Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1005

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 1000

←

Archive 1003

→

I need an assistance

/please help why my page is declined, help and assist me please. It is my first time to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanephusbesira (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jeanephusbesira: - hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As the notice and comments at the top of your submission says, it has been declined due to a lack of good quality, reliable sources. The reviewer has commented that "the Inner Core Dugukan website is not an acceptable independent source, neither is YouTube." So, to have your article acccepted, you would need to find several (there is no set number, but probably at least 3-4) reliable (i.e. well-respected journals and news sources, published books, etc.), independent (i.e. no connection with Jeanephus Besira) sources that discuss him in detail (i.e. not just a passing mention, but a whole article or a substantial section of an article about him). I would also note that it seems from your username that you are the writing about yourself. This is usually not a good idea, and you can read about our policies on this at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. I would strongly suggest that you stop trying to create a page about yourself and focus on improving Wikipedia in other ways, such as improving existing articles. Hug^syrup 08:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jeanephusbesira: - by the way, your talk page is not the right place for you to draft your article and, although you are free to remove the messages other users have placed there if you wish, deleting them without reply doesn't really give the impression that you are genuinely looking for assistance or are willing to work with other editors to improve your draft. Hug^syrup 09:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft now in his Sandbox. Declined by one editor, advised to STOP by another. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

any suggestions

hello do you have any suggestions on my prior edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanairlinelounge (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Americanairlinelounge:. Welcome to the Teahouse. This is mainly for answering questions on how to edit Wikipedia, rather than giving general feedback on your edits. As a rule, if someone has an objection to your edits they will pretty quickly let you know, by reverting them and/or by messaging you on your talk page. However, looking at your edits, this one does not make sense to me really. It might be correct, but it reads strangely and you have not used an edit summary to explain why you have added the word Empire in. This edit slightly concerns me as 'cyberstalking' is a pejorative and non-neutral term that I would not normally use in a definitive statement like this. I would probably prefer 'was accused of cyberstalking' or 'was investigated for cyberstalking'. I see that you did then add a source for this edit, which is good, but it was then reverted as repetitive. That's ok, but I wouldn't try to re-insert it.

Your edits to Jim Mattis, Jill Kelley and Paula Broadwell look ok from a quick scan; I haven't checked in depth if they are accurate, but they wouldn't raise any red flags if I was doing vandalism patrol.

This edit might have the same issue of labeling her a cyberstalker, which potentially breaks our guidelines on neutral point of view and biographies of living people. Overall, you seem to be doing ok for a new editor but you need to be careful when editing articles about living people not to insert negative information unless it is scrupulously well-sourced and written in a neutral and balanced way. Hug^syrup 14:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposing a business brand

Hello. How do we introduce or propose a business brand to be appear on wikipedia?

Regards and Thanks, Myo Thu Htun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myothuhtun (talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Myothuhtun: Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If by 'brand' you intend to write about a company, then the company needs to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. See WP:COMPANY. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Myothuhtun, If you are associated with the brand, you may need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest S Philbrick (Talk) 14:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

can I convert my sandbox into a real Wikipedia page

Hello guys

I'm Sahil I'm new on Wikipedia I'm a graduate in English Hours

My Question:

Actually, I want to ask that can I convert my sandbox into a real Wikipedia page when I feel that this content is ready to convert in Wikipedia page.

Currently, I'm working & practicing in my sandbox...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilberiwal22 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sahilberiwal22. It would be a mistake to try to move your sandbox draft into the encylopedia any time soon. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes coverage in reliable sources, and those sources are used as references. Your draft has no acceptable references. So, you really need to do a lot of work finding and creating references. I recommend that you read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sahilberiwal22, Just to be clear, once it is ready, it is possible for a sandbox to become an article. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Cullen328 for guiding me about this. I Appreciate it. I'll definitely do the same thing which you told me. First, I'll do work in finding and creating the best references then I'll think about it. I was just want to know that is it possible or not. I know that my sandbox is really not ready for Article. There are 99% work is still remaining in it.

Draft review

This is a bit embarrassing but I need help accepting a draft I put in for review. it seems to meet all the criteria (please correct me if I'm wrong) but I do not know how to accept it could someone tell me how or do it themselves? if you would like to view it yourself the draft is Draft:2018–19 Under 19 Bundesliga. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:31 28 August 2019 (GMT)

Hi there REDMAN 2019. WP:AFC isn’t one of my strong points, but I’ll try to answer your question. You can’t review your own draft submission I don’t think. Instead it has to be reviewed then declined or accepted by another editor. Your draft says it is currently being reviewed, is this by you or another editor? Drafts normally take several weeks to have an editor come round to it and review it, so be pacient. If another host is more familiar with AfC, please explain in your own words. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points: section headings should not include citations (see MOS:SECTION), and you've reused a reference so you ought to use a named reference (see WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once). I'll leave AFC reviewers to comment further. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Submitting foreign Wikipedia entries for translation

What is the easiest way to submit a foreign Wikipedia entry for translation to English Wikipedia? (Absolute newbie here and finding the process a bit daunting)AnimationMonkey (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC) AnimationMonkey

Hey AnimationMonkey. See instructions available at WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. GMG ^talk 16:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Mahmoud El Said

Mahmoud Ahmed Mohamed El Said , Arabic ؛محمود أحمد محمد السعيد (June 12, 1999) is an Egyptian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahmoudElSaidOfficial (talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is a place for asking questions, not for creating an article or adding information. If you wish to create an article, take a look at WP:YFA. Please note that creating an article about yourself is discouraged per WP:AUTOBIO. Thank you. William2001^(talk) 18:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

An Article On My Sandbox

To Whom It May Concern,

I wrote an article on my sandbox with the hope that it will be approved. The subject is Arvelia Myers, a tennis entrepreneur and pioneer in Harlem who spent decades changing the lives of young people by teaching them tennis. I included several sources of information and wonder if she is notable enough. Also, is posting the article on my sandbox sufficient or must I do more for publication?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Margo McKenzie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjmac (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Emjmac, welcome to Wikipedia. The best place to create articles is through the Articles for creation process using the Wikipedia:Article Wizard. After a brief look, I feel like Arvelia Myers is notable (covered by the NY Times among others) so I think you should be fine in that respect. I will take a look at the article in your sandbox and post some comments on your talk page. I hope that helps, regards Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Assessing an article

I've contributed largely to an article, and it was previously a stub but I believe it's more than that now. The article is Rudolph F. Zallinger, and I wish to know how to ask for an article to be assessed, or if I'm allowed to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portughetti (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

An editor has changed rating to C-class. My own opinion is that one should not change class after having worked on an article, instead leaving to others. David notMD (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Notable for inclusion in Wikipedia

Can I use data from google verified knowledge Panel, Offical You Tube Channel and entry person's official published data for inclusion in wikipedia references.--Ryzen Lynn (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Check WP:Reliable sources before asking here. Thanks! Good luck! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ryzen Lynn. Google's Knowledge Graph, sometimes called the "Knowledge panel", is not a reliable source. It has no human editors and just uses bot algorithms to scrape the internet for answers to search inquiries. Most of the written content is taken from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself. Images are especially prone to errors. A search for "Jane Smith" may display text about a college professor of that name and misleadingly display a photo of a different person, perhaps an artist with the same name. This is a chronic problem. Self-published sources including official YouTube channel videos are acceptable only for completely non-controversial information that is not self-serving. Such sources do not provide any evidence that the topic is notable, because they lack independence from the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Ryzen Lynn: I'm not sure what a "google verified knowledge Panel" is, but if you mean the one that appears on the right side when you search for a name, much of it is from Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR), social media, and other uncited/uncitable sources, which are not WP:RSs. I don't know that Google does any curation of the information.^[a] The person's YouTube Channel and any self-published data are considered WP:PRIMARY and therefore not suitable for anything but the least controversial of data. If you're having trouble finding sources, the subject may not be WP:NOTABLE.

Notes

^ Their Google Translate product, for example, refuses to add missing offensive tags for most English-language racial slurs they've repeated from other dictionaries, despite a couple of attempts (I haven't given up).

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Review Times

Hi Teahouse, so I just resubmitted an article for review. I was wondering if there are separate queues for first drafts and resubmissions, as in will I have to wait as long for my resubmission to be reviewed (i.e. at least 8 weeks) as I initially did for my first article? Or is there no way to tell? Thanks for your help! Tleclair96 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tleclair96:. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. Drafts are all in the same bucket, and the volunteer reviewers decide which drafts they want to review. That is to say, it is not a queue, so there is no telling who or when your draft will be reviewed. Just be patient, and make sure your draft is in good shape so that when the review happens there it will be less likely to be rejected. RudolfRed (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest that, while you are waiting for review, you try to find better sources. I can see some mentions, and lots of sources that are not independent, but not a good independent source that writes about the subject in detail. A reviewer will be more likely to accept an article if it has detailed independent sources. Dbfirs 06:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Student Project

Hi,

I am engaging in a student project to assist a charity in updating their online presence. In addition to polishing up social media, this means reinvigorating the wikipedia page which is, frankly, outdated ([(Wikipedia page in question)]. My professor is acting as an intermediary with the charity, and as such, he thought it was appropriate to publish the previous student to take on this project's work. Unfortunately, I think there was some poor communication, as the update involved wholesale changes to the wiki, and it may have come across as vandalism or biased publishing. The student before me, and myself, are entirely independent of the charity, and are not receiving credit based on portraying the charity in an exceptionally positive light. I fully understand and respect wikipedia's importance as a source of unbiased, independent, information, and would never want to exhibit any behavior that went against the high standard that both the site and its army of volunteers hold themselves to. I also understand that The Vietnam War and its aftermath are sensitive topics, and as such, Wikipedia has an interest in being careful in what gets published in what way.

Basically, I want to make this work for all parties involved. I am more than happy to work individually with an editor to make sure the process is clearly communicated on your end.

Thank you, Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerBinghamNiagara (talk • contribs)

Hi @TylerBinghamNiagara: Welcome to the teahouse and thanks for engaging with us to find out the best way to go about making the edits you want to make. While I realise you are doing a student project to help out a charity, you still have a conflict of interest and you should make sure to declare this clearly. I would suggest putting a short statement on your user-page. Assuming you are not being paid, you don't quite fall foul of our policy on paid editing but it is close, and probably best to err on the side of caution, so you may want to put the paid editing template on your user-page as well.

Aside from that, given your conflict of interest, the best approach is to propose edits, and get other editors to implement them. You can do this using the {{request edit}} template and post on the article talk page or, given that you may find that not many other editors look there, you could post at the conflict of interest noticeboard instead. Hug^syrup 16:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Hugsyrup: for clearing up my confusion on the matter. I apologize for said confusion, as I am both new to this project and wikipedia, and am trying to catch myself up on its current status as quickly as possible. I agree, that it is best to air on the side of caution, and I will implement the recommended additions to my user page. You are correct in that I am not getting paid by any organization for this work. It is fully voluntary. Is there a way to indicate that, as opposed to indicating this is for payment, or does it simply not make a difference as long as its clear to other editors that I have a COI by Wikipedia's standards? Appreciate all the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerBinghamNiagara (talk • contribs)

I would also gently note that Wikipedia has no interest in any person or organization's "internet presence"; we're all here to improve this encyclopedia, and edits should be made with that as the top priority. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've posted some relevant information on your user talk page so you can review it. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@TylerBinghamNiagara: - no need to apologise, you're doing the right thing by asking for help. Regarding the paid disclosure, the policy states "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure" so I would make the paid editing disclosure and treat yourself as a paid editor to be on the safe side. Hug^syrup 08:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

listing tourism attraction sites for machakos.

Greetings,

Am a resident of born raised and working in Machakos County and has collected data about the various sites. I chose to edit the information which i gathered from asking the residents or giving it description according to its appearance so as to make it easier for people to know whats found in Machakos county. the curiosity of people wanting to know attraction sites as well as the history of these places led me to posting it. i do not have written reference since some of the information i gathered from asking questions through my travel journey exploring my county since i love tourism and would like to promote it to the world.

kindly advice on how to provide this information. I got the data free and thought giving it out to the world for free.

Your assistance is highly appreciated.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliet Ndunge (talk • contribs) 10:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Juliet Ndunge: - unfortunately Wikipedia only accepts information that is backed by reliable, independent sources. Information that you have gathered through your own research cannot be added to Wikipedia, I'm afraid. You might find that you would have more luck at our sister project Wikivoyage, which has less stringent criteria and actively welcomes information about tourist attractions and historical sites that has been gathered by contributors. Hug^syrup 10:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Gines Serran Pagan - Artist and Sculptor (New User)

Dear, Teahouse

Good afternoon!

I'm new in Wikipedia, I'm an artist and sculptor based in Spain with various works around the world having 250 exhibitions in over 20 countries ( please see my website http://www.serran-paganart.com/ ) because of my busy schedules, businesses and commitments to other projects I had a hard time starting my own Wikipedia page.

I'd like to seek your help in creating my Wikipedia layout. Some few questions that I have are

1. Can someone from your team create it for me? I can provide all the information, articles, write ups, sources, pictures etc... 2. How much does it cost to create one?

Appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gineserranpagan (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gineserranpagan: - hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To begin with, Wikipedia isn't really somewhere that you can 'start your own Wikipedia page'. It's not like a social media site, for example. It's an encyclopedia, where we have articles about notable topics that are covered in reliable independent sources. Generally when people come here wanting to create their own page, they are not sufficiently notable and the page will keep being rejected, which just causes frustration. If you really think you are notable enough, then the first thing to do before you worry about writing anything else would be to go and find at least three sources about you. These must be independent (not connected to you in any way), reliable (a well-respected journal or newspaper, or a published book) and must cover you in sufficient detail (not just a single quote or passing comment). If you can find those, then it may be possible to have an article about you, and we can show you the next steps in creating it.

To answer your specific questions. 1) probably not, as generally Wikipedia editors won't want to create an article at the request of the subject. However, if you find sources good enough to show that you are notable, someone may be interested in creating the article. 2) There is no cost. You can't pay for a Wikipedia article.

Finally, I'm going to put a message on your talk page with some links to useful policies that you should read, particularly our policies on editing when you have a conflict of interest. It would be good for you to read all of these before you spend too much more time on trying to have your article created. Hug^syrup 10:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Category lists

Hi, I was just looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beckton and noticed that the pages listed aren't under the correct alphabetical headings, for example Beckton DLR station is under D (but Beckton Park DLR station is correctly under B). Is this done by a bot or a human, and can I correct it? Thanks. MarpoHarks (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarpoHarks: see Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys for the reason behind this type of behavior and Help:Category#Sorting_category_pages for how to control it. For instance, at Beckton DLR station, the category is given by the code [[Category:Beckton|DLR station]], which will sort it under "DLR station" hence at D.

If you have a lot of pages where you want to change the sort key with a consistent pattern (e.g. the page "Beckton X" is sorted by "X"), you could ask at WP:BOTREQ. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thank you so much! I shall read up on those links before I attempt anything. MarpoHarks (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarpoHarks: Sort keys different from the page name are intentional and should usually be kept. It's for example used to sort the article where it may be expected to be found by a reader who is looking for it without knowing the name, or to avoid a large part of the articles being grouped under the category name or a variation of it. A space as sort key means a main article per point 2 at WP:SORTKEY. Sort keys identical to the page name are redundant and should usually be removed, unless there is a different DEFAULTSORT and the article should sort under its actual name instead of the DEFAULTSORT. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you for explaining further, and sorry if some of my edits created more work. MarpoHarks (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

How to retrieve my deleted draft by editor for future reference and improvement

Hi, my draft page for review was recently set for speedy deletion and I couldn't retrieve the draft for future improvement. Please can someone guide me how to go about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsson Tan (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carsson Tan. The draft was deleted as "unambiguous advertising and promotion" and I agree with that assessment. As an administrator, I can read the deleted draft which describes this person as a "digital influencer, fashion, lifestyle and beauty blogger". That is the type of description that pretty much hollers that the draft article is promotional, not neutral, and unacceptable for the encylopedia. The working assumption among reviewers will always be that articles about "digital influencers" and "beauty bloggers" are promotional BS, unless the highest quality reliable independent sources devote in-depth coverage to the person. I will not restore this draft article in any form, unless you can convince me that this person stands head and shoulders above all the other influencers and bloggers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Carsson Tan: assuming (per Cullen) that there is no point restoring the draft in Wikipedia space, you can still ask for a copy to be emailed to you if you so wish. Except for copyright violations, gross personal attacks etc., deleted pages are eligible for WP:REFUND (click that link). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

notable

Hi I want to write and atrical about "Qualito Craft Distillery" Are the topic Notable? Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raubenpj12 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Raubenpj12: - welcome to The Teahouse. We have notability guidelines which you can look at to help you determine if a topic is notable. The main one is the general notability guidelines, and for Qualito you should also look at the guidelines for companies. If you believe it meets those criteria then it is probably notable! On Wikipedia, notability almost always comes down to sources, so the first thing you should usually do is look for independent, reliable sources that talk about the topic in depth. If you can find those, you are well on your way to creating an article that will be accepted, and you should follow the process at WP:AFC to draft it and submit it for review. If you can't find such sources, then that topic probably isn't going to be suitable for inclusion.

Do you have any connection to Qualito Craft Distillery yourself? Hug^syrup 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating articles on the Republic of Korea Constitution

Hello everyone, I was looking around for some possible topics to create an article on (in English WP, obviously) and I found that on the Korean Wikipedia there is a whole series on the Republic of Korea Constitution with basically a stub (or sometimes start) class article on every article and section of the constitution that explains said article's legal significance, cases relating to such section, etc. So, I thought creating articles for each section and article would help out the English wikipedia greatly. Now, I can find sources on all of those sections and create (short) articles that would meet WP:GNG with around 3 or so WP:RS for an article (Korean Constitutional Court proceedings and lots of newspaper articles). However, would creating such articles be OK in terms of policy and etc? Like only the Korean Wikipedia has 100+ articles on each section, so which of the two: 1) expanding the English WP article on Republic of Korea Constitution to include all the sections (creating a very, very long article) or 2) creating separate (presumably) stub-class articles on each section of the constitution be preferable? (there are 100+ sections but I will create articles on the most notable sections for now) Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a good grasp of policy when it comes to creating articles (I am an AfC reviewer) but I am asking about this case as it is something I have never dealt with (but want to) Taewangkorea (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at similar articles that are more comprehensive and get your ideas from there. There is the case of the Constitution of the United States. This article contains links to separate related pages. The Background section, for example, has a link to the History of the United States Constitution. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Taewangkorea. I took a quick look at Republic of Korea Constitution and noticed that it is a C class article with only a sentence or two about each of the articles of the Constitution, which sentences are poorly referenced. I suggest that you begin by systematically improving that Wikipedia article, expanding the coverage of each constitutional article and relevant subsection to a fully referenced, informative paragraph or two. Strive to bring the article to Good article or even Featured article status. If the article is improved to that degree, and the article is getting bloated, then that would be the time to start considering spinoff articles. Bottom line: do solid work to improve the main article first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:SIZESPLIT might be of interest to you, Taewangkorea. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

How add Plain English to the list at the bottom of the following article where a click on the name (Plain English) would link to The Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers Blog?

Programming languages with English-like syntax AppleScript Attempto Controlled English COBOL ClearTalk FLOW-MATIC HyperTalk Inform 7 JOSS Software AG Transcript Structured Query Language (or SQL) xTalk

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Luis899 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jorge Luis899: It's not clear which article you refer to, or whether you meant all those language articles (plus almost all others), but see WP:EL for policy on such external links – I doubt your blog would be considered acceptable. Please try to make section names ("How add Plain English to ...") a reasonable length (say, under 5–10 words), and sign your posts on talk pages such as this by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1, I want to edit the article Programming languages with English-like syntax, the link of this article is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural-language_programming#External_links

I want to add Plain English to the list at the bottom of the article that I quoted above where a click on the name (Plain English) would link to The Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers Blog.

You said to me that you doubt the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers Blog would be considered acceptable.

If this blog is not acceptable, the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers site (http://www.osmosian.com/) would be considered acceptable?

If yes, please add Plain English to the list at the bottom of the article that I quoted above where a click on the name (Plain English) would link to the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers site ((http://www.osmosian.com/).

Will you add Plain English to the list at the bottom of the article that I quoted above where a click on the name (Plain English) would link to the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers site ((http://www.osmosian.com/)? -- Jorge Luis899

@Jorge Luis899: My initial feeling is that this link seems more promotional than neutral and encyclopaedic. I have left a warning on your page about this, and about your continuing habit of leaving misleading edit summariess. (Please remember to sign your posts). Nick Moyes (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, it is written in article Natural-language programming:

'Natural-language programming (NLP) is an ontology-assisted way of programming in terms of natural-language sentences, e.g. English.[1] A structured document with Content, sections and subsections for explanations of sentences forms a NLP document, which is actually a computer program. Natural languages and natural-language user interfaces include Inform7, a natural programming language for making interactive fiction, Ring,[2][3] a general-purpose language, Shakespeare, an esoteric natural programming language in the style of the plays of William Shakespeare, and Wolfram Alpha, a computational knowledge engine, using natural-language input.[citation needed] Some methods for program synthesis are based on natural-language programming.[4]'

Maybe is a good idea to write the following changes:

'Natural-language programming (NLP) is an ontology-assisted way of programming in terms of natural-language sentences, e.g. English.[1] A structured document with Content, sections and subsections for explanations of sentences forms a NLP document, which is actually a computer program. Natural languages and natural-language user interfaces include Inform7, a natural programming language for making interactive fiction, Ring,[2][3] a general-purpose language, Shakespeare, an esoteric natural programming language in the style of the plays of William Shakespeare, Wolfram Alpha, a computational knowledge engine, using natural-language input.[citation needed] and Plain English Programming, a programming language that is a subset of a natural language. Some methods for program synthesis are based on natural-language programming.[4]'

Is it a good idea to write the changes that I wrote above?

Maybe is a good idea to add Plain English Programming in External Links at Natural-language programming and using 'add contente.

Is it a good idea add Plain English to the list at the bottom of the article Natural-language programming where a click on the name (Plain English) would link to the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers site ((http://www.osmosian.com/) or to the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers blog (https://osmosianplainenglishprogramming.blog/) in External Links at Natural-language programming using 'add contente'?

Will Wikipedia editors write the changes that I suggested above? -- Jorge Luis899

Gare de Verneuil-sur-Avre

How can I reset/move the infobox under services on Gare de Verneuil-sur-Avre?

Thanks

Devokewater (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not an infobox, it's a succession box. Why do you wish to remove it? A more useful task for you would be to find references for the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

My Knowledge

I am Good reacher on caste system of Pakistani punjab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awais Fareed786 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Awais Fareed786. We're always happy to have more people helping out on improving our articles. You may want to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. This can help familiarize you with how a lot of things on Wikipedia work. GMG ^talk 14:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me

{help me} i wrote a page on a company that looks like advertising. how can i improve my chances of getting published on wikipida? {help me} in what was can i rewrite this page so as it dose not look like advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emroxx (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Emroxx: - unfortunately as the page was deleted, I can't see it so I can't give specific comments on why it looked like advertising. Can you tell me what the topic of the page was, as that will help me to guide you to relevant policies. You will also see that someone has already posted on your talk page with some helpful links that you could read. This one in particular could be useful. Hug^syrup 13:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have an administrator look at it because they can see deleted pages. I will ping two administrators who are active on this forum: Cullen328 and 331dot. They might be able to explain why the page got deleted. Interstellarity (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Emroxx. As an administrator, I could review your deleted draft article. It was nothing like an encylopedia article but really more of a prospectus or business plan. It described your current small business and your plans for future growth. Here is an example of the wording: "I have seen in my days that there needs to be a procurement company responsible for procuring contracts and providing subleasing opportunities for other businesses to bid for. With my company, I remove all under the table dealings and so forth. I want to make a difference to the country of Papua New Guinea."

An encyclopedia article summarizes what reliable published sources independent of the topic have said about the topic. Please read about conflict of interest editing and study Your first article. Please consider working on other articles about New Guinea. We need Wikipedia editors in your country. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Using books as source material

quick question.

I seek to add information to a page and flesh out many of the pages on current and former athletes that are stubs. However, there is some material that I'd like to add that comes from books, I.E. old NFL registers, Duerreotypes (I know Misspelled that last one, but those books were published from the late 50's or so into the late 70's and has a wealth of material on turn of the century baseball players) and, if possible, old biography and autobiography books.

How do I cite those if they are appropriate sources for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan1976 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sportsfan1976: You can cite books that are not available online. Here are the citation syntax guidelines Template:Cite book. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fails WP:NCOMAPNY - lacks WP:CORPDEPTH.

Hi all am a new editor..i tried submitting an article but the reviewer comment was 'Fails WP:NCOMAPNY - lacks WP:NCOMAPNY'

firstly, i tried looking up WP:NCOMAPNY but i don't understand what it really meant

secondly; how do i go about fixing WP:NCOMAPNY

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akpene0 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a typo in the feedback from the reviewer. Instead of WP:NCOMAPNY he presumably intended to refer to WP:NCOMPANY. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph how do i go about fixing problems like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akpene0 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If the subject hasn't received the requisite coverage in published independent reliable sources it doesn't satisfy the requirement for a Wikipedia article. Someone can try again if it receives the requisite coverage in the future. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Akpene0: To be clear, things like WP:NCOMPANY (usually underlined and in another color like blue) are wikilinks to other Wikipedia pages. You are being asked to read such pages (by clicking on the links) for information about why your article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Things like WP:NCOMPANY and WP:CORPDEPTH are examples of shortcuts to policy and guideline pages. These two specifically are shorthand for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References and Sources

Can someone tell me the benefit of having a section of sources that is linked to the list of references, as on the Elizabeth Fones article? It seems a bit redundant, and potentially problematic, to me. When I removed a citation, it disappeared from references but I had to remove it from sources myself. Just wondering. Thanks.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39: It reduces inline clutter. You can cite a source multiple times without having to retype all the source details - just the ref name (and the page number if it's different). See WP:ILCLUTTER. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, DiamondRemley39! I would also suggest looking at Help:Shortened footnotes, as it gives a comprehensive explanation of the style. CThomas³ (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The section of sources to which you refer was added manually by an editor in 2011. That editor is no longer active. At the time, they named the Sources section "References", which meant there were two sections with that name. Later, it was changed to "Sources". There is no obvious reason to have such a section in an article, but I do see them occasionally.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

translation/authorship

Dear Wikipaedia,

I am going to retire in a few weeks and fear that I’ll be bored. I would very much like to continue to contribute to science and to public education, and I therefore wondered whether I might be eligible to contribute to Wiki.

I have published close to 180 peer-reviewed articles (mainly in biochemistry and molecular biology) in high-ranking journals, and have discovered three human proteins involved in various pathways of DNA repair, the malfunction of which is linked to human disease.

I was born in Prague and could therefore help translate Czech text into English (one specific case involves the Wiki page of my uncle, Vladimir Svaty, who transformed the textile industry by inventing the shuttle-less weaving machine, but who only has a Czech Wiki page https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladim%C3%ADr_Svat%C3%BD). I have already translated this page, but cannot publish it, because I am not authorised to do so.

I am also able to translate life science articles and texts from Italian to English, having lived in Italy for close to 7 years, and I am bilingual in German and Swiss German.

Is there a way of making me eligible to contribute to Wikipaedia?

I shall look forward to hearing from you,

Josef Jiricny ——— Josef Jiricny Professor Emeritus <Address redacted for privacy>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiricny (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jiricny. You've got as far as creating a draft article, which is at User:Jiricny/Vladimír Svatý. That needs to be submitted for review before it can be published. Before you do that, however, you need to copy across the references from the Czech article. You can insert footnote references into the text at the end of the sentences they support using the following code: <ref>Text of reference</ref>. The sourcing requirements of English Wikipedia are higher than most other language versions, so it might be that you have to find published sources for things that are in the Czech version but not referenced there (alternatively, if no published sources exist, you will have to omit the information). Once that is done, you can submit the draft for review by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page and saving it. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask them here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jiricny. Just to add to what Cordless Larry has said, everyone is eligible to contribute to Wikipedia, you don't need any special permissions (with the exception of a very small number of pages which may have some restrictions on due to vandalism). When creating new articles, you can follow the advice given above by Cordless Larry, but otherwise you can make changes to any existing article you come across. Just be sure that any change is backed up by reliable sources, that you write in a neutral and 'encyclopedic' tone, and that if somebody reverts your changes you don't take it personally but discuss it on the article talk page to reach agreement. You'll see that some of the words in the previous sentence links to specific guidelines which give more information on what I mean, and which may be useful for you to read. Good luck, and you're always welcome to come back to the Teahouse with any further questions. Hug^syrup 09:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

And you might enjoy our pages for translation. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jiricny, we have a page of advice for expert editors that could be useful for you. You might also be interested in WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology where interested editors and subject specialists such as yourself collaborate and work on creating and improving articles on the subject. Welcome to Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justin15W

Hi.

I'm wondering if in sandbox mode can I edit my articles as long as I like and once published will they be an official post link on the web for all to see or is there another step in the process before. Does anyone have to approve or do people vote if an article is accurate or good enough (submit a draft for review)? Also, if cited sources, does that count as not being unconstructive. Justin15W write to me on Nov. 16, saying I was unconstructive in few edits. Not sure what that means exactly. In which case is why I'd rather edit or work in the sandbox so I don't make bad edits on existing pages if that makes sense.

Thank you,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkHill (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

pinging Justin15w (talk · contribs) William2001^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TurkHill. Justin15W is inactive now.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@TurkHill: You can practice editing and creating drafts in your own sandbox. See Help:My sandbox. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

XBLite entry

I was Googling and found the excellent article about XBLite. However, the external links are no longer correct for the Official Website and Home Page. Only the SourceForge links are still active. However, they are pointing at the wrong location also. What I wanted to know is - should I just leave it alone? Or should I modify the links to SourceForge and remove the other links which are not functioning currently? Thank you in advance for any advice.

Markem (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - I left off the http link in Wikipedia: XBLite Entry

@Markem: Links marked as dead - site was taken down in February 2019 - see [[1]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Markem (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Thank you! :-)

New Jerusalem Calendar

What happens if you do a search for something on Wikipedia but don’t see it and you don’t get a red link to create a page for it? I searched for “New Jerusalem Calendar “ and didn’t see anything and I know it exists because here is the calendar https://newjerusalemcalendar.com/2019_new_jerusalem_calendar

and here is the website about it https://www.newjerusalemcalendar.com/new_jerusalem_calendar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell722 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Russell722 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When I search for that phrase, I get a redlink above the search results("You may create the page "New Jerusalem Calendar", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered"). However, before attempting to create an article, (which is harder than most people think it is) you will need to see if this calendar gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources and if it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If it does and you have appropriate sources, you should first read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial, then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review, before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. If you dive right in to creating an article and post it, it will be treated more critically than if you had it reviewed as a draft first. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wasp parts

anyone have any wasp parts i can buy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jettspencer34 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jettspencer34. The Teahouse is a place where editors can ask questions about Wikipedia editing and it's not clear what your question has to do with Wikipedia. If you're looking to purchase something, then try searching for it using Yahoo! or Google; perhaps you'll find someone selling it online or a store in your area which sells it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

editing entries in Wikipedia

Hi, I have an entry as Sally Morningstar in Wikipedia written by publishing houses over the years, because I am an author. However, some of the information was either incorrect or out of date, so I have edited it to make it correct. I hope this isn't seen as any kind of conflict of interest. I would hope that honest entries are welcome, over and above incorrect or misleading ones. I presume I am allowed to edit my own page seeing as it is about me. Advice gratefully received. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Morningstar (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sally Morningstar: It actually is a conflict of interest for you to directly edit the Wikipedia article about you. Instead, you may make edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page. However, before you do that, you will need to confirm your identity with Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Under unintended consequences, Sally Morningstar blocked for using her own name as her User name (that should be fixable), and also the article about her, Sally Morningstar, now nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Are you saying she was impersonating, or have I mis-read the policy allowing use of real names if they are, indeed, the named person? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: An editor can use their real name as their username per WP:REALNAME, but such accounts can be WP:SOFTBLOCKed as a precaution against possible damaging impersonation by an administrator, especially when the username is the same as the name of an article and the account has edited that article. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog so it's sometimes a judgement call depending upon the administrator assessing things; in this case 331dot felt a soft-block was appropriate. If she wants to continue editing under that username, then she can always email WP:Contact OTRS and verify her identity. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

How To Know If I am Auto-Confirmed User?

Edit : I have just checked Beta option in the top right corner. There I checked User profile. Now they are showing me auto-confirmed users, users. My account is more than 4 days old and I have already made 12 edits. But still I see no change in my account. I want to post an article and I followed Article Wizard. At the end it is asking me to submit the draft which will be reviewed by the volunteers and will be available for external search engine after 8 weeks or more (the time needed to review). How do I know if I am an auto-confirmed user of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaiya.mobility (talk • contribs) 08:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. All groups currently assigned to you will be listed on the first page of your preferences. Regards So Why 08:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are an autoconfirmed user. It is always a good idea to use the article wizard for your first article, and create it in draft space so that you have time to improve it before it is accepted or declined but retained for further improvement. Many first articles posted directly to mainspace get deleted. I am not able to see the draft that you created. Did you click "Publish"? You might like to read WP:Your first article. Dbfirs 08:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, "Publish" means saving your draft. Submitting it to AfC is a different step. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors, will you correct my editing errors?

Hello Wikipedia editors!

I tried to improve the article Natural-language programming talking about the Plain English, a programming language that is a subset of a natural language because this article is incomplete.

Reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural-language_programming#External_links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Luis899 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't link to www.osmosian.com, the Plain English Programming site.

Please correct my editing errors.

The reference of the Plain English Programming is www.osmosian.com.

Wikipedia editors,

Will you correct my editing errors? -- Jorge Luis899 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Luis899 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jorge Luis899: Can you justify why the External Link you want to add is relevant to the article, and why it should remain? If you can do that, please do it on the article's talk page and gain consensus there. My view (though I accept I may be wrong) is that, as I have already made clear to you before, you are trying to add promotional link which is not directly relevant to the article. I am about to revert your recent edits (which includes redinked articles in the See Also section!) , and ask you not to attempt to reinsert them without first discussing them on that talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, the External Link I want to add is relevant to the article and it should remain because this article is incomplete, the Plain English is a natural programming language.

Plain English programmers are already programming at a human-language level. The main routine in the sample program in our instruction manual, for example, looks like this...

To run: Start up. Initialize our stuff. Handle any events. Finalize our stuff. Shut down.

...and those are the kind of sentences that English-speaking humans use when they are speaking to other English-speaking humans.

Again:

Wikipedia editors,

Will you correct my editing errors? -- Jorge Luis899

@Jorge Luis899: I won't, no. I invite you to gain consensus for including your external link by raising it in the article talk page rather than making repeated requests here. Your request will be better understood and considered by those with knowledge and interests in the topic. I have checked the talk page and see no evidence of you raising it there. That is the best advice I can offer you. I'm not trying to be obstructuve, but I am trying to protect the encyclopaedia from edits that, as a non-expert in this field, I perceive as not appropriate. Hence why you should discuss it there first. When you do so, you don't type your username directly at the end, you type four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, what is the article talk page?Jorge Luis899 (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jorge Luis899. The talk page is Talk:Natural-language programming. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

[1] Their Google Translate product, for example, refuses to add missing offensive tags for most English-language racial slurs they've repeated from other dictionaries, despite a couple of attempts (I haven't given up).

[a]