Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 414

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 410

←

Archive 412

→

How to go from C to B status

I'd like to upgrade my article from C to B status - could anyone give me tips what I should specifically improve to do this? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Fawzi Klhartog (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In general, it is better to use internal wikilinks to refer to an article as Ahmad Fawzi than to provide an external URL. Can someone else please advise User:Klhartog and me on the rating of articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Klhartog, one of the first things that should be done is to provide references for everything in the article. That is the first step to improve the quality of the article. The criteria for a B-class article can be found here. The references should also be complete with author, date and everything, not just urls. The text should be filled out with more in-deapth info on the subject, not just from online sources, but from books, newspapers and academic papers if such are available. The style of the writing should also be improved. Right now the article is very much a list of "he did this and then that". Links to other Wikipedia articles should be added in the text on a manner according to WP:MOS. Basic facts like date of birth (if published in a reliable source) plus an infobox could also be added.

This said, I am a little concerned when you say "my article". I also see that you have uploaded the pics of Mr. Fawzi in the article as your own work. Are you on his staff or in any other way close to him? If so you may have a conflict of interest. All articles belong to the Wikipedia, it's not yours, you just started it. And if you are referring to it as "your" article because you are Mr. Fawzi, the you definetly have a COI and should not be editing it any more. w.carter-Talk 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was also concerned about the use of "my", but looking at the article history, Klhartog created the draft and has been the only editor to substantively edit it, so it's understandable that they referred to it that way. If there is a potential conflict of interest, of course, that should be disclosed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:W.Carter for your feedback. Don't worry, I'm not A Fawzi nor am I working for him (LI profile: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/klhartog). I fully realize that I don't own any Wiki articles. Since I received feedback on the article I was simply wondering how I could make further improvements. Thanks for your suggestions. Klhartog (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Klhartog. Can I just check whether you took File:Ahmad_Fawzi_2015.jpg yourself? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There is Stub, Start, Good, Featured and then All The Rest. It is a classification scheme without any actual meaning or import; distinctions without any actual differences. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, TheRedPenOfDoom, that the letter grading of articles isn't really paid that much attention, but regardless of that, it's good to see Klhartog looking to improve the article in general. My advice would be to not pay too much attention to the grading, and instead just try to expand and improve the article as much as possible based on reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, all that matters is that the article is improved any way possible, but since the editor is a newbie I figured it would be helpful with some hands-on tips instead of the general "improve" to get it closer to Good. w.carter-Talk 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, and your advice is very good. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, your help and practical tips are truly appreciated. Klhartog (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Klhartog: I'm sorry, but I did a quick google search for the pictures in the article and they have appeared on the subject's Twitter and LinkedIn plus other websites, it is therefore highly unlikely that you have taken those pictures yourself. I think you have found them on the Internet and uploaded them, something that unfortunately is a copyright violation here. w.carter-Talk 21:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

w.carter Thanks for letting me know. Does this mean I should remove the pictures? Or should I get an approval by the UN to use this picture? Klhartog (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Klhartog: You can not remove them from Commons yourself, but they are marked for deletion now, so they will disappear in a couple of days. You should remove them from the article though. If you want a picture, you can use a system called the Commons:OTRS in which the Commons have to get permission from the copyright holder of the picture. This is a very complicated procedure! Be warned. Or you can email Mr. Fawzi's office and ask that someone there upload a new pic of him, one that has not been published anywhere before, at the Commons. Such requests sometimes work. Also, please 'ping' me the same way I 'ping' you if you want to get hold of me. I will not be watching this page all the time. w.carter-Talk 21:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

w.carter I thought I had used pictures which are labelled for reuse. If I cannot use the picture on top of the page, I could replace it with this one for instance: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unisgeneva/7420500442/in/photolist-bUCHY6-snS2Y8-63srRx-63wGdW-sjr4ah-smJ99Z-coscJU-8ZMJet-7dzVek-7dDPiL-tJk2NH-coscpm-coscPh-coscsN-rjBma5-coscCj-ciJ18N-cEyQUU-ciJ1fN-s8ecxP-rbqBxt-rbqBAz-rQCKL5-rQCKRA-8ZMJbx-AiFUM1-rbe47j-uAW6n6-uANAN5-cJj9Rb-u1qcN9-cEyR1J-tFSiKA. Klhartog (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Klhartog, images published under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike licenses (amongst a number of others) are acceptable and you can search for these using the advanced search function on Flickr. That image has rights reserved, though, and so couldn't be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Klhartog: Nope, sorry, you can't. It is marked with "Some rights reserved" and that makes it illegal to upload. You need to find one with "Public domain": or or . w.carter-Talk 22:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@w.carter & @cordless_larry Thanks, I'll try to find a picture with a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike license. As a last resource, I could try contacting the UN. Klhartog (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Klhartog: Just for clarity, a list of compatible free copyright licenses is set our here (locally) with further information here (from the Commons). PD (public domain) is even "more free"; a release of the copyright entirely. It may help you to remember one common demarcation point – whether a license provides for or disclaims commercial re-use. Those that are relatively free but are marked for non-commercial use are incompatible, which you can easily recognize by the abbreviation in the license "NC", e.g., "CC BY-NC 2.0". "ND" (no derivatives) is also no good. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I will try to find different picture. Klhartog (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

overwrite existing redirect page, or change it to a disambiguation page?

The existing Alex McLean page redirects to Alec McLean. I'm working on a new page for a person named "Alex McLean". Should the existing Alex_McLean redirect page be changed to the content of my new page for Alex McLean, or should the redirect page be changed to a disambiguation page?

Here's the existing redirect page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alex_McLean&redirect=no

Kindohm (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer probably depends at least partly on whether there is a primary topic. If there is, then there probably ought to be a hatnote to the alternative. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In looking at the draft and the existing article, it isn't obvious that either person is the primary topic, so that I would suggest a disambiguation page. However, it might be worth raising the question on Talk:Alec McLean. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with a user who re-creates deleted articles

Last week, editor Jbarrientos96 created an article HUF (company). It was clearly advertising for a non-notable company, and was quickly tagged for CSD. The editor repeatedly removed the CSD tag, and was warned three times, escalating each time. He/she was blocked temporarily from editing, and the article was deleted. However, now that the block has expired he/she has re-created the article. I have marked it for CSD, but I don't just want to go around that cycle again. I feel this editor's behaviour should be brought to the attention of somebody who has power to enforce the rules - can somebody advise how to engage such a person?Gronk Oz (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Others may have alternative suggestions, but I suggest posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Gronk Oz. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DoneThanks for that, Cordless Larry - I have added that link to my toolbox. In this case, an admin ("GB fan") was already on the case - the article has been deleted for the third time and protected from re-creation. The system works!--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear. Ordinarily, I would suggest it's a bit WP:BITE-y to take a new user to AN/I, but in this case they had recieved plenty of warning and also been blocked once already. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There is such a thing as carrying WP:BITE too far. This wasn't a new editor in the usual sense but a new stubborn editor who is likely a paid editor. Once they were warned more than once, we should remember that assume good faith is not a suicide pact. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance, Robert McClenon. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Asserting notability!

Hello, I am new, and a longtime fan of Sonic The Hedgehog, I wanted to create a page for the screenwriter of the new movie. Here is my page:

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

However, apparently I need better citations and coverage. The draft was rejected with the note "Comment: This needs more coverage" under his biography. I figured Variety, Collider, Deadline Hollywood, SlashFilm would work but I need more help. Any suggestions? Would love to make this page.

He has many credits and is a working writer in Hollywood, definitely notable.Sonicfan1997 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Sonicfan1997: and welcome to the Teahouse!

at Wikipedia, "notability" has a special meaning: that reliably published sources like major news organizations, academic journals or standard published books that are not related to the subject have covered the subject in a significant manner. Is that the case with Van_Robichaux? He might also qualify under some of the specialist criteria such as WP:ENT or WP:NAUTHOR. If those dont apply or you cannot verify that they do, then the subject probably is not "notable" as far as Wikipedia goes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sonicfan1997 and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability is the overall effect something has on the world, in this case Van Robichaux. This needs to be shown through significant coverage in reliable sources. Significant coverage doesn't mean depending on, for example, a page written entirely about Van Robichaux, but this individual must not just be mentioned in passing, or incidentally (in an unreated piece): for example, a piece about Sonic mentioning him once as the director would not be enough. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as many newspapers. The sources should also be not directly related to the subject: for example, as well as his listing at the Internet Movie Database, coverage in a national or state newspaper could be included, with Van Robichaux being reported because he is newsworthy, rather than due to an affiliation to the reporter. However, significant coverage is required to take place on a wider level than local news in order to extablish notability.

On an unrelated note, you can also link faster to a draft or article by writing [[Example]]. Thank you for creating the draft, good luck and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation for Music Videos

I know that youtube can be cited if it is uploaded by the copyright holder such as from Vevo. However, in descriptions of music videos on their song pages can the entire description be cited from Vevo? It would seem that descriptions of music videos would vary. Thanks.

EagleTech199 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi EagleTech199. These are actually two entirely separate issues that you seem to be conflating. We can't link to copyright violations, so a link in a citation to a BBC News report on Youtube as a source, if uploaded by the BBC, is fine, but a link to the same video, uploaded by RandomUserWhoUploadsStuff1975 would not be. See WP:ELNEVER and please note the footnote at the end of the first sentence there.

The description at the YouTube video (regardless of whether uploaded by the BBC or some random user) is copyrighted content, so no, you could not use it (except under fair use, in the form of a short quotation – marked as such with quote marks, cited using an inline citation and in-text attribution).

This is the way to treat all non-free copyrighted content. The result of non-free copyright protection is that you cannot use any previously written content here unless it is in the public domain or under a free copyright license compatible with Wikipedia licenses (except a short quote under the limited fair use exception I mentioned).

For content published after 1923, assume everything is copyrighted and cannot be used at all unless you have affirmative evidence of PD status or the free copyright license – such as the person who is clearly the author stating the release of the content or free license at the source. And even then you must provide attribution to avoid plagiarism. In general, all content you add here must be written in your own words. Sources are used to verify the information, and not for their sentences.

Lastly, while it is possible that a YouTube description could be a reliable source, most of the time it would just be user-generated content and worthless to cite. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, EagleTech199, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean, can the entire description be quoted from Vevo? The answer to that would be usually not, since quotations are to be used sparingly, and some descriptions could be a full paragraph or more. But facts from the description could be cited to the YouTube page on which they appear in cases where the video has been uploaded properly by the copyright holder. Bear in mind, however, that such descriptions (and anything in the videos themselves) would usually be primary sources, and you should always use a reliable secondary source instead of a primary source when one is available. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What is disruptive?

NAC: Original poster given final warning by admin for disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hi can anyone tell me what is disruptive? I know editing but is it when you change the page when someone else is editing simultanously? thanks straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(moved to top of page to increase likelihood of responses by GrammarFascist)

I am recusing myself from answering this question, Teahouse colleagues, since I have already talked to BlusteryBlowers a fair amount about appropriate behavior on Wikipedia on their talk page. Thanks in advance for your responses. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 23:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

An edit like this one, which is clearly counterproductive in improving Wikipedia, is disruptive. If you can't understand that for yourself, you should stop editing altogether. Maproom (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Maproom: I would consider than plain old vandalism not just disruptive. KylieTastic (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlusteryBlowers no editing at the same time would just be an edit conflict unless you were deliberately editing articles when you suspected others were only to disrupt them (not an easy thing to do). For a full description of disruptive editing see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing but in general it covers things that aren't vandalism but are not positive/constructive to Wikipedia. KylieTastic (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ah so is more like spreading lies on wikipedia to annoy people correct? straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@BlusteryBlowers: in the end it does not matter if its classed as vandalism or disruptive editing the difference is often a matter of opinion - however in both cases it is not welcome on Wikipedia. Personally I would call adding lies to Wikipedia articles for any reason vandalism. Anyone not interested in editing in a positive manner to improve articles, or help out in other ways, should just go find some other website to 'play' on. Repeated vandalism and/or disruptive editing will result in a block. KylieTastic (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

also could someone edit for me please Tracy Ullman's State of the Union please its to long straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandbox or draft

Hi there,

I created my first article and it ended up living in the sandbox area. Is that correct? Feels like it's not and that it should rather be a draft.

Is there a way to move it from sandbox to draft? Thank you UCTGSB 08:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneRothko101 (talk • contribs)

For reference it is User:ShaneRothko101/sandbox/Walter Baets. —teb728 t c 08:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ShaneRothko101, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the draft from your sandbox to the drafts area of Wikipedia, and added a template that will let you submit the draft for review when it is ready. I noticed that most of the sources cited in the article (the formatting of the references has been done quite well for a first article) are either connected to Baets, such as his own website, or are things Wikipedia doesn't consider reliable sources, like the Who's Who site. The most significant hurdle you will face in getting the draft to the point where it can be accepted will be meeting Wikipedia's notability standard. Note that for Wikipedia purposes "notability" doesn't just mean popular, important or influential; it refers to the specific requirements that, for the subject of every article, there must be significant coverage in media sources which are independent of the subject and are considered reliable sources. I highly recommend using Google Books and Google Newspaper to search for reliable sources; regular Google News may or may not also have useful results. Good luck, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 09:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Beginner Help?

I'm new here on Wikipedia and I was wondering if anybody could help me figure out how to get started. I'm not sure where to begin or what I can do on here. I have sort of an idea as to what I'm supposed to do, but I'm lost as to how to get started. Any help would be appreciated.

PatriciaPrice1992 (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse.....If you would like to get a good overview of the whole project and how it works you could read through the introductory page which is found at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. The same basic information can be seen at the Wikipedia:Tutorial or in short form at Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers. There is also Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, a 7-mission interactive guided tour which covers all the basics about editing and the expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community. Help:Getting started contains a listing of introductions and tutorials on the various aspects of Wikipedia. -- Moxy (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Moxy, thank you for that information, much appreciated!

Armond Dean (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Patricia,

I am in a similar position and have tried to use 'The Wikipedia Adventure' but keep getting technical problems on Mission Three!

Good luck and do let us know how you get on?

I am going to try to use this section to learn more;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal/Opentask

kind regards Armond Dean (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi PatriciaPrice1992, you can also check out the WikiProject directory to find projects that are interesting to you. You can join any WikiProject you want (or several, if you want) and use the project's lists to find articles to help improve. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Mission 3 - The Wikipedia Adventure

Hi,

I am trying to use 'The Wikipedia Adventure' to learn more but am stuck at the very start of Mission 3. The pop-up box appears telling me that Gaia is waiting but when I click on the blue button to join her I go to a new screen and nothing else happens!

Any advice much appreciated

Armond Dean (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Armond Dean. I have never tried The Wikipedia Adventure but Mission 3 at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure also seems broken to me in Firefox 42.0 on Windows Vista. Try if you can continue from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Armond_Dean/TWA/Earth?tour=twa3&step=2. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter, it partially worked in that I could move to the Earth page in TWA 3 but then saw multiple copies of the text. I was able to go a few steps further and earn a badge but then no more after the 'Phew....this is exciting' Pop up window. Same problem as before, click on the blue box with the label 'Check your new message'* but nothing happened when I click the box. Armond Dean (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Armond Dean: That also fails for me. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Armond_Dean/TWA?tour=twa3&step=12. Just ignore the multiple messages. They are because you tried multiple times to click the broken link. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

About Patrol

on my notifications it shows, The page Tracey Greene was patrolled by User:Eeekster what does that mean??? ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi 05:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi

Hi @ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi: Welcome to the Teahouse! Take a look at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages. On the English Wikipedia, new articles show up at Special:NewPages and are initially marked as "unpatrolled". New page patrollers go through these new articles and check for vandalism, articles that need work, and articles that might not fit the scope of the English Wikipedia. If an article is acceptable, patrollers will mark them as patrolled. Since you created the article on Tracey Greene, you received a notification that Eeekster patrolled your article. All is good! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This marking new user pages with "Patrol" needs to go. It is not welcoming at all. In fact when I saw it on my page, my first thought was that Wikipedia is looking over my shoulder like some totalitarian régime. I finally came back, however, I'm not so sure my initial impression of Wikipedia is incorrect. Also, I didn't realize this place until a month ago! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it the process or just the name for it that you object to, MurderByDeadcopy? Wikipedia is not an anarchy and there do need to be ways of identifying disruptive editing - of which page patrolling is one. Hopefully now you've found the Teahouse, you will discover a friendlier side of Wikipedia than you have experienced so far. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely something about the name. The thing is, it could be named anything so why not make it something friendlier! It's pretty clear I'm not the only one who questions the meaning and maybe it could be used to remind editors to Welcome new editors before giving them an AfD warning on their talk page. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 06:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure whether the name is something that is under the control of Wikipedia editors, of whether it is part of the software and hence the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you were interested in finding out and suggesting a change, MurderByDeadcopy, the best place to do so would be at Wikipedia:Village pump. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 15:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi 18:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi (talk • contribs)

Help with writing my first article on Wikipedia.

Hello everyone,

I tried several times to write my first article about the company I work for but it always happen to look like advertisment. I wrote 4 or 5 articles about it and am thinking that I cannot write about my company without making it appear like an promotional article.

So now I decided to ask for help for tips on what I should be careful to write in my article.

I know references are important but I have none to write down for my company since it is a small company in south east of Europe.

Regards Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florentleka (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Florentleka. If you have no references, then your company is not eligible for an article. That appliies to companies in the south east of Europe, and also the south east of Asia, and Africa, and Australia, and North America and South America. Greenland too. And Antarctica. No good references means no Wikipedia article. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Florentleka. One way of thinking about this is to realise that Wikipedia is not interested in what the company, or its employees, have said about it or want to say about it. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have published about it in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers). If nobody unconnected with the company has published much about it, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about it. You are discouraged from writing about your company because of your conflict of interest; but if you do decide to go ahead, you need to forget everything you know about the company, and write only from what independent people have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

How to set up a course page

Hi. I'm trying to set up a course page for a course assignment I would like to use in January. How do I set up a course page and how do I find an "ambassador?" (I would like to do an assignment that requires students to contribute material about women screenwritersE clark e100 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, E clark e100, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first direct you to Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:Student assignments, and draw your attention particularly to the statement in the latter, "Student assignments can help improve Wikipedia, but they can also cause the encyclopedia more harm than good when not directed properly." I also advise you to read Wikipedia:Education program/Educators.

You should ensure that your students are familiar with the basics of how to edit, and Wikipedia's main policies, before they begin their main assignments. Your first article would be a good place for your students to start, followed by the Primer and/or Wikipedia:Training/For students and/or Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Of course your students can ask questions here at the Teahouse at any time, and I would suggest you emphasize that to them, as Wikipedia does have a learning curve and the amount of policies and guidelines can be overwhelming to new editors.

Finally, if their assignments are going to include creating new articles, I strongly recommend that your students begin any such articles as drafts, which is easy to do using the Article wizard. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, and for visiting the Teahouse. Feel free to return with follow-up or future questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @E clark e100:, given the few edits that you have personally made to Wikipedia, unless this is a legitimate alternate account , it may be extremely difficult for you to appropriately lead, guide and evaluate your students in participating appropriately in Wikipedia. For example, writing for Wikipedia is completely different function and approach than most academic writing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

New here, need help getting started.

Hello,

I am very new here and would like help to get started. I am a translator/interpreter interested in contributing Swahili articles. My idea of contributing is over and above writing, I could translate some already written English articles into Swahili. I intend on picking topics or persons of interest in the EA community. Is this agreeable per the stipulated guidelines? If yes, how does one go about it/where could I get guidelines on how to go about it?

Thanks, Nyambura

rayndichu 08:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racahel~swwiki (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Racahel~swwiki. See Wikipedia:Translate us for general advice translating to other languages. —teb728 t c 09:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Racahel~swwiki - please note that every language's Wikipedia is separate, and sets its own rules and guidelines - you will need to ask any specific questions at sw.wikipedia - Arjayay (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, Arjayay, but let's take Racahel~swwiki at their word. If this editor is capable of translating English Wikipedia articles into Swahili, in a competent, reliable fashion, then I expect that their contributions will be welcomed there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Err - I wasn't suggesting they would not be welcome, only that any specific questions about rules and guidelines, e.g. formatting, inclusion criteria etc. would have to be asked there, not here. - Arjayay (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Errr - The process of translating articles from English to another language is a "joint venture" between two projects, described at Wikipedia:Translate us, as another editor pointed out correctly above. The original question was a general one, and there was nothing in that question that required a referral to the Swahili Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Racahel~swwiki, that sounds like an excellent idea. In English Wikipedia we have a convenient template, {{Translated page}} which can be put on the talk page of article that has been translated from another Wikipedia, as a good way of providing attribution for the work of the editors who wrote the original page (attribution must be provided, that's part of our licence here). There's no link from that template to Swahili Wikipedia, so it may not have been created on sw.wp (or it may just not have been linked to Wikidata). If it doesn't exist yet you could perhaps ask for it to be created. A translation can only be as good as the source material, so please choose articles that are well written and well sourced! (and feel free to ask here if you're not sure whether a particular page deserves to be translated). Good luck with it! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a question about signature

I need to have an acceptable signature for signing editing and talk pages can anyone tell me if this is ok? straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

it doesnt have any stub tages or venal statements i will change if change be need be straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

i honestly thought it was treehouse haha i was all like "what tree?" ha ha seriously straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 01:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Treehouse!

The display of the sig looks basically OK, it's very colourful. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color talk about issues with super-scripts and colour. You might well consider using parenthesis for the (BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER) part. Personally I am against sigs that don't give the user-name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC).

Welcome to the Teahouse, BlusteryBlowers. I have two comments for you: First, regarding your signature. Signatures should be clickable. When I try to click on the "straight shooter" part, nothing happens. That is not good. The first part of your signature should link to your user page. When I click on the second "BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER" part, it takes me to your user page. The second part should link to your user talk page instead.

My second comment is more substantive. This is a project to build an encyclopedia, and it seems you have contributed very little to encyclopedia articles but instead have focused on secondary things like your signature. Avoid disruptive behavior and concentrate on improving the encyclopedia. That is our only goal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

thankyou for your helps both and I will take both on board but i am nervous to edit too great because i mucked around and now i'm on thin ice with GrammarFascist and dont want to risk even when I see it and think it should not be or even adding, because i mucked around too much for example. thankyou for advice with signature. whenever I try to go on my user page now my browser crashs if its firefox i dont know why its not too many stuff or anything but it just doesnt like it like a script or a something it rejecting outright and now i just cant get in so i think should i even have it in my signature or maybe should i get it fixed somehow maybe use a different browser i have internet explorer for example but i hate it and i dont want to download google chrome becaus it has a memory leak so what would even be the point would it even work it probably would just be. Too fucked for example.

could somebody please edit Tracy Ullman's State of the Union or please may I have permission? Thankyou for you're advise straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps now you understand why I advised against having so many images on your user page, before you added several dozen more to it, BlusteryBlowers. I can still access your user page, so if you would like, I would be willing to remove all but one copy of each image from the page for you, after which you would likely be able to view and edit it yourself again without your browser crashing. Or you could wait for another editor to offer to do it for you.

As for making edits to articles, the best advice I can give you is to start small, with simple edits, such as correcting a misspelled word or adding an appropriate link to another article. I do not think consensus would be in favor of your proposed major edit to Tracey Ullman, so please consider other places to edit. I like to use the "Random page" link in the sidebar at the top left of every Wikipedia page to help me find articles in need of editing. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

that would be optimum thankyou GF straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 21:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I need help getting my post approved..

I have had immense trouble getting my post for ZendyHealth approved. Is there someone that can help make it more credible and speed the process up? My articles of creation were not accepted. HELPPP98.119.152.128 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:ZendyHealth. The previous reviewers made comments. Also, please try to remember to log in. You are editing logged out, and your edit history is not associated with your IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If I had been reviewing, I would have said that it read like an advertisement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. As the reviewer explained when declining Draft:ZendyHealth, you need more sources like the ones already cited in the article. Specifically, you're looking for sources which:

are from reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines or TV news;
are independent of ZendyHealth (so press releases and the company's own website do not count);
have devoted significant coverage of at least a few paragraphs (or a few minutes for TV coverage).

If you need help finding more acceptable sources, or help adding them to the article or formatting the references, feel free to return to the Teahouse for further assistance. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lost my password

Hi to all, I am feeling terrible over this. Last night I lost my password and couldn't get into my account. I have tried multiple times to hack it but had no success. I don't have email and can't send my password that way. I created this alt account on Wiktionary just to get on here (couldn't use White Arabian mare as my username there, since it's already been used here and it's unified login) but I don't want alt after my name, and I don't want to use this account. I want my old account back, but without email I can't get it. 😦 I'm stuck. Could I switch to a different username entirely and then redirect my userpage or should I just quit? White Arabian mare alt (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, White Arabian mare alt, I'm sorry you're having trouble accessing White Arabian mare. As far as I know there is no way to reset or recover a Wikipedia password other than by using the email address associated with the Wikipedia username in question. Switching to another username is definitely an option, and in such cases the old user page and user talk page can be redirected to the new ones. Since I'm not 100% sure, however, I would wait until one of our more experienced colleagues can confirm what your options are. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi White Arabian mare alt, I believe GrammarFascist is correct you can only recover a password with an email. How else could anyone determine you are the valid owner? All though I guess it would be technically possible for a CheckUser to compare IP addresses and possibly (depending on other details) determine you were editing from the same location. However you could still be another person with the access to the same computer, so I doubt they would do it. Unless someone posts a definitive answer based on policy though you may want to ask an actual admin over at WP:ANI as they should know definitively. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have a solution here, and Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? does not offer much hope. White Arabian mare alt, when you say that you "lost" your password, do you mean that you had it written down and lost the piece of paper, or that you had it memorised and forgot it? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

it could be something like a browser checked "remember my passwords" and then move to a new computer with a new browser and no memory of the passwords (combined with the forgetting what password you had originally used). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I had memorized it and forgot it and I can't remember whether I wrote it down or not. My entire edit history has been on a smartphone, so I didn't change browsers. I may post at ANI though, and see if an admin can help. This is upsetting because I was getting ready to apply for autopatrolled rights. Anyway, thanks to everybody for the help. It looks like if an admin with checkuser can't help, I can create a new account like WhiteArabianMare or something very similar to the old one, move my user and talk pages to the new account as soon as I have autoconfirmed the new account, and then write a disclosure on the userpage explaining the situation. Thanks to everybody for helping! White Arabian mare alt (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare alt: if you dont have the password, admins wont be able to help. they only have mops. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

How to get a wikipedia page protected from futher vandalism

I need help getting the Texas Longhorns football page protected and locked asap there have been numerous reapeted vandalism to the university, Head football coach and other vandalism to other people and organisations through this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bc5297 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bc5297: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to get a page protected from vandalism, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Zappa 24 Mati 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

In particular, request semi-protection due to vandalism by unregistered editors. Vandals can also be reported at the vandalism noticeboard, but semi-protection is appropriate in this case. Read the vandalism policy for more information on how to deal with vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You request was declined, Bc5297, as the vandalism apparently wasn't recent enough to justify semi-protection, but don't hesitate to post the request again if it resumes. Keep up the good work identifying vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Struggling with my first Wiki contribution

Hi, I have submitted a contribution to Wikipedia 5 times now and each time it has got rejected for one or the other reason. As a result, I have ended up trimming my content so much there is just a little over 4 lines left in it now. And yet, it has got rejected a fifth time now saying: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.

What does the reviewer mean by that? Rejection is becoming dejection now.

Variesx.i (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:ETP Group. (It would be helpful if, in asking about an AFC decline, you provided the link rather than having us go into your edit history.) You need to provide multiple references to independent reliable sources to indicate the company's corporate notability. As you can see, the original versions of the draft contained too much promotional language, and reviewers told you to remove the promotional language. If, when you have removed all of the promotional language, there is no neutral language indicating notability, maybe the company doesn't pass Wikipedia's peculiar standards of notability. Maybe it does; if so, please add the independent reliable sources to that effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

To give you some idea about the type of source that would help establish notability, Variesx.i, something like a newspaper or magazine article discussing the company in depth is what you should be looking for. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable inputs, Robert McClenon (talk) and Cordless Larry (talk). I shall revise the draft accordingly. Apologies for not providing the draft link earlier. Variesx.i (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article recovery

My article was deleted by user GeoffreyT2000 without researching who the person in question was. I provided dob function and reference website articles but they removed it ! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhindori (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If the article was any of the various articles on George Hindori that you have created, it probably didn't have enough information to be in article space. Also, do you have a close connection with the subject of the article? If so, read the conflict of interest policy. As to why an article was deleted while you were still working on it, that is why, when you are still working on an article, you should work on it in draft space or user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nhindori, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume you are asking about George hindori [sic], which was recently speedily deleted; I cannot view deleted articles, however, as I am not an administrator. I see that you have recreated the article, or created a similar one, at George Hindori. In general it is a bad idea to recreate a deleted article under a slightly different name without addressing the problems which caused the article to be deleted in the first place.

The article will not be able to stay on Wikipedia without references to multiple reliable sources which each discuss George Hindori at some length without being connected to Hindori. Full details of this policy can be found at Wikipedia:Notability. It has not already been nominated for re-deletion due to notability not being demonstrated. I see that RHaworth moved the previously-deleted version of the article to User:Nhindori/sandbox, where you will be able to work to demonstrate notability without the threat of imminent deletion. (Note that one exception to the general policy that drafts in userspace are not deleted is if there is copyright-violating material added to such a draft.)

In reviewing your contribution history, I see that GeoffreyT2000 added a speedy deletion tag to a version of the George Hindori article ~~while it was still in your user sandbox~~ immediately after you created it. That was clearly inappropriate and I will make sure that GeoffreyT2000 understands and does not tag such ~~draft~~ just-created articles again. You should be aware, though, that GeoffreyT2000 is not an administrator and cannot delete articles, only suggest that an administrator do so.

I should also ask you, Nhindori, due to your username, what if any connection you have to George Hindori. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, I think GeoffreyT2000 tagged the article while it was in article space, and that it was subsequently restored to User:Nhindori/sandbox. That's my understanding of the log here, anyway. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you sure, @GrammarFascist:, about GeoffreyT2000 tagging the article in the sandbox? My reading of the history is that it didn't get put into the sandbox until RHaworth restored it from deletion. I believe that it was at George hindori when tagged & when deleted. CSDA7 would, of course, bot have been valid grounds for deletion if it had been in the user's sandbox, as it applied only to articles. Perhaps you are getting confused looking at the user's contribution history, not the article history. In the contribution history, I think that you'll find that all entries relating to a renamed page show up under the new name, not the name it had when the contribution was made. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops! It looks like you're both right, @Cordless Larry and David Biddulph: the article was indeed in mainspace when it was tagged. It was still tagged far too quickly even for a mainspace article, just three minutes after creation, but I will correct the wording of the warning I left at GeoffreyT2000's talk page. Thanks for catching my error, both of you! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about the overly quick tagging. I don't think that there is any such thing as too quick tagging of an article in mainspace. Don't move the article into mainspace while you are still working on it. User space and draft space are available. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As do I, it was a few words not an article. The main article space is not a place to build an article and that's why when you try you get multiple suggestions to use your sandbox, draft area, or a new user page. However I have always wanted the speedy tag to also have a button to request a move to the authors userspace so new users who mean well but are 'bit' have an easier option. KylieTastic (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an option to request a speedy move to user space for very incomplete articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic and Robert McClenon: You're welcome to your opinions, of course, but I would point out that the policy page on speedy deletion states that "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation", and specifically suggests a ten-minute delay from time of creation before tagging a page for speedy deletion under some criteria. Then there's the fact that {{uw-hasty}}, which is listed at Wikipedia:Warnings, states that "you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short" (emphasis in original). If there is a policy or guideline contradicting either of these pages, I am unaware of it and would like to be directed there. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: As will most things, wiki rules fluctuate and so does the interpretation of them. The Criteria for speedy deletion 10 minutes ref is marked on A1 and A3 not A7, and as for {{uw-hasty}} it was also A1 and A3 until the last edit on "7 August 2015‎" which looks likes a unilateral addition that most would never even notice. Also tagging is not deleting and I agree with "administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation" - tagging sooner than later gives the editor chance to fix/defend the issue before an admin deletes hopefully much later. If someone waits a few hours to tag and delete often the editor may not be online, or asleep as many edit in the evening. I would much rather be told straight away if someone thinks something I do was an issue than wait until I'm offline and act when I have no chance to defend myself. I'll also update my previous idea to say I would rather tag to "move to user space" rather than delete anyway - its an easier admin decission, less hostile to new users, gives users lost of time to work on improving, and keeps the main space clean. One day maybe I'll do soemthing with these ideas :) KylieTastic (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: I really like your idea to have a template for tagging some problematic new articles "move to user space" (or draft space?) and I hope that you do something with it soon. I would certainly support the creation of such a system. It would do a lot to avoid chasing away new contributors who see a speedy-deletion tag as a big red GO AWAY sign rather than a message informing them improvement needs to be made. Sure, in some cases go away is the right message, like with hoax or attack pages. But when what's needed is merely improvement, a third way seems called for, and your proposal seems ideal. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

George Hindori was a member of parliament in Suriname, and a cabinet official. Therefore, he meets WP:NPOL. In addition, he changed his stance on the independence of Suriname from the Netherlands at a critical moment in 1975, and his defection from the anti-independence forces was a major development moving independence forward. He is clearly notable, and experienced editors should be working to expand and reference the article, not trying to delete it or prevent it from being created. Let's always keep the goal of improving the encyclopedia at the front of our minds. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Setting up an article about a newly opened restaurant

I need help with this as I'm unsure whether to use a restaurant stub template, or to post an article. I've never edited/posted on Wiki before. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Locks1windsorterrace (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Locks1windsorterrace. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood what Wikipedia is. It is not a directory or advertising medium. We don't "set up pages for", we "write articles about", which should be almost entirely based on what people with no connection with the subject have published about the subject - Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a person or organisation wants to say about themselves. See your first article.

If there has already been substantial independent material published about the restaurant (unlikely if it has newly opened, but possible) then there could be an article about it. But if you are connected with the restaurant (as I guess) you are strongly discouraged from writing the article because of your conflict of interest. If you decide to go ahead with writing the article, you should forget everything you know about the restaurant, and confine yourself to what has been published by people unconnected with it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for your response. The restaurant was open before under a different name and already has a Wikipedia stub under the old name. It is now open under new ownership with a new name, and I want to make that known on Wikipedia. There has been independent material published in newspapers about the newly opened restaurant, so I believe that I do have an article. I only want to write the date of its opening and who the new owners are. It's not a biased article, it's fact. Is it possible for me to do this? Locks1windsorterrace (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Unless there is something out of the ordinary about the restaurant it is unlikely to be notable in Wikipedian terms for an article. The existing stub article should probably be deleted.Charles (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the OP's username, the new restaurant would be Locks and the old Locks Brasserie, both at 1 Windsor Terrace in Dublin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 12 November 2015‎ (UTC)

What am I doing wrong with this Cite AV media template?

I tried to add the {{Cite AV media}} template on the article The Boys in the Band (Special:Diff/687758320), but it renders as an in-text citation instead of as a reference. What am I doing wrong? Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to wrap the {{Cite AV media}} template in <ref> </ref> tags.--LukeSurl^{t c} 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please edit your signature so that it includes a link to your talk page. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you want it to be a reference, you have to enclose it in reference tags, so <ref>{{Cite AV media| ...}}</ref>. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast. Thank you very much. :O) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)