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
1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243

Neutral Voice

Can someone help me with this Articalthat I have Created I dont understand whats wrong with it thanks God Bless--Amanda.useta (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm having a little trouble writing about an electric boat company - I had an article denied publishing because the tone wasn't neutral enough. Are there any tips you have for me? I've read all the wiki pages about neutrality but still seem to be having some trouble with his article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilicas1 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilicas1: I am guessing that the article in question is User:Ilicas1/sandbox. The very first thing that strikes me is that it has no references at all. The article should be based on summarising what reliable sources have said about the subject, not on an editor's personal knowledge of it. Your first step should be to collect all those sources - books written about this company, newspaper articles that discuss it in depth, etc. Then as you write the article, add a reference to show where each piece of information came from. For a more thorough description, see Your first article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article more carefully, it would also benefit from removing some of the promotional wording. This may be what attracted the "Neutrality" comment, particularly when they are not based on an independent source. Expressions such as "The appearance is of typical Scandinavian design, with clean, simple and functional lines" or "hulls, axes, propellers and rudders that work in symbiosis to combine both speed and distance" sound more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia. Also, there is an inconsistency: in the lead it says it "now currently produces one type of electric boat" but in Vehicle models it "currently produce two boats".

To reiterate my first comment, most of these will probably be resolved when everything in the article is based on published sources.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz:

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. I will be sure to reword the promotional wording, and include all my resources in the citations, and amend the inconsistency. Again really appreciate your help.

@Ilicas1: You're very welcome. If you have questions, come back and ask - we're all working together to build this encyclopedia. By the way, when you post something on a Talk page or a help page like this, it helps if you "sign" it by putting four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your post. This will automatically add your details and the timestamp, as well as sending notifications where necessary. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ilicas1:. I would like to suggest some specific areas you can change. First, you can delete or modify the Appearances section because the content largely involved promotional activities. Also, instead of merely citing the specifications of the boats under the Vehicle models section, you can write about the notable models in prose, focusing on those that gained coverage from independent sources. For instance, there is the case of the eElectric 8000 Smögen Edition, which was cited in this article. The one built in cooperation with the Norra Norr design is also an example. Bloomberg also wrote about the X Shore Electric 8000 during the 2018 Monaco Yacht Show. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Key

I noticed that Collins Key doesn't have a wikipedia page. I would like to help create one, and wanted to make sure a page like his would be acceptable. Please let me know when you have a moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katjones333 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katjones333, and welcome to the Teahouse! This Collins Key? [1][2]. Maybe, but you need more (and preferably even better) sources like that. See WP:GNG, and if you want to give it a go, Wikipedia:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Katjones333. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid have no idea who or what Collins Key is. So, if you can supply some links to independent, Reliable sources that demonstrate clearly that the topic would meet our Notability criteria, then you stand a chance of creating an article on that person or thing, and we can offer some further comments. As you appear never to have edited here before, you might not feel confident yet to do that yourself. But if you were to try (and it's one of the hardest tasks for a new editor to achieve), you should read Wikipedia:Your first article, and perhaps take the interactive tour to help you understand how Wikipedia works. You can find that tour at The Wikipedia Adventure. However, if you would like someone else to create that article, you could suggest it (and supply some useful links) at Wikipedia:Requested articles, noting that we are all volunteers here and that it can take many years before someone decides that this might be a task for them. Does this help? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes Might I remind you of[ Civility I checked your links and in my opinion some youtube sensation is hardly worth an article. That aside how can you state so boldly, as you did above that "I am afraid that you have no idea who or what Collins Key is". On what basis can you make such a remark? Mind reader?Oldperson (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldperson, I'm 99.9% certain that Nick Moyes (who is unfailingly helpful and kind in response to new editors' questions) meant "I am afraid that I have no idea". He typo'd by omitting "I" but he did not type "you have no idea". Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{[ping|Schazjmd|Nick Moyes}}Oops, my bad sincere apologies. Lesson learned. Slow down and reread. I obviously have a problem with comprehension. A form of dyslexia it seems. I am reading things into comments. You are correct about Nick Moyes and his efforts to be helpful. Where is my hair shirt and bullrushes? Oldperson (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldperson Until you posted what you thought it said, I didn't even realize the sentence was missing a word, so I guess I was "reading into it" too. :) Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd Nick Moyes, apparently also mistyped, not realizing how he was coming across. I certainly demonstrated a lack of confidence in my own judgement, when I accepted yours, and you did a turn about faster than the speed of sound. Fact is I am sensitive to any apparent lack of civiity, or an appearance of arrogance on the part of experienced editors and admins and have been called out myself on my first and hopefully only other outburst to a fellow newby After all we are mere humans, we get tired, exasperated with answering the same old questions time and again, but we volunteer and that comes with its own toolkit, obligaitions and disabilities. Cheers and thanks for the wake up.Oldperson (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson and Schazjmd: I hadn't noticed I'd missed 'I' off, either, until I saw the ping. I am sorry if that innocent ommisson subsequently caused you confusion. But no harm done, and useful lessons learned perhaps, including the merit of copying and pasting quotes to ensure no accidental change of meaning? I appreciate Schazjmd springing to my defence. But, Oldperson, I do actually agree with your concerns, and it is incumbent on all experienced editors, not just Teahouse hosts, to be polite and especially welcoming to all new editors here. After all, they each have the potential to evolve into the wise editors of tomorrow. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Article Feedback

I have been working on my first article, Historia Philippicae et Totius Mundi Origines et Terrae Situs and was hoping to receive some feedback before either transferring it to mainspace or sending it to AfC for a formal review.

The article is currently light on content, as much of the sources I seek are only available in hard form, but I believe it should meet the criteria for mainspace as it stands as a start class article. I do intend to expand the article when I get access to the hard documents, but that will not happen for a few months and I don't believe the article needs to linger in draftspace until then.

In particular, I was hoping to receive feedback on whether I should send it through AfC, as well as feedback on the general notability, content, prose and naming of the article as it stands. If you have suggestions on how the article could be expanded, that would also be greatly appreciated - for instance, I have noticed some articles on similar works cover the contents of the work in detail, chapter by chapter, and I am wondering if this would be an appropriate thing to do here, though I am not sure of the "encyclopedic" nature of such an undertaking.

NoCOBOL (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NoCOBOL: I've done some cleanup on the draft; you can see what I did by looking at the diff of my edit in the draft's history. (In particular, you may want to see WP:REFNAME on citing the same source multiple times, and you may want to note the difference between principle and principal.) Looks like a good beginning. When you're ready to submit it, you can either insert the code {{subst:submit}} at the top or move it to mainspace yourself. I don't think that covering "the contents of the work in detail, chapter by chapter" would be a good idea in this case. Deor (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor: Thank you. I thought I had done something horribly wrong when I saw how many bytes you removed, but removing the extraneous references was a good idea - I will read up on WP:REFNAME so that I get it right in the future.

As for principle and principal... WP:OOPS. Thank you for correcting that.

I have, however, restored two elements. First, the item listing the language as Latin and Late Latin. I've provided a source for that claim now, as well as including a section expounding on why this is the case - I might at some later point expand that section to include a discussion of the influences on Trogus and Justin, in particular the question of whether the similarities between Tacitus and Justin are due to Tacitus influencing Justin or Trogus influencing Tacitus.

Second, I've restored a second reference to Watson's translation, as the current one leads to the preface, while the book the reference is referring to is XII. Is there a better way to do this, or are two citations needed in this case?

Anyway, thank you again for your hardwork cleaning that up.

NoCOBOL (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NoCOBOL: Sorry about the Watson ref, but the two refs I combined were identical in the original version (i.e., both specified "Preface"). I think that in this case the two citations are OK. In some cases where many different pages of a source are cited, one can use a citation that doesn't specify a page number and add page numbers in {{rp}} after each ref. One can also use shortened citations after the first one, as, for example, I did in notes 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11 in Thomas Blackburn (entomologist). Deor (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, even if it wasn't the case that the mistake was mine. Thank you for the additional information on citations, I will remember it and use it in the future. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What gives?

I am creating profiles based on media coverage in Zambia. http;//wire.mpelembe.net is currently linked to wikipedia via reuters articles. Everytime I try to create a page on wikipedia I get the same message about lack of of reliable sources. For instance Salma Sky and Petita Mwanza pages are forced into draft when there is a lot media coverage about. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbale04 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, some of the "profiles" you have been submitting are far too short to qualify even as what we call "Stubs", and there is nothing in their texts as written to demonstrate their subjects' Notability.

In the second place, you have not correctly Cited your references, but have instead provided a series of external links. Please read Wikipedia:Citation for beginners. It may be that some of those external links are to appropriate sources that do demonstrate your subjects' notability, but that is not sufficient, you need to paraphrase (and/or include short quotes of) what they say in the article and provide in-line citations to the sources to corroborate what you have written.

In the third place, at least two or three of your citations for each subject need to be to published, independent Reliable sources that discuss the subject at some length, which means at least two or three substantial paragraphs specifically about the subject. Mere mentions in passing or inclusions in lists do not count towards notability. "Independent" means that interviews with the subject, or press releases and other publicity material issued on their behalf, also do not count towards notability, even if published in a reliable source.

Please also note that Wikipedia does not host "profiles", a term which implies a social media site open to self-listing by anyone at all. Instead it is an Encyclopedia that contains articles about subjects sufficiently notable as to merit inclusion. Since local meanings of English words can vary from place to place, I will not make a big issue of this, but you should avoid using the term "profile" on Wikipedia, as it automatically raises suspicion that you are trying to promote the subjects, which is completely opposed to Wikipedia's fundamental aims: please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. I hope you find this advice helpful. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spell, punctuation and grammar check request

Hi,

Created a new article in my user sandbox. Looking for help in English language Spell-check, punctuation, grammar check and corrections. Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bookku. I'm impressed by your sandbox article, and I think it's ready to be submitted for approval. I've made many small changes to punctuation etc. I have one question:

The article contains numerous mentions of the play's author, Rafeeq Mangalassery. Every time, it uses his full name. Is there a reason for this? It would be normal Wikipedia practice to use his full name on first mention, and just use his family name subsequently. I would have changed every instance of "Rafeeq Mangalassery" to "Mangalassery", but I'm not sure how names work in Kerala. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maproom, Thanks for your proactive support and compliments. Also thanks for valuable suggestion regarding naming convention, a leading South Indian daily also seems to have used the same convention. Still I will try to confirm once more and act upon the same. It is very nice of you.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement entry

I have read the Wikipedia entry on Joseph Forer (deceased US civil rights attorney during McCarthy era) and would like to submit a new entry, including corrections of errors and omissions in the current text. I am a DC attorney with access to his papers. How do I submit a replacement entry? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:79 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can either make edits to the article yourself, supporting the content with references to published reliable sources independent of the subject, or you can use the article's talk page to propose changes, again supporting your proposals with those sources. We do not replace an existing article by a new entry, but make changes which are traceable in the article's history. Bear in mind that private papers which have not been published are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia; that would be classed as original research. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OP, You made the same enquiry on the Help desk at 03:06 17 January, to which I posted an answer along the same lines as David Biddulph's at 04:10. Please do not Forum shop in the hope of getting an answer more to your liking as it wastes the time of those of us who answer, all of whom are unpaid volunteers, by causing duplication of effort. (Note that David and I both reside in the UK, and indeed in the same county, so we are both performing this service between midnight and normal working hours.) Instead, pursue a given discussion where it started if you need further clarification. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is, you don't. You are encouraged to make improvements to the existing article, preferably with references to published sources; and to discuss further improvements on its talk page. But if your plan is to write a new article and remove/delete/destroy the current one, it won't work. Maproom (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday reliable sources

I see birthday edits and reversions all over the encyclopedia. Is there not a place that is uniform and acceptable to establish the birthday of a notable person?Eschoryii (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, no. WP:BLP puts high demand on sources, so a good WP:RS is required. Sometimes a primary source from the subject (like twitter or FB) can be sufficent, but context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware also that even reliable sources sometimes make mistakes or are inadvertently misled, so have to be weighed against each other. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted that truth and accuracy DO NOT count in Wikipedia unless referenced but why or where is consensus built on my question of birthdate? The answer "I don't think so" is so hard to accept. Is there a place for editors to learn about dates establishing age? My question can not be the first. Someone told me long ago that IMDb is not reliable. So what else does not count and where can I and others find and learn birthdate rules. Everyone should not have to edit and fix unreliable ages. I read a lot of chains explaining why this or that date is not acceptable. People being angered that their edit is not acceptable has to have a better answer than go find a source, no a reliable source, no a source that the "community" accepts. I am not trying to be difficult but I am sure I am not alone in my frustration on wanting to be able to find guideline on birthdates (let alone death dates). Any better answer out there? Thanks Eschoryii (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eschoryii. Have you read WP:DOB? It seems to cover this topic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoryii (talk • contribs) 5:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Eschoryii, about "what else does not count", Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources could be of help. It mentions Famous Birthdays, Find a Grave etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful. Thanks 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Questions about my article

hey. i tried to publish an article and it was rejected, what do i need to do to get it to be accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by MansaMusaRw (talk • contribs)

Hello MansaMusaRw, according to the deletion log Draft:Economic Policy Research Network was deleted for being unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. If you have a conflict of interest with regard to the subject, that may be impossible for you. —teb728 t c 12:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MansaMusaRw. As is so common with pages deleted for being promotional, the draft you posted was also a copyright violation (of the content here). You cannot post previously written, non-free content anywhere on Wikipedia (outside of fair use of short quotations, marked as such using quote marks [or by setoff], cited to the source of copying using an inline citation). Previously written text can be donated, if a person has the authority to do so, but this is often a waste of time because content written for an organization's website is rarely suitable for pasting here, at least without significant modification.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember, MansaMusaRw, is that in a Wikipedia article about the EPRC, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said by the EPRN, or its employees, members, or associates (including things such as interviews and press releases, where others have published them, but the content comes from the EPRN). Such an article should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the EPRN have chosen to publish about it, in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Twinkle

How do I add Template:uw-subtle1 to Twinkle? I can't seem to find it, and I'm not sure how to add it on the Twinkle preferences page. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anonymuss User. Welcome, and thank you for your question. I'm sorry you've had to wait a couple of days for a reply. I have investigated, and you'll see that I've just successfully left a test warning template on your userpage (feel free to delete it!). So, how to do it? Well, in addition to adding custom welcome messages, you can also add custom warning messages that aren't already available by default. You'll need to open and edit your Twinkle preferences at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences - (which actually modifies your own twinkleoptions.js file). Scroll down to the 'Warn user' section and click 'Edit items' next to 'Custom warning templates to display:'. There, in the 'Template name' section, simply add the template name without curly brackets, (i.e. Template:Uw-subtle1) and click 'Add' and then 'Save changes', and then save the changes to the whole preferences page. I think you can add further templates if you wish. Give it a try - you'd be very welcome to leave a test warning message on my user page if you wish so you can see that it works. It's important that you don't template editors inappropriately, so this'd be a sensible way for you to ensure it functions OK without upsetting anyone. Hope this all makes sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've just realised that the descriptive text that you can add which will show in the drop-down warning list will also appear in the edit summary you leave to a user - so choose with care! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to edit a page i made years ago on a different account

Every time i try to re edit/delete any historical inaccuracies and uncited sources that i made up when i was younger to embellish my family's wikipedia page. My accurate edits are being deleted and anything i removed is being restored please allow me to edit that page to rectify any mistakes i made in september 2012 as the content is quite embarrassing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_de_Burgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismay26 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrismay26: You need to cite some professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that support your claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, the content they are removed is unsourced and seems somewhat fanciful/dubious to me.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: but the content i am trying to remove is unsourced infact the whole page is really

Please note that there is a citation in the bottom of the page: "C. A. Empey, ‘Burgh, William de (d. 1206)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004". ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is used to cite only the lead sentence, and as it is The English Dictionary of Biography article for that one member of the family, is unlikely to contain the more fanciful details about "blood of a slain Saracen king" and coats of arms etc. etc..not even the Nineteenth C version on wikisource does that. [3]. So yeah, the article is pretty much unsourced. I have a feeling it would be notable though- certainly individual members of it were. Curdle (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oops should have gone one back- [4] is the family house. Still none of the other stuff though. Curdle (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that seems to have been copypasted into the Wikipedia article House of Burke the Irish branch of the family. So, unless you wanted to work on the De Burgh article, perhaps just redirect to House of Burke? According to the national biography article, the English branch fell from influence fairly early,after the death of Hubert De Burgh, and the majority of notable members were Irish after that. Curdle (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about WP:AIV

I wanted to ask a question on about WP:AIV...

Can you report users due to their actions on their created pages?

Kudos, TheWinRat (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheWinRat. You can report anyone to AIV for overt vandalism. However, you should review guidance at Wikipedia:Vandalism, since "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and doesn't include most disagreements and disputes. GMG ^talk 17:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article

I've written an article in my Sandbox and it is complete. I added a comment to my Sandbox's Talk page as well. What now? The "Create a new article or upload media" section on the Help page does not say what happens next. I'm stuck. I want my article published. Little help, please! Marktemplin (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marktemplin. There are two ways you can get it into main space. If you are confident that it meets the minimum requirements for a Wikipedia article, you can simply WP:MOVE it - except that you will not have access to that function until your account is autoconfirmed, which will happen once you have made ten edits (and your account is four days old, but it's nearly 3000 days old, so that's not a problem). So far you have made only three edits, so you will need to make another seven, anywhere in English Wikipedia. Alternatively, you can ask for it to be reviewed, by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top. A reviewing editor will get to it in time, and either accept it, and move it to main space, or decline it, and tell you why. You can improve it while it is waiting for review.

I'm quite bemused that you have created what is for the most part a quality article, as your very first edit. Clearly you prepared it outside Wikipedia, but you evidently know how to format references.

I do have some reservations though (which a reviewer would no doubt pick up on). First, most of your references are not independent of the subject. I think there are probably enough references which are independent to establish notability, but generally, if information is available only from non-independent sources, it shouldn't be in the article, unless it is very simple uncontroversial facts like dates and places. Secondly, some of the wording is not neutral. No Wikipedia article should ever describe anything at all in Wikipedia's voice in evaluative terms such as "rich history" or "innovative" (though it could quote an independent source that used such terms); and claims that anything is the "first" or "longest-running" must have been made by a reliable published source wholly independent of the subject.

Some administrative points as well: we do not use "®" in articles. And a number of words and phrases should be wikilinked.

One last point: forgive me if I am overly suspicious, but do you have some connection with the ASL or some of the companies or people mentioned? If so, it is important that you read about conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you put {{subst:submit}} on the top of the draft you can put it through WP:AFC - Articles for Creation. Curdle (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ColinFine. Thank you for the exhaustive explanation! I really appreciate your attention to detail and suggestions about making my first article better. I will definitely make the changes you suggest, particularly in areas where self-published content (mostly on YouTube and a blog, as I recall) is the only support for content and places where language is not in a neutral voice. To your question at the end, I have no affiliation with ASL (as explained in my first comment the Talk page). I made this mention because I read the manual on conflict of interest and others before writing the article. I took care to mention that I am a friend of the CEO, who happens to live in my neighborhood, frequents the cafe we both like and knows that I am a good writer (thank you for mentioning to that effect, by the way). I am not paid for my efforts and am not a member of the league. I will work on making additional edits, thank you for the reminder. Curdle, thank you for chiming in. Marktemplin (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name not showing up on Wikipedia search

I have already created a page and have uploaded the information, but still the name is not showing in Wikipedia search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakash Ghoshal (AG) (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not written an article. You have written an unreferenced draft, and put inappropriate information on your user page. The purpose of a userpage can be seen at WP:user pages, and see also the advice against trying to write an autobiography. David Biddulph (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring vandalism to article

The article Roseburg, Oregon has been vandalized a few times recently by users 47.40.103.31 and MSwartz123. User:Oshwah and I User:DaKine have reverted. I suspect a little more experienced help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. DaKine (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a further silly edit and put a warning on the talk page of Mswartz123 who will be blocked if they continue. Thank you for bringing the problem to our attention. You are welcome to issue similar warnings in cases of obvious repeated vandalism. Dbfirs 23:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: you didn't sign your warning ;) –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thank you. I have done so now. Dbfirs 16:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finding draft

how do I access a draft I worked on earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish are good (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find your contributions at Special:Contributions/Fish are good. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Acapantzingo,_Cuernavaca#cite_note-auto-2

I've written my first article and have submitted it for publication. After doing that, I was told that was told that I should not include bare links, so I've started to rewrite the citations.

This morning I rewrote a citation and followed it to the original page. I rewrote it, and suddenly it comes up "404 not found." (This is citation #2 on the page). Obviously, the bare link was better than nothing.

I should mention that the citation was to a government page, and there has been an election and a new government since the page was written and posted. However, I don't think the new mayor took the page down in the one hour since I last checked it. A Google search shows the page, but when I clicked on it, I got another 404 note.

Where do I go from here?

Michael E Nolan (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Michael E Nolan[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Michael E Nolan. Your edit didn't change the URL you used, so it can't be responsible for the 404 error you're seeing. You can see the previous revision of the page here, and if you click on the link you get the same error. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find a Google cache for it – tener mala suerte. Though I think it's a false-positive, since it has the same title, does this page possibly contain the same content?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, Thanks for the quick responses, although I'm still unsure about what to do. The newspaper article has much of the same information as the article I cited, although there are small but crucial differences. I can use the article you found to reference the paragraph in general; so do I take out the dud? Do I have to cut out the information that cannot be substantiated?Michael E Nolan (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Michael E Nolan[reply]

So long as a source supported a statement at the time it was checked, it is usually OK to retain the material, Michael E Nolan. However, it's good practice to try to find an archive version of the source or an alternative source, so that readers can verify the information. Is this the page you saw? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I believe that is an earlier version of what I saw before since it is dated 2013-2015 and is slightly different. Specifically, this article makes a vague reference to settlers 1500 years ago; the other one mentions that but more specifically points to an 800-year old pyramid. This version of the article is almost identical to the newspaper article you pointed me to, which as I recall was the reason I did not initially reference the newspaper.Michael E Nolan (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Michael E Nolan[reply]

Where can one discuss obtaining a consensus on a subject?

I checked Wikipedia:ConsensusProject and talk pages. My question is not appropriate there. So where? It arises out of a problem with the Emilia Clarke dust up over how to write her birth and location. Currently London, UK. The United Kingdom did not exist until May 1, 1707 and it currently includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island. Many place names are repeated throughout the UK, take New Castle, England and New Castle Northern Ireland. If I were to simply say She was born in New Castle, UK what would I be talking about? How about saying someone was born in Paris, USA. Well there are many towns in America named Paris,Ilike Indiana, Illinois, Idaho, etc, so London, UK is not accurate, whereas London, England, UK is. To complicate things more there is the matter of Great Britain which is the island of England, Scotland and Wales. and then there are the British Overseas Territories not to mention the USA has it's ownOverseas Territories. There is even a San Juan, Puerto Rico and a San Juan,Washington State. My preference is to ignore the larger political entities and be more specific, for instance London, England,UK San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA, San Juan Island, USA. Opinions on an appropriate discussion board?01:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs)

Normally I think you would consult the Manual of Style WP:MOS, and discuss on the talkpage of the article... WP:UKPLACE may help. Curdle (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: Talk:Ernest_Shackleton#RfC:_Should_birthplace_in_infobox_be_listed_simply_as_Ireland? may interest you. Please sign your comments with the four tildes (~~~~) so we know who you are. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TimTempletonThank you. As you know. I do know to sign my posts with tildes. I just get carried away and have an excuse "Sometimers" disease. :)Oldperson (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about my Wikipedia page

Hello, Several people whom I do not know wrote a Wikipedia page about me Lisa Collier Cool in 2013 without my knowledge with mostly accurate information from published sources. In 2018, I noticed that the page incorrectly listed me as the author of a book I had not written, so I deleted that book. This year, I added a link to the page of a doctor I cowrote a book with 5 years ago. Other than those very minor edits, more than 98% of the material on the page about me has been written or edited by people who have no connection of any kind with me, as can be confirmed by reviewing the edit history.

Now the page is incorrectly listed as "autobiography." If it was improper to make any edits to the page about me, I apologize and someone else can remove the link to my book coauthor's page if you feel that is necessary. I will not make any further edits to the page. Thank you!

Lisa Collier Cool— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwcollier (talk • contribs) 4:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lwcollier. Welcome to the Teahouse. It's probably best if you think about the article as "an Wikipedia article written about you" instead of "my page" because the latter might be mistaken for some kind of claim of ownership. Since a Wikipedia article can technically be edited by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime, no one single person "owns" the article so to speak, and disagreements over article content, etc. are expected to be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus. A Wikipedia article can be created by anyone about any subject as long as the subject is deemed to be notable enough by Wikipedia's standards to support a stand-alone article; moreover, permission of the subject is not really required for an article to be written. My guess is that the creator of the article (Visviva) felt that you satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and decided to write the article. Most likely Visviva created the article in good faith and probably was just trying to reflect what reliable sources were saying about you.

Since you're the subject of the article, you are considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to anything written about you on Wikipedia, and should refrain from directly editing it except in some certain cases. The same goes for any family members, friends, employees, or other representatives, etc. acting per your instructions or on your behalf. As the subject of the article, you really don't have any final editorial control of article content and are going to be expected to edit according to relevent Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well as Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. This doesn't mean you're without recourse if you notice any problems with the article. As explained in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself, there are ways for you to request assistance from other editors to correct any inacuracies you might find in the article, and in some cases you can even fix things yourself per WP:COIADVICE.

Another editor (Jmertel23) added some more information about conflict-of-interest editing to your user talk page which contains links to some of the things/pages I've mentioned above. You'll be able to find more detailed information about all of this on those pages. Jmertel23 is also the editor who added {{Autobiography}} to the article. I'm going to remove the tag since I don't think you're attempting to write an autobiography, but you should use the article talk to propose future changes to the article (except in the cases referred to above in COIADVICE). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marchjuly (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)lwcollierLwcollier (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Text recovery question from deleted user page

Good morning / evening Wiki Team,

I'm asking for some help recovering the text of an old user page. It's either under xbreadfanx or stanton429. The subject is Douglas Gene Hoffman. I'm not sure if an archived version of the page is available, but even plain text would be fantastic.

Tried using the internet wayback machine to see if it was archived, but I don't think it's there. (I'm also very novice using that)

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

-DGH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8600:D11:D52D:9086:2A1:6B0E (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been a user stanton429, but you probable mean stanton478; see User talk:Stanton478. User:Xbreadfanx/Douglas Gene Hoffman was the file which was deleted at the user's request, and subsequently replaced with an almost empty page. - --David Biddulph (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fantastic help, thank you! You are correct, it was 478. I believe it was deleted in 2017, based on the edits.

Is there a way to view the old page, archive, or even the text? I can't seem to find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8600:D11:D52D:9086:2A1:6B0E (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was deleted on 11 April 2017, according to the deletion log. It would need an admin to recover it. The admin who deleted it was User:Fayenatic london. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the old history of that page, and also a later version at User:Stanton478. (I apparently deleted them when I was following up backlinks to a deleted category, following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_27#Category:Recipients_of_the_Bronze_Star_Medal.) I did leave a note at User talk:Stanton478. – Fayenatic London 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbook skin, dark theme

You know how YouTube has a dark theme and you can do the same with Mac setting a Dark Theme, is there a Dark theme, black background, white text theme for Wikipedia at all? Govvy (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one but you can turn on "Use a black background with green text"in the Gadgets section of your preferences if you want something dark

That said, with some CSS skills, you should be able to edit your common.css to change the colors accordingly. Regards So Why 15:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Is there a wiki doc showing each pane? As to identify which elements I can manage? Govvy (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I really don't know. However, Chrome and Firefox have developer tools you can open with F12 which you can use to identify the relevant code. That's how I do it when I try to change something in my css file. Regards So Why 16:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, You can use mw:Skin:Vector-DarkCSS (works quite well for me) and per m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Results, the WMF will be developing a dark theme this year. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that idea of the Night (dark) theme sounds cool, shall have a look vector code, cheers Galobtter, Govvy (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AE - 1932 American Politics

I was hoping someone could let me know why AE so often bans people from post-1932 American politics? Why was this taken as a year? Is it fixed date or is it a certain amount of time in the past? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference, an example of such a block is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Snooganssnoogans.

The remedy is specified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff), though it does not say why that date was chosen. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear and Gronk Oz: The (public) discussion among arbitrators leading to the cut-off being that is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Proposed decision; IIRC the general thinking was that the current political landscape/partisan boundaries of the United States vaguely began with the New Deal (see also Fifth Party System). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter and Gronk Oz: - thanks for the link to the discussion. Reading through it, it does seem as if it was selected as an intermediate point that covered the vast majority of edits of individuals in that particular case, primarily Ubikwit's. This does mean we've allowed one case to act as a precedent for what we should use for almost all US/US politics TBANs, even though the majority of disruptive edits may fall into a vastly smaller subset, giving us inappropriately wide TBANs. Seems to be a case of "Hard cases make bad law". Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New entries

Relying on publications may not be the ultimate wisdom. In a particular (german) case I had endless discussions due to the fact that Wikipedia would rely only on published sources, and to those rather blindly, but not on "common sense". I realize that taking what has been written may be easier than thinking, arguing, investigating, even judging oneself. But in this age of fakes and of articles that nearly always have a bias and like to emotionalize the readers, cool personal judgement of the reviewers might be needed.
In the present case I wondered why I didn’t know what this thing was that I saw advertized on TV (on a harmless Bollywood channel, Zee one), and that "guaranteed orgasms". So I googled this womanizer: Lots of promotions, ads etc.. But Wikipedia had nothing on this subject, neither the German nor the US version. So I thought, maybe it’s too touchy a subject. Turns out "vibrator" is explained at lenght and without restraint. Now if you look at newspapers etc. these sex toys aren’t featured ("covered") as often as, say, cooking recipes.
I would have liked to ask: Is womanizer on Wikipedia’s index, taboo? But then I tried to write an entry, I took time, produced a very factual short explanation, and still: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." What do you expect in a case like this? Or is it really better, not to mention the device? – In short: Please rely more on your own judgement, if something is important to know. This is a lexicon for the public, for those who want to know (quickly) what’s what, not a scientific, proof-fast thesis. And let us have a quick way to check if there is a chance for a specific entry. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fritz Jörn. Almost all Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, and very occasionally parts of it change, as people make proposals and persuade enough other editors that the consensus changes. You are welcome to try to change this policy: the place to propose it is at WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing how company name appears

I need to change our heading that appears on Wikipedia. Currently it says Ty Inc. I want it to just say Ty so when people search on Google they just see Ty and not Ty Inc. When I press edit I cannot change the very top of the page where it reads Ty Inc.

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceyoutoo (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked & answered at WP:Help desk#Changing page name. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to New editor

Hello again. I'm writing concerning the page Laurence T. Maloney. That's me.

I am proposing a draft version Draft:Laurence T. Maloney of an update to the page that also removes material that other editors have suggested removing. The page lists honors and awards with links to the corresponding wiki page for each honor or award. E.g. The "Guggenheim Fellowship" links to the "Guggenheim Fellowship" wiki page for Guggenheim Fellowship which links to lists of all past Fellows by year. You can find me under 2015 verifying that I am a Guggenheim Fellow. The "Troland Research Award" links to the page "Troland Research Awards" that also list past winners including me.

AM I doing this correctly? Should I also include external links ....?

Notability: I satisfy Criterion 2 in WP:NPROF because I have a Guggenheim fellowship. You might consider making the Troland Award of the NAS and the Humboldt Research Award automatic qualifiers under WP:NPROF. The Troland Award is one per year for psychologists under age 40 and the Humboldt is across all of science.

L — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltmaloneynyu (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As was said in the review of the draft, the draft will not be accepted because the article already exists. As was said in the reply to your earlier question as linked from the section heading, the place to propose changes is on the talk page of the article. I have turned your mention of the titles of the article and draft into wikilinks, & corrected your typo in mentioning the name of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing search box

A new editor I'm working with has a user page but her task bar doesn't have a search box. She's refreshed her page, but can't get the search box and all the tabs on that line are missing. Thanks in advance for your help. CatonMA2 (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CatonMA2. I have not seen this problem before; would it be possible for you to get a screenshot or something? If you can't that's fine; some other details that would be helpful to know to figure out what's going on are what device she's on and whether she's on mobile view or desktop view (you can switch between the two views by scrolling to the very bottom of any page, past the actual content of the page). Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add a .pdf file of a document I would like to use as a reference in an article?

If I own a .pdf file that is of a document that relates to an article, is there a way to add it as a reference? I also know where the file is located on archive.org. Would it be better to just reference a link to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by P4i2p0e (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P4i2p0e and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't add pdf files to an article, but to use them as a reference, just link to the archive where they are stored. To be a WP:Reliable source, the pdf should be published by a known publisher rather than just stored on a private website. Dbfirs 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you can upload a pdf file (if it is free-licensed) in order to display it on a page. But an uploaded file (or any other content on Wikipedia) is not a reliable source for a reference. —teb728 t c 23:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just link to the archive.org item (or any other place the document is already stored online). (By the way, there's no way of knowing whether such a "document" would constitute a reliable source for whatever information you intend to use it for, because you haven't specified what it is or what it concerns.) Softlavender (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized Pages

Hello! Does anyone know where some of the more vandalized pages are? I'd like to learn to spot vandalism quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage risen (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sage risen, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, there is no page listing the most vandalized pages (this one is inactive), though there are other ways to spot and revert vandalism quickly. Something that myself and many other editors do is WP:Recent changes patrol, in which we monitor the log of recent edits and potentially problematic ones can be highlighted using filters (e.g. likely problematic, very likely problematic) which may be configured in Special:Preferences or in the top menu of Special:RecentChanges. From there, it is relatively straightforward to check highlighted edits and undo/revert them if they are indeed vandalism. Once you are autoconfirmed (you already have more than 10 edits but will need to wait 4 days), you may also familiarize yourself with WP:Twinkle and its functions that make certain tasks easier. For a more thorough learning experience in this field, you may also be interested in the WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy, a training program for newer users interested in fighting vandalism. A new vandal fighter is always great to have! ComplexRational (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about commons and translation

I have been working on the Army of the Interior article and have found an useful organisation graph image on the fusion and name changes of this French army in the French Wikipedia article, and have added it on the English Wikipedia version of the article, but its text is in French. I now have a translated file, but I am confused about what course to follow to get it uploaded, whether it is necessary, and whether I am allowed to do such thing by guidelines and license, as well as how to properly attribute in this case. Sadenar40000 (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sadenar40000, welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry you've had to wait some time for a reply. My advice (for what little that may be worth) is to upload the translated file to Commons, noting that it is derived from this file which itself was uploaded from fr.wiki, and should be credited to Papier K who originally uploaded it under a CC-BY-SA 2.5 licence. Had I changed the appearance/design of the file so that it was more my own work, I would still have felt it appropriate to attribute it to Papier K. Please don't take this a definitive answer; others here might do differently. It'll be interesting to see. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issue with a biased Editor

An Editor, Grayfell, has been overly hostile, insulting, belittling, and inappropriately unprofessional toward me personally. In the antagonizing and baiting posts to my Talk page, he has admitted to being biased toward me and other like me. I have attempted to be civil with him but he spins my statements and obviously is seeking a reason to block me from the system, as he has threatened several times.

I am sincerely trying to follow the advice found on Wikipedia:Civility but Grayfell is just not interested. I am seeking advice here, if I understand the procedure correctly, before asking for Administrative help. Thank you.Jay Bestille (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's you. You are a recent new (PAID AND COI) editor, you are creating a lot of new articles, you've committed many of the common new editors' errors - promotional content, copyright violation, weak referencing, drafts that will be failed, by-passing AfC, articles on topics - mostly living people - that likely fail notability, and all-in-all creating a high level of nuisance monitoring for other editors. Draft:Remote Dielectric Sensing is a perfect example of you having no idea whatsoever about what belongs and does not belong in a medical/health article. Grayfell is not hampered by an excess of tact, but I see nothing unprofessional in the admonitions to you to get it right. David notMD (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: You'll have to find a different example. That draft was a copyright violation – a complex, intertwined one that cadged from multiple sources and used close paraphrasing and I have deleted it accordingly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for JB - who wrote it as PAID - it remains an example of failure of competence. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mention using the signature name

If someone used my signature to mention me do I get a notification? In other words which one of these replies I would get notifications from? @SharabSalam: or @شرعب السلام: ...Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@شرعب السلام: As far as I know, it has to be your actual username, like this. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: Not like this. (So you should only have got one ping). – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea I only notification for the first one. Thank you so much for the help.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SharabSalam. You will only receive a notification if the person who mentions you by linking your username signs their post – and then saves with both the mention of you and their signature included in the same save. In other words, if a person mentions you, but forgets to sign, and then tries to fix it in a subsequent edit by adding their missing signature to the original post, that will not result in a notification. See Help:Fixing failed pings. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding discussions on talk pages

I have recently posted on an article talk page about an issue which is not really specific to that one article (the article is just one example) and wondered if there's a way of drawing in a few experienced editors to participate? Else the discussion just remains confined to that one page and editors who happen to be watching it and notice and are interested... It's here: Talk:Immigration#Size of article, and Immigration and crime section. Or is there a better place to post such a discussion? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laterthanyouthink, if you check near the top of that talkpage, you see links to a number of wikiprojects. One/some of their talkpages may have interested editors, consider posting something like "I started a discussion about X at Talk:Immigration#Size_of_article,_and_Immigration_and_crime_section, your input is welcome." Enjoy yourself! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you - that is a good suggestion. I'll give it a try. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dennis Scholl

Hey everyone,

I have already successfully published an article on the German Wikipedia, which was quite fun.

I've now translated the article into English and adapted it to the required standards, but I'm not sure if I did the right thing. The article is still saved as a "draft". I'm not sure if I even released it for review? This is the article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dennis_Scholl Maybe one of you can help me, that would be great. Cordially --Freidaycat (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Freidaycat. You can submit the draft for review by inserting {{subst:submit}} (with the curly brackets) at the top. You are not obliged to do this - you could simply move the draft to main space, but if you are not confident, I recommend submitting it for review.

Please note that if you made substantial use of the text of the German article (as is implied by "translated") you must attribute the source, or that will be a copyright infringement. (This is true even if you originally wrote the German text, because you irrevocably licensed it under CC-BY-SA, which requires attribution). Please see WP:Translation#How to translate. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can i edit in a page?

Dear Tea House Good Morning

How can i edit in a page? Advice me in details.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masroor Chaudhary, and welcome to the Teahouse. Start with Help:Editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider the advice you were given here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_877#Maghfoor_Ahmad_Ajazi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masroor Chaudhary As you have been told before, the way that you edit a page is that when you add something to a page, you must provide a reference to a reliable source. Also when you are reverted, you must not continually add the same thing but discuss your change on the article talk page. —teb728 t c 12:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, Masroor Chaudhary, separate from the question of sources is the question of whether or not information is encyclopaedic. One of the editors who have reversed the edit you have applied nine times has pointed out that the identity of the subject's brother-in-law does not appear to be a significant addition to an article about Ajazi. If you still think that for some reason that information is important to the article, the only way for you to do it is to open a discussion on Talk:Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi explaining why it is important, and convince other editors. (You probably should notify all four of the editors who reverted you). Trying to reapply your edit without first reaching consensus is likely to get you blocked for disruptive editing. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having Trouble writing about an ROBLOX subway car , P-3.

I got declined because it isnt a ´good topic ´and I want to be accepted because it was my first article — Preceding unsigned comment added by R38R32R10MTAOTT (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R38R32R10MTAOTT and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we can't just accept any article or anyone's first article; the majority of drafts that are submitted get declined or rejected. All topics on Wikipedia must meet certain notability guidelines. In most cases, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Another important thing to remember when creating and editing Wikipedia articles is verifiability. All material must be supported by a reliable source; original research isn't allowed. In this case, your draft didn't have any sources so we could not prove notability or verifiability. To be a bit blunt, this particular article is unlikely to merit a standalone article; at most it might could have a brief mention at Roblox. On Wikipedia, not every single topic and sub-topic is documented on its own page; the only topics that articles should be created for are ones which we can write a substantial amount of content about from sources that are reliable and independent of the article's subject. I hope this helps you out a bit and please do not get discouraged; creating an article that is accepted is a very hard thing to do. Feel free to reach out here again if you have any more questions.

Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If an image no longer exists, can I assume that it has been removed due to a copyright violation?

Earlier today, an image of the new 2020 Supra was available. However, now there is simply a red link in its place. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I viewed the talk page of the user who uploaded the file and my assumption was correct. However, I am still curious about the criteria for deleting an image. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syntaxlord. Common bases for deletion will be through the speedy deletion grounds found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files, or you can peruse file deletion discussions held at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. As to your question, the assumption would often not be correct or not quite correct (many times image deletions are copyright related, but the reason is not because the page was a copyright violation), and there's no need to assume because you can find out the reason any file was deleted more directly than, as you did here, going to the user's talk page to look for a warning related to the image. For local files, clicking on the red link will then take you to a page showing you its deletion log entry. Try it: here's the same red link you saw earlier today: File:2020-Toyota-Supra-9.jpg, click on it and you should see its deletion log entry.

If there's no red link to click on, you can paste the name of the file into the search field and the resulting page will provide to you a red link you can click on next to "You may create the page..." You can also copy the name of the file and paste it directly into Special:Log/delete. Of course, many files we use here are from the Commons. You can access the deletion log there also by going to Special:Log/delete while at that site. Commons' speedy deletion bases are at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, and their deletion discussion forum can be accessed through Commons:Deletion requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the image, but if it was a copy of Toyota's publicity shots then Toyota own the copyright. If someone took the photograph themselves (and haven't sold the copyright), then they can upload it to Commons as their own work. Dbfirs 17:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a new article?

I just joined and found out there is no page for a book I've read recently. it's far from well known, but i would love to add it to the information available here. But I am so confused. any help will be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella1366613 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bella1366613. I always think that new users are better off spending some time learning the ropes through regular editing to existing articles until taking the plunge in creating a new article – probably the hardest task for a new user to start with. In any event, I would suggest taking a slow and careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial before editing, taking breaks to read the various major policies and guidelines it links to in new tabs, in order to get your sea legs. After that, read Wikipedia:Your first article, and, given the nature of the article you are thinking of creating: Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Books.

One thing to keep in mind is that in order to create an article on any topic, there must exist reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in some substantive detail (not just mere mentions) that you can cite in a transparent manner to verify the content and demonstrate notability. Search for those types of sources and write based on what they say without copying the words used, citing them as you go; don't try to write an article if you can't find those sources in existence. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Tea house team,

I'am a Brazilian journalist specialized in writing about Latin American fine-artists and visual artist. I recently tried to write an article about an artist that is receiving a good amount of international attention and is very known in Brazil, but my article was tagged as P.R. I would love to hear your thoughts and feedbacks on why this happened as I tried to be very neutral on my writing. I'm planning on writing more articles about latin american artists, but since it requires me a lot of time to gather references, books, magazines and newspapers, I would prefer to know what have I done wrong and if you have any thoughts on how I Could fix this. I did read the 5 pillars and the recommendations and I honestly though this article followed it.

This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gustavo_Chams

Please let me know. Thank you, Mirela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirella Silva (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The critique looks like a translation of a copyright article. Is it intended to be a quote? 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)User:Dbfirs|Dbfirs]]

Hi User:Dbfirs Yes, it is intended to be a quote.

See Wikipedia:Quotations. Dbfirs 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mirella Silva. I salute you for wanting to fill a gap in our coverage.

It is hard to determine how reliable the sources are, since you have not generally named the publication; but I am not hopeful. As far as I can tell the first citation simply credits Chams with the pictures in the article: this is at best a primary source. The GGN reference appears to be an interview, so it is not dependent. I didn't examing them past there, but the question you need to ask before writing an article is, What have people unconnected with the subject chosen to write about the subject, and been published in reliable places? That is what almost the whole of the article should be based on.

As to the formatting: the important bit of a reference is the bibliographic information that enables a reader to see where it is from, and to obtain it if required (eg through a major library): the link is a mere convenience. I recommend using citation templates, though they are not compulsory; but in any case, please look at WP:REFB.

In my view there is a problem not so much with advertising, as with the tone: it is appropriate to a magazine article, not an encyclopaedia. A Wikipedia should not use judgmental words like "notoriety" unless it is quoting an independent reliable source. The tense is inappropriate in "he would sign his first fashion cover. Which would later grant him access to work with Brazilian local celebrities". This "future in the past" is used in magazine articles, and prmotional sites, to establish a chatty, story-telling feel; but in an encyclopaedia article it would be better in the past: "He became a photographer, and in 20xx produced his first fashion cover, for YYY magazine. (If you don't tell us the year and which magazine, why is this even in the article?)

"The common thread that characterizes Gustavo's work is a sinuous homogeneity that explores the most profound aesthetic of human essence" is either advertising puff, or (if it means anything) original research: you can directly quote a reliable independent source that says this, but it does not belong in an article in Wikipedia's voice. (I've just realised that that is what Dbfirs' question was about). --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Dbfirs I have updated it following the requested suggestions. (also added another references) any other thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirella Silva (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Violates copyrights

114.31.115.138/ns1.rtat.net 216.218.228.119/ns2.rtat.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roufique07 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roufique07 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear about what you're trying to say and what help you need. Perhaps you could elaborate further?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rtat.net seems to be a Github project created by Roufique07: no idea what it is. They have put a couple of links to it on Talk:Public domain for no obvious reason. They have previously put links to it, and to a travel company, on a number of other pages. They appear to be here to promote something, and had better stop, or they will get blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write an updated English version of a Swedish article

There is an article in the sv.wikipedia (Swedish, right?) I would like to update and add to the English wikipedia. The Swedish version is at https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slator_Lake. About a month ago I searched for Slator Lake and was taken to the Swedish page. That search now fails.

Anyway, can I just start an English article with the same name as a Swedish article, or do I need permission?

Thanks brian.slator Brian.slator (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brian.slator. No, you don't need permission; but if you create the article by translating the Swedish, then you must credit if (see Translation. I suggest treating it as a new article in English, even if you do translate it, because the article in the Swedish Wikipedia may not be appropriate as it stands: different Wikipedias sometimes have different rules, and in any case, the existence of an article in a Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that it is a satisfactory article (we have many substandard ones on enwiki, unfortunately). I suggest reding your first article as well, and creating a draft with the WP:AFC process. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian.slator: You may wonder why the Swedish Wikipedia but not the English has an article about a small Canadian lake. Millions of Swedish articles were created by Lsjbot, an automated Wikipedia article-creating program by a Swedish editor. The article has never been edited by a human. The English Wikipedia has different policies and far less bot creations. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mario Fever theme in Puyo Puyo Tetris

According to ShiroBrawl, the fever theme was also used on Puyopuyo Tetris, even though Sega owns Nintendo's intellectual properties/licensed rights. I DON'T KNOW WHY IF SEGA DID ON PURPOSE? ACQ322Acuity (answer me) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove a photo

I tried to add a photo to a page, however, instead it was created as a solo link. I cannot find an undo, remove, delete button.. Help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by REA79 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REA79, I added the image for you WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi REA79. I'm not clear on what you are seeking. Can you please advise whether you are okay with the deletion of this image file? If so, I will delete it under CSD G7. If not, and what you were seeking was help with adding it to Michael Andrew Arntfield as WelpThatWorked did, please note that I have removed it from there, and marked it for deletion (see the message at your talk page). As I stated in my edit summary accompanying tagging it for deletion under CSD F11: "The mere fact fact it is a "publicity photo" does not imply it is in the public domain, and you have not provided the actual source you got this from, so no way to check whether the source actually provides a release into the public domain or licenses it as such (a TinEye search was not frutiful)". It may be that it is, in fact, in the public domain, but the information you provided at the image page was insufficent to check and implied a possible misunderstanding of what makes something public domain. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My First Denial

How can I get my draft to be accepted despite the fact there arent enough sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cwpom: I will assume the article in question is Draft:Chaleb Pommells. The first thing to do is to read the comments the reviewer (SamHolt6) left when it was declined. There were two main problems: the article does not establish that the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term), and the tone of the article reads more like an advertisement. Read through the links provided by the reviewer to understand these issues, and if you have specific questions about how to address them after that then please come back here are ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: Can you define what specifically makes it seem like an ad because the intention is to be a bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one thing that makes the draft seem like an ad is that it talks about a 14-year-old middle-schooler's "career." In four years he may be eligible to run for the legislature; if he is elected then, it will be time to start talking about a career. —teb728 t c 05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwpom: In answer to your original question, you can't get a draft accepted without references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. What references your draft has provide none of that: Neither the Teen Council page, the legislature page, nor even his company page even mentions him. The Pines Telegram page only gives him bylines, and his tweet only mentions him as the tweeter. So there is no indication at all that he is notable enough for an article. —teb728 t c 04:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope what I have written above does not come across as harsh, Cwpom, but I don’t want you wasting your effort on something that is not going to be accepted. It is very rare but not impossible for a teenager to become notable enough for an encyclopedia article. (Malala Yousafzai became notable at 15 as a result of her attempted assassination and David Hogg at 17 as a result of his activism following the MSD shooting.) Wikipedia is looking for the kind of subjects that they write whole articles about in newspapers and magazines. Have The Miami Herald or the Sun-Sentinel written articles about Chaleb? (They certainly have written about Malala and David.)

Your draft was nicely written for a first article: I hope you will accept that our standard of acceptance is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and devote your talents to such subjects. —teb728 t c 09:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Https and Http

Hello. I have been seeing a lot of online references that use insecure http. So I was wondering if it's okay to edit the links from http to https. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SharabSalam. https is preferred per Help:Link#http: and https:. Check that it works before changing. Some sites only allow http. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--SharabSalam (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello

let me know exact perpose of this page..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umeshkumar9540 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umeshkumar9540: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for new users to ask questions about editing or using Wikipedia. If you ever have a question about using Wikipedia, please ask it just as you asked this question. You may be interested in using the new user tutorial(click those words to get there) to help you learn about Wikipedia. Again, welcome. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you put "Aaradhya Enterprises, karad. FMCG Distributor firm in karad city." on your User page. The purpose of a User page is to explain a bit about yourself and your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. It is not a social media page for you or your business. See WP:User pages. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where should i upload my images to?

(R38R32R10MTAOTT (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Please see this help guide for more information. I will also post some info on your talk page. Can you provide us with more context? RhinosF1 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Wizard may be what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on administrative reverts of good edits (based on behavior) at World Suicide Prevention Day

You may be interested in this RfC. Or you may be not. 149.254.248.29 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Formatting

Hello, I have a question that I've been wanting to ask for a while regarding citations:
Is it required to have the access date if it is the same as the date the article was published?
Syntaxlord (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wise to do so, as that confirms which date the ref has been confirmed as supporting the text. The access date gives a good guide as to where to look for an archive version if necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know if my sources are sufficient?

Dear all,

I created an article about an Austrian physician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harald_Stossier). When I submitted the draft for review it was declined with the note: "I'm inclined to think notable but sourcing needs to be improved vastly."

Since all statements are referenced by at least one source, and in my opinion all sources are reliable according to the wiki guidelines my question would be: Do I need to add more sources, or are the included sources questionable?

Thanks for the help!