Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 682

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 675

←

Archive 680

What to do about an IP users questionable edits?

I just got started recently and did my very first edit right here. An IP user has now added multiple sources. They are in Italian, which I don´t speak. One of them is a website with "antifacisme" in it and I don´t think it´s neutral/scientific. One appears to be a college lecture script.

Is it possible to communicate with him/her even though they don´t have an account? Should we just undo their edits?

Murky111 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Murky111: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be in English as long as they are reliable sources and verifiable. If you think they are not reliable and want to discuss it with the user, you can either post to their user talk page(IPs have those too), which you can access by going to the article's edit history and clicking the "talk" link next to their IP address. You can also just undo them if you wish, though I would pair that with posting to the article talk page as well to give an explanation. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I did that, thanks for the answer!

Murky111 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Murky111: I just want to note that although the URL in this edit includes "antifascismo" (antifascim), it brings one to a piece titled I professori che dissero "NO" al Duce (the teachers who said no to the Duce), which seems quite relevant to an article about "Military history of Italy during World War II". It may be that the site is related to modern-day organizations such as Antifaschistische Aktion, who are bound to be WP:POV sources, but you cannot say that from the URL only. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do my edits get removed?

I want to add a line that indicates how well the song "You Make Me Wanna..." by Usher was received by music critics, but it gets removed. I don't know the reason for this because an introduction line is very necessary in the "Critical Reception" header and also makes things very clear.ItAin'tDamian (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello ItAin'tDamian. It looks as if you've been editing You Make Me Wanna... as an IP (Special:Contributions/82.217.67.186). I'd start by asking the editor who reverted your edit on the talk page of the article at Talk:You_Make_Me_Wanna.... Continuously making and reverting the same edit is edit warring. Instead, use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, got reverted, and now you need to discuss. Good luck, Mduvekot (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to call a Wikipedia "authority" to resolve an edit conflict if editors do not reach a consensus?

Like an admin? The Verified Cactus 100% 21:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello VerifiedCactus, If you need help from an admin, you can add this template to your talk page: {{Admin help}}. But you may not need an admin: If want a third opinion, you can do that here. For more options, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Mduvekot (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello VerifiedCactus. I am an administrator and willing to provide assistance especially in areas where I have experience. But administrators have no special powers regarding disagreements about content. We are just ordinary editors when dealing with such matters. Content disputes should be resolved through discussion among all active editors interested in a given topic, leading to consensus. If that doesn't work, use dispute resolution as described above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, noted. The Verified Cactus 100% 01:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"Everything should be sourced to a reliable source"

Must this _only_ be through endnotes, or can it be by links to sites (online)?

    For example, I listed a book:

Gramme, Hector, "Players of Strange, Meaningless Games: The Art of Hawk Alfredson" and linked it to a site featuring the book. I also listed the artworks on covers of various books and linked them to sites such as Publishers' Weekly (which showed the book including the cover artwork). I did the same for CD covers that used Alfredson's artwork.

    Is this adequate for sourcing?

BTW, I really appreciate your email and friendly outreach. Everything else has seemed very clipped and cold. LeeHan 06:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Leehanson100: I'll be happy to help. Where is the article that you placed this on? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An endnote (I think you mean what we usually call a reference) can and often will include a link to a website. If a reference is to a book, what's important is to allow readers to check the reference, by giving the bibliographical details: title, author, published, publication date, page number. You may also include a link to e.g. Google Books so that readers can check what the book says without needing to visit a library. Some editors give a link to a commercial site offering to sell the book – I think that is discouraged. The example you give above is acceptable, but would be better with a publication date and page number. Maproom (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Maproom, Leehanson100: an online link to a reference - whether a book or anything else - is a convenient shortcut. The important part of the reference is the bibliographic data - author, date, publisher, name of journal or source etc - not only so that a reader can in principle find it if it isn't available online, but also to assist in evaluating how reliable and significant it is likely to be. And links to commercial sites, even for references, are frowned on. See WP:EL. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about sourcing. You asked for the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Leehanson100/sandbox&redirect=no It's about artist Hawk Alfredson. I think I've done everything needed for the references. There are also some internal sourcing. LeeHan 02:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leehanson100 (talk • contribs)

Page keeps being deleted

The page I have created for Camp Quinebarge has been deleted twice. After the first deletion, I went in, pared it down, and brought it to the bare bones and facts. The deletion message says it is too much promotion, but we have less promotion, and more varied references than most other summer camps in our area with wiki pages - none of which are being deleted. To be clear, here - I don't want their pages to be deleted - I just want to know why ours doesn't fit wiki criteria when others apparently do.

Lizschwartzer (talk)Lizschwartzer

@Lizschwartzer: Hello and welcome. Please see WP:OSE; each page is judged on its own merits. All articles need to show that the subject is notable per notability guidelines (In this case WP:ORG) with independent reliable sources (WP:RS). Merely telling about the camp is still promotional. If you are associated with this camp, you need to read WP:COI about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Lizschwartzer, Wikipedia isn't a business directory. You are obviously connected to the organization in question, and best practices dictate you should not be writing about it at all. The existence of other articles on similar subjects has no bearing on whether or not this particular subject meets our standard for inclusion, which is called notability. The guideline that applies particularly here is WP:ORG. Notability requires multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject, that discuss the subject in detail. Since you are connected to the subject you wish to write about, you need to make yourself aware of our guidelines on conflict of interest and PAID editing.

That being said, there is some indication the camp may be notable. Googling, I found no hits on Google news, only the camps own website on Google, but I did find several books that at least mention the camp. The reason we have the policies we have for notability is that everything in the encyclopedia must come from already published sources. Everything. You cannot use things you know at all. If you wish to attempt it again, I'd strongly suggest you avail yourself of the services of Articles for Creation. You should start your article as a draft at Draft:Camp Quinebarge and be sure to read WP:My first article. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon I understand that, but I have read the articles of the other camps in the "Summer camps in NH" category and they seem to hit the same non-nos that we did. The majority (but not all) of them cite only their website or that of their parent organization (ie the YMCA for Y camps), and at least one reads as though it is the camp's website. We feel we are notable enough for a page, and are working on some more citations to that effect. I do have one non-web reference that we have contacted a newspaper about, as it was published before they started doing a lot online.

Anyway, my big thing here is that if the policy applies to us, it needs to apply equally to the other camps. That's all I ask - whether it means my page works and theirs do too, or that none of them, including Camp Q, belong on wiki. That's all. --Lizschwartzer (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If the other articles have no references, then just nominate them for deletion. On the other hand, if you can find references for all the articles, including your camp, then perhaps you could add them to improve the encyclopaedia? Dbfirs 20:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would add that this is a volunteer project; people do what they can when they can. No one is compelled to go through every similar article to make them all similar. We try, but it doesn't always happen. It's just the way it is. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I can clarify something. The subject you're writing about isn't notable because it's just like another article that is notable. No article in Category:Summer camps in New Hampshire is notable because it's in that category. Some almost certainly aren't notable, they simply slipped through the cracks. Others are, because they have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The solution is not to then go and make everything fair by deleting all the other articles, the solution is to save as much existing content as we can by looking for the references that are needed to establish notability for those articles. Only when that fails do we nominate them for deletion, including Camp Quinebarge. If you need more time to find sources, you can ask someone to move the article to the Draft: namespace where it is (relatively) safe from deletion but not visible to everyone, until you have gathered enough sources, and then we can move it back to Mainspace, where everyone can see the article again. We call that Userfication or incubation. The folks at WP:AfC are very helpful with making sure that your article does meet our sourcing requirements. Please let us know if you want someone to help you move the page to a safe spot. Mduvekot (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear to everyone, we are talking about Camp Quinebarge, not a deleted article. And Mduvekot, others have edited it substatially. I believe that eliminates the possibility of draftifying it at the creator's request. The original author's post here makes it clear he has a close connection with the subject of the article and despite being informed of our COI guidelines and acknowledging same directly, she has not complied with them in any way. Hence, I'll be tagging the article with a close connection template. I'll leave the question of deletion to the page patrollers. John from Idegon (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween Baking Championship editing help

I asked this on another user's page (3family6) and he said admins can help with my question.

I'm going over some Food Network show pages and trying to tidy them up. I need an admin to help change the title/link of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Baking_Championship_(season_1) preferably to something like "List_of_Halloween_Baking_Championship_episodes"

I want to make that into an episode list page for the main article Halloween Baking Championship. Once turned into an episode page, this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Baking_Championship_(season_2) will be redundant and I need an admin to delete it.

Hopefully I'm asking on the correct place (if not, let me know and redirect me where this is appropriate. Thanks) SunnieSkye (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You can rename (move) page using move link above the article - it appears if you move mouse pointer over More item. Ruslik_Zero 19:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the one page but I still need someone to delete this page since all the information on here has been moved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Baking_Championship_(season_2) SunnieSkye (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Trouble getting article accepted

Hello - I'd appreciate any help in editing the following article; I have tried several times to get it approved with no luck. All the information outlined, references and citations linked to the article are correct and valid. The vertical niche in which the company/product was developed is very narrow and only has so much existing content available online. We are making claims in the article about the Company and how it was the first to develop a software product for a particular type of quality inspection using a PC, called Model-Based Inspection. Once the article is approved we welcome any contributions from others in the industry.

We are out of reference resources and have scoured the Internet for additional information.

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

I appreciate in advance any guidance.

Thank you, Robert Robertmooers (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robertmooers. Wikipedia accepts articles about notable topics, which means that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the topic. If several independent sources with enough information about the topic are not available, then the topic is not eligible for an article. I suggest that you edit articles about other topics instead. Please also be careful about using the word "we", which implies shared account usage. Only one unique person is allowed to use each account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that Draft:Verisurf doesn't cite any references. It lists some, but they aren't cited from within the text of the article. You should be able to fix that. However, your statement "We are out of reference resources and have scoured the Internet for additional information" suggests that the subject probably isn't notable anyway. Maproom (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Tag: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.

Hello, I was wondering what I, or someone else, needs to do to remove the tag "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."? Can I request someone to review it? How do I do that? Thank you so much for your help. Agnesemiddleton (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Agnesemiddleton. Thank you for disclosing that you are a paid editor. I looked over the article in question, Northside Christian College, and noticed that a large amount of highly promotional content was removed recently, which is a good thing. However, the article still has a fundamental problem. The references are mostly to the websites of the school and its associated church. There is an article almost certainly generated by a press release about a construction company that built a facility for the school. There are directory listings to a government database and a link to an association of Christian schools. What is lacking are references to truly independent sources that devote significant coverage to this school. If you cannot provide such references, then the school is not notable, as Wikipedia defines that term, and the article is at risk of deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Agnesemiddleton. Well, since you are the editor who has the close connection there is nothing you or any subsequent editor can ever do about that. That tag will need to remain on the article forever (assuming it isn't deleted). If you didn't accept money to do what the rest of us do for free, it wouldn't be there. The school got exactly what it paid for. You can't have your cake and eat it too. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback! I wanted to ask a couple of questions/clarify a few things in regards to the comments made about my question: 1. The stub for Northside Christian College is no more or less than Genesis Christian College or Citipointe Christian College or Brisbane Christian College. I am wondering my our entry is flagged as needed a review but the others do not? 2. The school itself is not noteworthy but there are project that they are doing that are noteworthy. There is no way to add projects without the organisation, is that correct? 3. There are a lot of schools on Wikipedia, so the comment that it is not noteworthy is unfair because even the schools I've listed above are all there (along with thousands of others) and no one seems to have a problem with them. 4. The article was accepted without comments about references or any other issues. I was wondering why that has been flagged now? 5. John, if we are all fair here, I don't think there is need for comments like "You want your cake and eat it too" - it does not create a pleasant atmosphere and it doesn't come across friendly. Clearly if I wanted to join the community, I would start with something that I am familiar with. I think there are ways to communicate that come across friendly. But thank you for your input. Would love to get someone's feedback, if possible. Thank you.

Agnesemiddleton (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Agnesemiddleton. As I write this response, we have 5,494,824 articles on Wikipedia, and I can assure you that well over a million of them have serious problems. Thousands of dedicated volunteer editors work day and night to either improve poor quality articles, or to delete them. We debate and discuss and sometimes delete articles about schools all the time and I have participated in many such debates myself, so you are simply wrong on that point. The tactic of mentioning other similar articles is a diversion and if you see shortcomings in those articles, either go improve them yourself or nominate them for deletion if you sincerely believe that they are not notable. Please read WP:OSE. We are not here to debate those articles but rather to discuss the article that you are being paid to edit. As for what you perceive as an unfriendly remark above, I will try to be as friendly as possible to you as a paid editor. Please do your paid job well, and add articles to the encyclopedia that are in full compliance with our policies and guidelines in every way. There is a widespread attitude among experienced volunteer editors who write good articles for the love of sharing knowledge that many paid editors submit poor quality articles. That is because they write to please and promote paying clients rather than out of a sincere commitment to improve the encyclopedia. Please feel free to prove my assessment wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Agnesemiddleton: I wanted to address your point 2). Yes, we can have articles on projects, if those projects are notable. Wikipedia has articles on all kinds of things - people, bands, companies, charities, buildings, streets, foodstuffs, philosophies, dance styles, catch phrases - yes, and projects. The only criterion is whether the topic is notable: that is, whether there has been significant independent material published about it in reliable mainstream sources. (Notable here is a technical term, and not necessarily equivalent to general-language words such as "noteworthy") It is perfectly possible for a project to be notable but its parent organisation not, or, of course, vice versa. --ColinFine (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Translation request: (Gathering or Picking)

This is what hunter-gatherer ancestors did most of their time

w:ru:Собирательство, French sitelink may have some additional ideas

@Brandmeister, Daniel Case, Aleksmot, and Halibutt: several users from list D1gggg (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You gather things that lie on the ground, like toadstools and fallen apples. You pick things that are still attached to trees and bushes, like berries and apples that haven't fallen. Maproom (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Both apply as "собирательство", but English distinction should be clarified for non-native speakers.

Dictionaries make strong emphasis on "fruits in wild", "berries in wild", "mushrooms in wild" rather than ground/trees criterion D1gggg (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The word "собирательство", I've never actually heard used but it obviously comes from собират which means to collect or gather. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Letters ельство loosely correspond to -ence, -ance, -tion, -ity, -ment; to make it noun, not verb :-) D1gggg (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about rejection of entry for "Calgary Folk Club"

I received notification from David.moreno72 that the entry I submitted about the Calgary Folk Club was rejected on the grounds of insufficient verifiability and notability about the CFC. I had read online sometime ago that there was an internal debate at Wikipedia between two factions or conceptions re: Wikipedia, one of which was inclusive and encyclopedic in the sense of wanting to allow descriptions of very many things (so for example an entry for Joe's Pizza Bar in Nowhere, Australia would be permissible), and the other favouring a more scholarly approach. Am I to conclude that the latter won this debate (or at least is currently ascendant)? I do scholarly work, so can appreciate both sides, and am just curious. Thanks, Phil Hoffmann174.0.238.214 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Phil, welcome to the Teahouse. I take it that you are referring to this draft article: Draft:Calgary Folk Club? Both sides won: we write in a ~~scholarly~~encyclopedic manner about anything that we consider notable. Mduvekot (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I assume that you are Phillip Hoffmann editing while logged out. Please remember to log in. This encyclopedia includes articles about pizza restaurants (assuming that those articles include references to significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources) and also articles about more scholarly topics (assuming that those articles include references to significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources). I am sure that you can see what those two types of articles have in common. Your draft, on the other hand, includes no references and is therefore not acceptable for the encyclopedia at this time. I suspect that this topic may be notable enough for an article, but it is up to you to show that by adding references to your draft. My quick Google search showed many brief namechecks of the club, and this is the type of topic where 99% of the Google hits are likely to be worthless (what we call "passing mentions"), but perhaps 1% will be golden. Search for published independent sources that discuss this folk club in detail, especially those that discuss its history. Forget all your personal knowledge about the club and instead summarize what those reliable sources say about the club. Cite those sources properly. Please read and study Your first article and Referencing for beginners. I hope that you will continue editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope I can help here!
These might be considered reliable sources for articles about Calgary based music clubs
- The Calgary Herald's section on the club. This looks like a news source and would probably be admissible for information on performances
- their own site is obviously a primary source, but may be suitable alongside other sources for a limited amount of info about their whereabouts and scope as well as a very limited amount of basic historical info concerning founding dates etc. None of the editorial "about"-style sections on their history would be usable without further verifiable sources and you will not get the draft accepted if you base your entire article on info from their site... however...
- At the bottom of their history section they have a list of artists who have performed there. I can see that they have had some notable artists perform there such as The Paul McKenna Band and Oysterband and Dick Gaughan. There are probably others, but those are three that stand out because I know who they are. You wouldn't want to use the homepage of the club as a source to say that they performed there, but what you should do is search for published information on the tour dates of those artists. If you could find such secondary sources, they would almost certainly be admissible in supporting a sentence like, "Performing artists such as x, y, and z have performed at the Calgary Folk Club between or during some time period". Search tips: Google, "Calgary Folk Club" (in quotes) and add the name of the artist, such as "tequila mockingbird orchestra", in seperate quotes to get sources like:
  - http://canadianbeats.ca/2015/08/08/interview-the-tequila-mockingbird-orchestra/
  - http://calgaryherald.com/entertainment/music/two-different-musical-acts-reflect-many-similar-emotions
  - Which mention the club you want to write about in secondary sources, with reference to events at the club.
- Penguin Eggs Is a folk music magazine. I found it on the site of CFC and its where they sourced their history section which was written by a PE magazine writer. I think Penguin Eggs as a journal on folk music might be admissible for information within its specialized field.

In summary try to find references to the club which were not made by employees or promoters of the club, but were made by secondary sources who reviewed the club, their performances or artists who performed there. When vetting these sources, try to give high rank to mainstream news sources (the bigger the better) and to industry journals, in this case, those which provide coverage of folk music events. The holy grail for you here, would be a published book on folk music, or on the history of Calgary which mentions the club you are writing about. I'm afraid I can't help you with that from where I am in Shanghai, but your local library might have some info.

Hope that helps and hope I can hit the club and listen to some tunes some day.

Cheers!

Elliott Edaham (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Info for uploading a image in wikicommons

Hey, In recent months I have uploaded a some no. pictures to wiki commons but later I came to know that 3 of the 8 of the pictures uploaded by me are actually copyright violations but once I came to know the same, I sought out to read the terms set to upload a picture but as I could not understand a thing and nor as I knew how to delete pics. I was left helpless but to face warnings of editors and at last a final warning stating that if I continue to violate terms set by wiki commons my account would be deleted. So, I have come here asking someone to summarize the terms for my reference and how to delete a picture that has made copyright violationsAdithya harish pergade (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Adithya harish pergade. Personally, most of my image uploads to commons fall into three categories, which, for the most part, are pretty much guaranteed not to have any issues: 1) pictures I've taken myself, 2) pictures taken by the US federal government, and 3) pictures that were first published before 1923. As a general rule, nearly everything you find online, including a lot of content in historical archives, is covered under copyright, and judging by this nomination, it looks like the problem is that you're taking images from online. Usually the best and easiest way to contribute images to commons, is to grab a camera, and just start taking pictures. It may seem dull to you, where ever it is that you live, to take pictures of things you live around, but I doubt you live where I live, and those images might be very useful for me on something I might be writing about but have no physical access to. GMG ^talk 10:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Adithya harish pergade, a more general additional tip: if you are unsure about the licensing and copyright for an image, you should ask for advice before you upload it. en-Wiki has Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for images on en-Wiki. Commons maintains Commons:Commons:Village Pump/Copyright for copyright-related questions and Commons:Commons:help desk for other Commons-related questions. All these forums are read by experienced editors, who should be able to help you with almost all common cases. If possible, make sure to add a link to the image in question when you ask for such specific advice. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

CSD

Hi there! A small question, does the CSD criteria (especially G11) apply to sandbox as well? Thanks a lot! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does. The "G" in front of the number stands for general, which means it can be applied to most namespaces. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 10:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Adityavagarwal. The short answer is yes. All of the G criteria apply to all name spaces, including user space. There are a couple of instances where common sense and caveats need to be applied. For example:

G1 wouldn't apply for obvious testing of the software per G2
G2 explicitly excludes sandboxes
G8 may not apply to pages moved without leaving a redirect where there is substantial content on the talk, and a reasonable expectation that they intend to use or reference this content in the future
G4 probably shouldn't be used in most cases where a user is trying to improve a userfied article to fix issues raised in an AfD

But other than stuff like that, you're good to go, especially with G11. Although I would caution that in cases where it's been submitted to AfC, sometimes it's better to leave a comment or a decline explaining the problems, and give them a good faith chance at fixing it. It depends on the situation, like most things. GMG ^talk 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, Darylgolden and GreenMeansGo. It was so very helpful! :D Have a wonderful day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How to whitelist the blacklisted domain?

Hello everyone! I faced a problem with publishing an article about admitad company. Their web site and blog ( admitad.com ) were automatically added to the blacklisted sources. These blog and official website contain many useful articles which could be references in the main article about admitad network.

This company has other outside sources ( Magazines and online media) that were among references also, but a big amount of information also came from this blacklisted domain. Now the entire article is deleted.

Can anyone tell me how can I solve these problems and publish an article about admitad in Wikipedia?Nat.johnson (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse nat.johnson. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the company website and blog say about the company, so it is of no concern that the links are blacklisted. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. If you have a connection to the company you should also read the conflict of interest guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nat.johnson. I cannot answer questions about the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist (apart from linking to the information page), but I can give advice for the rest.

On your user talk page (located at User talk:Nat.johnson), you have had some feedback when your AfC (articles for creation) submission was rejected. On top of that, the draft was deleted because it was purely promotional, meaning its contents could not be salvaged into an encyclopedic article.

Assuming both of those were correct decisions, the #1 priority before we have a page about that company is to find sources that demonstrate "notability", meaning that they are simultaneously (1) reliable sources, (2) independent of the subject, (3) deal with the subject in detail. Links from company-published material, in particular, will always fail point (2); they can still be useful, but not to demonstrate notability, which is the big problem here.

If you think the sources did meet those criteria, please repost the links here so that we can examine them - as the article was deleted, non-administrators cannot see them. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Tigraan

Thanks for navigating! I read these articles and have a couple of questions. I have found some Exceptions in those articles you have shared above.

Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. - Yes, this is the same situation as the admitad corporate blog.
Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. - So, basically admitad blog is created by the professionals in the field on which they write.
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. - As I noted before, this is the same case. admitad has such experts who have publications in reliable sources.
Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources). ---This was not the issue
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). - It does not
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. - It involved claims about events that directly related to the subject.
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. - Yes
The article is not based primarily on such sources. - The article had other sources also.

If the article was written in line with these guidlines, why then the domain was blacklisted? What can the Wikipedia editor like me, do to whitelist this domain? Nat.johnson (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nat.johnson, I am afraid you are confusing two (or even three) things (which I did not explain very precisely, admittedly).

The first one is our definition of reliable sources: what kind of source can justify a statement in Wikipedia. The rules for this leave a bit of leeway for self-published sources. Basically, the principle is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so the bolder/more controversial a statement, the more reliably sourced it must be. Statements such as "company Foo exists, it has such address, it sells such product" are (usually) non-controversial and could be cited to the company's webpage. However, claims that are too trivial could still be undue weight to present (for instance, even if I had a rock-solid source saying that Mahatma Gandhi ate a red apple on October 18, 1917, at 12:38, it would not belong into any article, since - to put it simply - none cares).

The second one is our notability guidelines, which describe what kind of sources can justify the existence of an article on Wikipedia (existing is not enough). This is stricter than being a reliable source (cf. my three points above). See WP:N for more reading on that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Linking

Can someone tell me where is the policy/guidelines that says in biography article we should not linking to the person's nationality? Hddty. (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hddty. There is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked. Mduvekot (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Skins

I see that there is a ton of skins for wiki. When was the vector skin normalized for everyone? 100.35.73.190 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP, that happened in 2010. See Wikipedia:Vector Mduvekot (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2010. Wikipedia:Vector Bobherry Talk Edits 15:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How do I reference secondary sources which are not on-line or in a book

My Draft:Alba_Rosa_Viëtor was declined, because it have no reference save one directly associated with the subject. Multiple secondary reliable sources are needed. Thank you. Ammarpad (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC) The problem is that there are no sources which are on-line or in a book, other than the book published by the Foundation. The primary sources are the original programs. Please follow the link to take a look at them: http://albarosavietor.com/wp-content/uploads/Programs-Alba-Rosa-Viëtor-as-secondary-sources.pdf

Could you please advice me, how to deal with this situation.

Thanks very much for your help,

Joost Joost.mollerus (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joost.mollerus! These look more like primary sources to me, but that's neither here nor there. Since the program artifacts are collected into one online document, I'd probably use Template:Cite report and in the format, specify that it is a musical program and also specify the page that the item is replicated on. There is also a Template:Cite conference, but I'm not sure whether that would be more appropriate or not. Other Teahouse editors might have a better answer. I'm not very musical and don't run into citing these very often. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Formatting a Calculated Number

I've tried to look for how to do this, and haven't had success. I'm looking to format the following calculation of inflation to show the cents as well as the dollars. US$2. I'm using this template: US$ { { formatnum: { { Inflation | US | 0.30 | 1975 } } } } . Thank you Kekki1978 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Try adding |r=2 to the end of that, after the 1975. From what I'm seeing in my sandbox, that /should/ push it out to two decimal places. US$ {{Inflation|US|0.30|1975|r=2}} (*you can also take out the formatnum, I think*) Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kekki1978 welcome to the Teahouse. Remove the spaces between the curly brackets, like this:

US${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|0.30|1975|r=2}}}}

and it will give: US$1.7. Mduvekot (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

notability requirements for works of art

What are the notability requirements (or guidelines) for works of art? We have an AfD discussion here that seems loony to me. This is an article on the subject of a painting made in 1861 which presently hangs in the Rijksmuseum. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the different categories of notability guidelines, I am not seeing ones for works of art in particular(someone else may know about them, so I would wait for more replies). Without specific notability guidelines, then the general notability guidelines would apply; that the subject must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". 331dot (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, 331dot. But a painting may not have significant coverage. Or commentary on that painting may not be findable. We know that the Rijksmuseum is a world-class museum of art. And the painting is over one hundred years old. Isn't it surmisable that such a painting is a worthy subject for an article? Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would stress that others may know more than I do- but, and I don't say this to diminish anything- not everything that is 100 years old merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Not every painting that is in a notable museum merits an article, either. All that said, it seems to me that there could be such sources about this painting somewhere. I also note that the consensus of the AfD so far seems to be toward keep or a merge. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say this AfD is a great opportunity to articulate what makes a work of art notable, even if it doesn't meet the GNG. Things like the impact it had, the fact that it is an especially good example of a particular style, period or movement, a technical or stylistic innovation, being the first/last/most of well, something, interesting provenance, etc. They're all aspects of a painting that may be didn't generate a lot of press, but could still be verifiable. Mduvekot (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

company name

Hi , I'm very new to this , I was wondering can I put my company name and all my info on wikipedia so people can find out about me and my business? Thanks Chainftw (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chainftw, the short answer is no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your business. See WP:NOTFACEBOOK. If your company is notable, it may be written about but sometimes that isn't always a good thing as you have no control over the article that is written. NZFC^(talk) 01:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Quicken Loans

How in the world can you give Quicken Loans such a high rating. They have massive complaints, far more complaints than praise. There are pages and pages of customer complaint, yet JD Powers rate them highest in Consumer Satisfaction. Seems like a scam to me. 161.225.96.152 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP, I think you are mistaken as there is no ratings for Quicken Loans on their article. Are you by any chance referring to text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. NZFC^(talk) 01:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Images of Covers.

So I had uploaded some covers to The Adventurers Comic for the Wiki found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventurers_(Comic) ... and eventually found them automatically removed by a WikiBot that directed to a link about how covers and art not done by me can't be used found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing ... but if you look up, for example the X-Men Comic found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_(comic_book) - it uses a cover on it's wiki (as does, just about every other comic book wikipedia page).

Was curious about that? SirTawmis SirTawmis (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SirTawmis. You have made a common error, so do not feel bad. You uploaded those covers to Wikimedia Commons, but that related site is only for free images that can be used by anyone for any purpose anywhere without restriction other than proper attribution. Those are images that are freely licensed, or those whose copyright has expired. Contemporary comic book covers are almost always copyrighted so are not eligible for upload to Wikimedia Commons. Under strict rules, we do allow limited use of low resolution book covers and similar images like album covers and movie posters. Those can be used only in the corresponding articles, and are uploaded here to English Wikipedia, not to the separate Wikimedia Commons website. Please read our policy on the use of non-free images for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If you click on the X-Men cover image, and then click on "Details", you will see that the image is hosted here on Wikipedia, (not Wikimedia Commons), under a "fair use rationale", which is a recognized Iegal exemption to copyright. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

G11?

Hello there! I came across a case like this. Instead of being deleted or something, the tag along with the advertisement part was removed. If this is the case, I was wondering if for any article/user space page/or any other page for that matter, should one remove the advert part instead of placing any tag, or should a tag be placed and the page should be deleted? Thanks a lot for the advice, in advance! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adityavagarwal. The inappropriate content was removed by administrator Writ Keeper. I assume they deleted the content instead of the whole page because they wanted to leave your notice behind. This was a business plan for a future business. In my opinion, WP:U5, namely improper use of Wikipedia as a web host, would be a better criteria than G11, but it was clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 Ah, I thought since it was more about the company, G11 would be appropriate (really subtle difference between the two tags, I guess). Thanks a lot for pointing out the correct tag! So, if I had placed a U5 tag, would the page have been deleted, instead of the tag and the content being deleted? Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, Cullen has it exactly right. The content should definitely have been removed, and had it been any other page, I would've deleted it without question; a difference in criterion wouldn't have changed anything. It's just that I didn't want to remove all indications of what happened from the user, so I held off on deleting the page and just removed the objectionable content. For reference, per WP:DELTALK, User talk pages ... are generally not deleted [emphasis original]. You were right to tag it as you did, I just felt it to be better not to actually delete it, regardless of G11 vs. U5. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha, Writ Keeper. Thanks a ton! That DELTALK link is really helpful too. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that the difference in this case is subtle, Adityavagarwal. If the content had been directed to the general public and was about an operating business, then G11 would be best. Since this seemed to be an internal document for a planned business, I think U5 would be best. No big deal, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Cullen328. Always good to know even the slightest of the differences! This might be useful in more complicated cases. Have a wonderful rest of the day, both. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 Could you also help me out with one more question? The draft was written by User:Karajaninstitute, so it definitely looks like COI to me. So would it not fall under G11 category? Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Adityavagarwal. The thing to keep in mind is that our primary goal must always be to improve the encyclopedia, so always evaluate whether or not the topic is notable. Also remember that one important purpose of draft space is to provide a legitimate channel for editors with a conflict of interest to write draft articles for review by experienced, uninvolved editors through the Articles for Creation process. So, a draft should never be summarily deleted on that basis. The draft does not seem to be overtly promotional to me, and could easily be cleaned up by an experienced editor. Karajan was a towering figure in 20th century classical music, so perhaps this institute is notable. The account that created the draft has been blocked for a common newbie error - an account name implying shared usage. It is late where I live and I need to get to bed. I am pinging Gerda Arendt, who knows classical music far better than I do, and loves to save articles. Do you think that this topic is notable, Gerda? Can this draft become an article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 Yeah, I understand now. It makes sense. I would be careful from the next to about tagging articles, when they could be saved! Thanks a lot again for your help. Good night. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Got the ping, am busy. The institute is notable, and their efforts should be supported. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Adityavagarwal: Hello, this was actually discussed in my talk page, see here. It was cleaned up by Grimes2 after I asked Gerda Arendt for help. Alex Shih ^Talk 07:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I have now understood! Thanks, Gerda Arendt and Alex Shih for the help. Also, the link was very helpful! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

What is VTE ?

What is V*T*E and the bottom of a Wiki article, e.g., HERE. Thanks,--Eagledj (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

View this template, Discuss this template, Edit this template. Hover over the letter for that wording, or click on those three letters to perform those actions. Believe it or not I once asked a variation on that question. I asked specifically how I could edit the template. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bus stop I searched everywhere and was getting frustrated. Can you put something like WP:VTE or something so average people could find it? thanks Eagledj (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to do that. I hope someone else weighs in with any helpful information on that, as I would be interested in hearing more on that question. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully WP:VTE now redirects to the documentation page at Template:Navbox/doc#Setup parameters. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That is one of the less obvious things around here :P Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there someone who can help me learn the ropes?

Truth be told, I'm kind of overwhelmed with things and could do with an experienced user to give me a hand. I've had a look over at the adoption section, but it seems pretty dead. Would anyone be able to assist? LampGenie01 (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@LampGenie01: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! There are many friendly editors here at the Teahouse if you stick around for a while. If you have any specific questions about Wikipedia, feel free to drop a note at my talk page anytime. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@LampGenie01: Advice I got as a newbie is do not start by trying to write a new article. There is a high failure rate for many reasons. Instead, start with a topic you are knowledgeable about and see if there are modest edits to improve it. Could be as simple as someone having left a "Citation needed" and you know a good reference. Or you see content that you believe to be in error, you look at what was cited, and the citation(s) does not support the text. Happy editing! David notMD (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I need Your help!!!

Can You review the new amendments to the Draft:Vagif_Ibrahimov and share your opinion on this matter.Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vagif_Ibrahimov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryam.bzade20 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Look at existing articles about mathematicians. For example, Norbert Wiener. Citations are needed for information about VI. You have none. Instead, what you have provided are citations for a list of VI's publications. Your citations have to be to published accounts ABOUT him that support the claim that he is a notable scientist. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

hello

Hello guys i want a Delete my account in wikipedia.help me how to Delete my account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:E408:2BF7:EB58:B781:F118:A919 (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Right now you can not delete your account you can however change it's username. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ#How_do_I_change_my_username.2Fdelete_my_account.3F and WP:RENAME. Feel free to visit my talkpage with anymore questions! Cheers! Bobherry Talk Edits 12:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I wish to create a page for a new and upcoming artist/exibhition curator/dj on wikipedia is it possible to create one if there isnt any official prior information on the net?

Joseph Sansom is new and upcoming experimental/techno DJ who has curated several successful exhibitions, he is a 3rd year undergrad student at University of Westminster. His work showcases similar artists like him, curating gigs and visual art displays which promotes new and upcoming artists in London and close by areas. There are official Facebook and Instagram pages of his projects, however there isn't any Wikipedia page yet. Is it possible to create one and further on more pages which link to his work? The main purpose of creating a wikipedia page would be to make his presence more visible and for his work to be recognized by official industry experts. Mmjasuja (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mmjasuja. It sounds very much like you would like to use Wikipedia as a means of advertising this individual. Unfortunately for him, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Wikipedia hosts encyclopedia articles, and only on individuals who meet our standards for notability, which usually means having in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources, usually things like books, magazines and newspapers. If coverage of this individual is currently mostly on places like Facebook and Instagram, then it is probably too soon for him to have his own article, and if one is created, it is likely to be subsequently deleted. GMG ^talk 13:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words: in all likelihood, the answer is "no". You've got what Wikipedia is the wrong way around: we (and you) are not here to promote something you think deserves attention. We are here to write about things that have already received lots of attention. By "attention", I mean coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

how do i link pages to an article

hello, the english version of a german article i wrote on the artist peter schweri, that i uploaded today, tells me that the page is an orphan. how can i change this? thanks for your support.DieStel (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey DieStel. Being an orphan means that no other existing articles include internal links that point to your newly created article. Often one of the easiest ways to fix this is to add the subject to related list, such as, in this case, perhaps List of Swiss people. GMG ^talk 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello

How to the know who-who is the online. Pl98 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pl98.

You don't appear to be asking a question about how to edit Wikipedia. You can check a user's contributions page to get an idea of how recently they've made an edit. This isn't the same as knowing whether they are online, though. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I am new here and was looking for gab. If this is not the place to offer up my opinions and views let me know ASAP! I am not politically correct and want to vent! Warren.ford (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Warren.ford, welcome! This board is for asking questions about Wikipedia, not for sharing opinions and views. Thanks, AdA&D 15:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse insiration

What inspired the idea of Teahouse? I think it's a phenomenal concept! Shanfo (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shanfo: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can read more about the Teahouse history here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse. This is from the "Learn more about the Teahouse" button at the top of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

RudolfRed, did you know you can wikilink to Meta? [[meta:Research:Teahouse]] appears as meta:Research:Teahouse. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)