILM, the guideline that governs the notability of films. As far as future animated films go, it holds that "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." In the meantime, this information can be summarized in Miyazaki's own article, which I see that it already has been. Ravenswing 13:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox question

For an article about two people (Count and Countess de Hoernle) are there two infoboxes, or do they get combined into one?

There are no infoboxes I can find for Philanthropist or Industrialist. (If I’m wrong please point me to them.) Would it be a good idea to create them? deisenbe (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey deisenbe. Infoboxes aren't absolutely required on every article, but can be a helpful way to summarize information for readers. You may want to compare the way the infobox is formatted on the article for the Wright brothers as an example to go by. GMG ^talk 13:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox person is pretty flexible, and it is OK to use two infoboxes in one article where this is appropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the visual editor broken?

I was editing a page then suddenly it cleared the content of the page, when it was supposed to clear a few letters. Then when I refreshed the page it automatically switched to source editing. Is there a problem? UTC: 1:59 PM Itsquietuptown (Talk • Contributions) 14:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Itsquietuptown. If you think you may be experiencing a bug, you may want to consider posting at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Doesn't look like anyone yet has reported similar problems, but it may just be that you're the first with that particular browser or some other technical detail. GMG ^talk 15:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What to do once I have uploaded a pdf file.

Hello, I recently uploaded a pdf file, but I have no idea how to see it in Wikipedia. I do not understand any of this code, and the links are a bit overwhelming. I was attempting to add my Ph.D. research to a link , Maumee Torrent with the pdf file and figures, but I really do not know where to start, or if using a pdf file is the optimal way of contributing. Cordially, Danny M. Vaughn Mapdoctor (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mapdoctor: Sorry, but you might be barking up the wrong tree. Wikipedia does not use original research, and we prefer professionally-published sources. We're also a little picky on citing oneself. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is referenced and would be a significant contribution to the link to Maumee torrent.

Mapdoctor (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get what I'm saying. Where was your essay published? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mapdoctor: - you can not add a link to your own (unpublished) research, nor directly enter your own original research into the article as an edit. It appears that a Jeff G. did find your upload and created a link to it. I reverted that. You wrote above that your essay is referenced. Those references, if published, could be added to the article in support of the facts in the article. David notMD (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list of HQ Trivia moved to bottom of page?

Why did this happen, and how do I fix it? When I view it in source, it appears to be completely fine. The Verified Cactus 100% 14:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usual reason, unterminated table. Cured with this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Hi! I create a page, but this page is like Draft. How can I change this Draft page in the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Renato_Valentim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelobarao123 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marcelobarao123. I have added a banner for our Articles for Creation project, where the draft can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. However, if you do not follow the advice you were previously given regarding the draft, and take steps outlined in our tutorial for writing your first article, the draft is very unlikely to be accepted in its current form, because it includes information about a living person which does not meet our minimum requirements for inline citation. GMG ^talk 16:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Some user have a font or design of their signature at the end of a notice or message. How can I change my Sign. My sign is Zayyam123 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zayyam123. For more information customizing your signature, see Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. It generally requires a little bit of knowledge about how to do the markup for the formatting, or you can do like me, and just takes bits and pieces from other signatures you like, and combine them into your own (because I'm not very good with the formatting) GMG ^talk 15:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about complicated citation format

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Fort_Pillow&diff=829087480&oldid=828971824 properly formatted? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey deisenbe. You should remove the wikilink in the title, around C. C. Washburn, because that messes up the formatting. You may also want to consider using Template:Cite book instead of Template:Cite web, since it lets you add the ISBN for the book, which can be helpful for readers. GMG ^talk 15:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you haven’t answered my question. Let me be more specific. There was a letter by one person of one date, quoted in a book written (not edited) by someone else at a different date. How do I handle the two authors, the two dates, and the two titles? deisenbe (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well deisenbe, Template:Cite book has parameters for citing a chapter in a book, which you might be able to use for the kind of thing you're talking about. You could do something like chapter =Letter by John Doe, original publication date of 1900 and then use the rest of the template for information about the book overall. GMG ^talk 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: notice the on "cite" templates you can add the parameter "|quote" so if the article/book you're citing says "this fact comes from a letter Smith wrote in 1953", you can directly quote that fact in the parameter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled across an advertisement article

Was browsing around articles and searching for information when I found a link to an article that is seemingly completely a nonbiased advertisement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurtured_Heart_Approach

It seems upon some elementary research that the editor is financially tied to the author of the series that the article describes. I was not sure as someone who's never edited Wikipedia before how to report someone abusing the page, and it appears to have been undisturbed for ~8 years. Sorry for the improper channels!

75.132.43.191 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. Thanks for pointing this out. It is very likely that this topic is notable, but the article as it was written was little more than jargon-laden promotional garbage. I have rendered it a stub meanwhile until someone decides to write an actual encyclopedia article there. GMG ^talk 17:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving userpage to userpage

I want to move User:PorkchopGMX2/ttt and User:PorkchopGMX2/ttt/example to my username PorkchopGMX. I use PorkchopGMX2 when i am at school, and it is an alternative username. I use PorkchopGMX as a main username. I created User:PorkchopGMX2/ttt and User:PorkchopGMX2/ttt/example at school. How do i move a userpage to a different username? Is it allowed? Also, it is a wikigame. PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can move pages (via a "More" tab in the default interface) when your account is four days old and has made ten edits. User:PorkchopGMX can do it in five hours. User:PorkchopGMX2 needs eight hours and two more edits. You are allowed to move pages between two accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) since you were not autoconfirmed, I moved the pages for you (to User:PorkchopGMX/ttt and User:PorkchopGMX/ttt/example). While the moving itself is certainly allowed (as a general rule, you can edit anything you want under your own userpages), the content is borderline "abuse of Wikipedia as a web host". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping PorkchopGMX. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i want the page deleted PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PorkchopGMX2. You may request the pages be deleted by pasting {{Db-author}} at the top of each. GMG ^talk 19:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I get written permission from the website I took the info from, can I re publish my article

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I wrote an article on Dr Zoe Svendsen but it was deleted as it infringed copyright as it was taken from a website from Zoe Svendsen. If I contact her and get her written permission can I re write the article, also can it be retrieved from deletion as I spent quite a time with citations etc thank you Columbian Winedot (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Columbian Winedot. You can probably have the draft refunded if the person who owns the copyright follows the instructions at WP:CONSENT. However, most content taken from online is not written in the neutral encyclopedic tone expected on Wikipedia, and content from an official website often doesn't meet our standards for reliability for all but the most comparatively mundane of claims. So while you may technically be able to retrieve the content, you may not be able to use it very much at all to write a draft that would be accepted. GMG ^talk 20:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I will get her permission. The content is quite academic and factual so I would like to retriev e it, can you please advise how I do that.Columbian Winedot (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Columbian Winedot. When the email has been sent, it may take a little while for it to be answered, since there is a bit of a backlog, but once it is you should contact the deleting admin, User:RHaworth, and request that a refund of the draft. (I don't know if he has access to the email system, but if not feel free to ping me also and I should be able to verify.) GMG ^talk 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, most kind Columbian Winedot (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my first article, status? (did I even submit it for review correctly?)

I wrote my first article (User:Romeham/sandbox). I also tried to disclose that I work for the organization that the article is about. I know it's not best practice for me to be the article's author, but I'd heard about long delays when an article suggestion is submitted and wanted to be more timely. I researched and cited the article thoroughly to avoid editorializing.I got pretty confused with the disclosure stuff, and I'm not sure if I successfully submitted the article for review (it's been 3 weeks and nothing seems to have changed with the article, but I'm honestly not sure I'm looking in the right place). How can I check on 1) the article status 2) if I successfully disclosed that I work for the organization? Thanks for any help!Romeham (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Romeham, and welcome to the Teahouse. You draft is not currently submitting for review. The "Submit your draft for review!" button should do the trick. I don't see where you disclosed your conflict of interest, if at all. Please read WP:COI to see how to do so. I would I also like to say that I removed parts of your draft that were copied from an outside source, which is not permitted. Do not be alarmed by the big template at the top, I am just requesting that your first two revisions no longer be visible to the public for copyright reasons. It's not as bad as it sounds, don't worry. :) JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to from Teahouse

I have got this far with the trial, but can't see where it is leading me. Can you tell me whether it will show how to create a new subject page?Robson16 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robson16. Welcome to the Teahouse and congratulations on following "The Wikipedia Adventure". Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks in Wikipedia, but there is some guidance at WP:My first article. You might like to create a draft first where you can work on the article and receive some guidance and help, rather than using main space right away where reviewers will be more critical if you don't include appropriate references. Do ask again here if you need help. Dbfirs 22:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of order reference list

How do I fix and out of order reference list. I made a page years ago and am now adding to it with new references and the number next to the reference does not correspond correctly to the number in the reference list. Enkonis (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enkonis, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to Resurrector but I don't see the mentioned problem. I guess you refer to numbered links like [2] (made by [http://alianzaarkana.org/blog/?p=726&lang=en]) where the number itself is an external link. Those are not references but just external links. "[1]" means it is the first external link on the page with no link text, and so on. They are not shown in the references section unless they are inside reference syntax like <ref>...</ref>, and the numbering is unrelated to the numbering of references. See Help:Referencing for beginners, and see Help:Link#External links for how to add link text to external links instead of an automatic number. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks PrimeHunter. The reference numbers within the body of text do not need to correspond with the reference order and subsequent numbers in the reference list. This I did not understand. Enkonis (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkonis (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enkonis: They are not reference numbers at all as far as the software is concerned. They are just numbered external links and can be added for different purposes. Your purpose was apparently that they should work as references but that is not how Wikipeia makes references. See Help:Referencing for beginners for proper ways to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does new article get posted?

Hi!

I generated an article back in January but it is not yet live and I am having a hard time finding information on the time-frame for article verification (I know I have read about it in the past, but today I am getting lost in the wiki! :)

This is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Scanlan

Thank you!

Leonadance (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that drafts are not automatically reviewed, you need to submit them to WP:AFC. I’ve submitted it for you but be aware that it is only now at the bottom of the list and may take some time to be reviewed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two in one question: gravsite information and children

Greetings. I would like to know if I can include the names of a person's children in an article about them. Also, I understand that findagrave and such are not reliable source,.but if a photo of a gravesite and its location is included on one of those type of sites can I include that information? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usual interpretation of WP:BLPNAME is that we almost never include the names of living children unless the children are notable enough to have their own article (which would require multiple sources specifically about them, not their parents).

The photo of a gravesite would fall under original research, which we don't use. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't someone's tombstone be a primary source? You're saying a photograoh of someone's tombstone doesn't establish what their tombstone says or where it's located? Seems weird. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More that the provenance and accuracy of the photograph can't be verified to our satisfaction. Quite aside from that I doubt that the likes of findagrave.com sends people out to verify that (say) a photo with a tombstone engraved "ROPER" is really that of famed photographer Steve Roper, the copyright status of the photo would in the great majority of cases prevent us from using it. Ravenswing 01:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to grave stones.....zero research is done by the carver. You pay for what you wish to see on your grave stone. I plan to carve my name as Chest Rockwell. See Joan Crawford#Notes for a famous example. That said is the person listed in....Scott Wilson (2016). Resting Places: The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons, 3d ed.....--Moxy (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stucked with Draft

I would like to publish about my company in Wikipedia. But I guess it's saved as Draft. It would be of great help if you can guide me with further steps if any. Kanikacejn (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 845: / Line 845: @@
 ::: More that the provenance and accuracy of the photograph can't be verified to our satisfaction.  Quite aside from that I doubt that the likes of findagrave.com sends people out to verify that (say) a photo with a tombstone engraved "ROPER" is really that of famed photographer [[Steve Roper and Mike Nomad|Steve Roper]], the copyright status of the photo would in the great majority of cases prevent us from using it. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#7F00FF;color:#00FFFF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''']] 01:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 :::When it comes to grave stones.....zero research is done by the carver. You pay for what you wish to see on your grave stone. I plan to carve my name as Chest Rockwell. See [[Joan Crawford#Notes]] for a famous example. That said is the person listed in....{{cite book|author=Scott Wilson|title=Resting Places: The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons, 3d ed.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FOHgDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1|year=2016}}....--[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 01:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
+== Stucked with Draft ==
+I would like to publish about my company in  Wikipedia. But I guess it's saved as Draft.
+It would be of great help if you can guide me with further steps if any.
+[[User:Kanikacejn|Kanikacejn]] ([[User talk:Kanikacejn|talk]]) 01:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)