Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 175

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170←Archive 173Archive 174Archive 175Archive 176Archive 177→Archive 180

Marking a page for deletion and creating a link of different page in deletion discussion review.

Hello, I have a question. While going through APT Institute page, I found out that the page is being considered for deletion. When I tried to go to the deletion discussion page from the concerned page, it took me to another discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunal Sood page of the same author User:BiH. When I searched back in the history of the page APT Institute, only one editor User:Johny 547 marked it for deletion and after that there was no edit. How can this glitch come? Is this some sort of vandal activity? Rafaelgriffin (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Rafael, thanks for stopping by. Without talking to the editor concerned it's hard to say it is a mistake or an incomplete nomination. Either way as it's now three days since they added the notice to the page and haven't actually listed the article at AFD, I've removed the notice. Nthep (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Any editor whose very first edit is an AFD nomination attracts "interest". Looking at the editor's other edits, I think this needs a CU check, but I have to go offline now. Arjayay (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I nominated that page for deletion because it was made by single contributor which reflects advertisement.

Johny 547 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you need to conduct all three steps of the AFD process as detailed at WP:AFDHOWTO before a nomination is complete. Nthep (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

writing articles.

Can i write a full article?Aberimah Divine (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yes you can - but have a read of Wikipedia:Your first article before you start. Nthep (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeking (Waiting for) Confirmation

I have two situations in mind which provide context for my questions:

  1. An addition to a page is reverted due to perceived promotional aspects. When I sought clarification, it was quickly forthcoming. However, when I proposed an alternate draft (on a talk page), I got no response.
  2. A bit of discussion exists around a particular addition to an article on its talk page. I have proposed a potential solution, but haven't heard anything back.

I'm wondering if perhaps I'm incorrectly assuming there is a culture of proactive discussion on Wikipedia when in reality the culture is more attuned to reactivity? Alternatively, perhaps it's just the users or pages I happen to be attempting to interact with and I should give them time to respond. If so, what do you suggest is an appropriate amount of time to wait before proceeding? I was thinking perhaps 3 days (the default watchlist presence). Any advice along these lines would be appreciated. Morphovariant (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll need to link us to the specific pages you're discussing for context here. As a rough reference, the a system for collaborating on articles that many editors aspire to is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --LukeSurl t c 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This answers my question. Thanks!
Morphovariant (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Filmography help

Hi all - I'm trying to properly cite a filmography - Is IMDB enough? Here's the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Johnson_(actress) Any help would be great - Thanks! Row42 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Short answer, no. IMDB data is user-submitted and edited, so it cannot be considered a reliable source. Alternative reliable sources will need to be found. If these do not exist the article will have to be removed - principally for legal reasons we are very cautious about making sure the information we hold about living people is verifiable. --LukeSurl t c 23:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not an "official" answer but from a reader who has read over 100+ biographies of actors, actresses and directors, filmographies do not normally have citations. In fact, there is not even a standard of what to include or exclude. Some editors include every single movie or TV series an actor has been (and sometimes plays, too) while other filmographies just include "highlights", substantial creations that an actor has appeared in (for example, no guest appearances). While LukeSurl is technically correct, I'd follow the practice seen on other filmographies and ask folks at Wikiproject:Film for specific advice. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing the colors of states on a map of the United States

I am seeking to update some maps of the United States on various pages that color the states according to certain policies or practices that the states use. This makes it easy to see which states have a specific law or policy and which states do not. I have found some maps whose information is either inaccurate or out-of-date. How do I change the colors of states on these maps in order to update or correct them?TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. These maps are updated by uploading a new version of the image. Unfortunately, only accounts which have been autoconfirmed (that is, at least four days old and having made at least ten edits) can do so. You've already made way more than ten edits, so if you don't want to wait a few days, you can ask someone to upload it for you. One way to do that is to make a request on the file's talk page. Click on an image in an article, then click the "Talk" link near the upper-left corner. Or maybe you could respond here with the specific file names and someone could help. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TobiisNOTmadara1291. I don't know exactly about which maps you are talking, but most of these maps are actually located at Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is Wikipedia's sister project, it's purpose is to host free images and other files. Those images are then transcluded and used in Wikipedia articles. Since you are registered user at English Wikipedia, you are also automatically a registered user at Wikimedia Commons. The only way to change the coloring yourself is to download the image, edit it in some image editing software, and then upload the new version back to Wikimedia Commons (see here how to do it). Those images are in varying file formats, so I can't tell you which software to use. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

How can a profile picture be added to this wiki page?

Gloria Richardson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Richardson

74.94.6.241 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gloria and welcome. If you want to make a guest profile click the link at the top of this page and then click where it says "Introduce yourself". We do not have images on this particular page.--Charles (image editing software) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Charles, I'm afraid you did not understand the question. User wants to add a photo to the "Gloria Richardson" article. The user is probably not Richardson herself. I'll try to give an answer. Wikipedia only accepts so-called free photos of living persons to be added. Free images are those images that are either in the public domain (free of copyrights) or their authors explicitly gave permission to use them under a free license. So, if you have a photo of Gloria Richardson made by yourself, you can upload it freely. But, if you do not a have a photo made by yourself, then you'll have to find some photo made by somebody else who gave permission, or to ask him to give permission. You may look this page to find photos that are free to use. If you know some author of a photo and want to ask him to release a permission to use the photo, read this: Wikipedia:Requesting free content. Free photos of living persons (and all other free photos) should not be uploaded directly to Wikipedia, but to Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's sister project (see here how to do it). But, remember, only free photos may be used. You may not upload some random photo you find on Google, as it would constitute a copyright violation. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability....?

Hello,

I've been working on an article about a new spiritual teacher. I finally seem to have addressed most of the issues raised about this article, but the latest rejection says "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule."

What do you do if you disagree with this? Kosi has been teaching for just over a year and half---has been interviewed on radio in Hawaii, Spain, as well as Ireland Public Radio. She has also been interviewed by the widely respected Buddha and the Gas Pump, Advaita News and Matrea Magazine of Prague Chez Republic---not to mention that she is a producer of a video that has been viewed by over 500,000 people and translated into over forty different languages. All of this information is of very high quality, The Maitrea Magazine article for example is based on an in depth interview with Kosi http://magazin.maitrea.cz//svoboda-jako-chuze-na-ostri-noze/,/ is this not being recognized because it is in Czech language?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiprague/sandbox

The article has citations for everything. What is missing? I really do not understand this notability issue given the media coverage mentioned above. Is this really not enough coverage? Is this why so many articles asking for inclusion in wikipedia are so short with almost no information? I am finding this process extremely frustrating. Please help.Wikiprague (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability is closely tied to "reliable sources". Self-published literature or videos don't carry much weight (I could put out a video saying I was an important person but I'm not) but impartial secondary literature (newspapers, magazines, interviews from sources other than the organization she represents) are seen as indicating notability. Think of it this way, Wikipedia editors do not want self-promotional articles so a biographical article needs to indicate notability through use of reliable outside sources.
The process can be frustrating but it's meant to filter out people who are set on promoting some person or group. The only advice I can offer to be patient, persistence and do not take this personally...every article on a person without visible prominence (professional athlete, celebrity, political official, etc.) gets the same scrutiny. Even most CEOS of wealthy corporations do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC):
Adding to what Liz has said, most editors active in assessing notability do not believe that interviews of the subject alone establish notability. Interviews are usually considered primary sources - the "meat" of an interview is the words of the interview subject, which are not independent. We need significant coverage of the topic (a person in this case) in fully independent, secondary reliable sources to establish notability. I encourage you to add such sources to the article, or to accept the fact that it may be too soon for this person to be the subject of a Wikipedia biography. As for the fact that other mediocre articles exist on Wikipedia, that is inevitable with an encyclopedia with well over 4 million articles. We work every day to delete non-compliant articles, rather than using their existence as an excuse to create more non-compliant articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I get my article published?

 Done I have a completed article that I wrote several months ago and it has been sitting in my "sandbox" ever since. I don't know how to officially publish it so that it is live on Wikipedia. Please help!Sally Ann Olson (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sally Ann Olson! I have moved your article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Reed. When you are ready to have it reviewed, hit the "Submit" button, but be advised most articles take several reviews, improvements, and new review, so don't get discouraged. I left a note at the top for two main things you need to address: you absolutely must provide citations to coverage of him in newspapers, music journals, etc. (see WP:Notability (music)) and you must format those citations as footnotes. Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@Sally Ann Olson: Hi Sally Ann. Please see the message I've left on your talk page regarding my deletion of the page. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I am rather frustrated that my article was just deleted. I was told it was removed because the content was the same as or copied from an external source. Well, that external source is the bio page of the website of my employer Bill Reed (singing teacher) about whom I wrote the article. I would be happy to add the required citations to indicate that I have permission to duplicate the content. Can my article please be reinstated so that I may have the change to make the necessary changes for it to be an acceptable article?Sally Ann Olson (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A few things:
  1. For text to be used on Wikipedia it needs not to be just "given permission", but released formally under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, which essentially gives anyone in the world permission to reuse it, for any purpose, including commercially. This copyright status would need to be displayed at the original source.
  2. Even if this could be done, text from a person's website is unlikely to be suitable for an encylopedia article. A person's website is designed for promotional reasons as well as an informational one, whereas an encylopedia needs to have a neutral point of view.
  3. As an employee of Bill Reed you have what we call a conflict-of-interest. We strongly discourage people writing and editing articles about subjects they have a close relationship to (for instance, a financial one) as they are unlikely to write with a neutral point of view.
  4. Lastly, any encylopedia will only ever have articles on a tiny fraction of the population. We use the term "notability" to describe what distinguishes a subject that we would have an article for. For people, the guidelines for what constitutes notability can be found at WP:BIO. Doing a quick internet search it seems highly unlikely that Bill Reed would meet any of these criteria.
All considered, I would strongly encourage not trying to get this article published, as it is very unlikely to be successful. There are many tasks for which Wikipedia could use your help. --LukeSurl t c 23:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@Sally Ann Olson: Hi Sally. Luke provides a very good overview of issues involved. I'd like to expand a bit about the copyright matter in particular. For Wikipedia to use previously written, copyrighted text, that text must either be in the public domain, or bear a free copyright license compatible with the copyright licenses of (most of) Wikipedia's content (which allows anyone to reuse the content even for commercial purposes, with the only requirement to comply with the copyright, to provide attribution to the source. So, a copyright owner's permission for our use here is useless. We need the copyright released to the world for us to use that content.

A related issue is that we must be provided with some verifiable proof that the person who releases copyrighted content, actually has authority to do so. For material that is online, one way to show that authority is for the external website to post the compatible license. Release can also be done in some cases via an email from a domain name associated with the content. (See WP:DCM).

It may not seem like it from the vantage point of the article just being deleted, but this is also for your protection. A person may not realize the legal copyright issues involved when they post copyrighted content here, but by doing so, they are in effect implying to the world that their content—which they may very well not wish to give up rights to and especially commercial rights—is fair game for anyone to take and use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is all very discouraging.....I never thought it would be so difficult to publish an article on Wikipedia! Interestingly enough, Bill Reed is referenced in another person's Wiki article (Bjørn Johnson, a former student of his). In this article Bill Reed is referred to as V.William Reed. So I just don't understand how if Bill Reed is mentioned in someone else's article that he wouldn't meet the criteria to have his own Wiki article. And also, I didn't think that just because I work for Bill Reed that it would be considered a conflict of interests. I thought that as long as Bill Reed didn't write his own article that it would be okay. I give up!Sally Ann Olson (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sally Ann Olson. In our 4.4 million articles, probably tens of millions of other topics, including people, are mentioned. Mentioning something or someone briefly may serve a useful encyclopedic purpose, but that doesn't mean that everything mentioned is worthy of its own encyclopedia article. Think of it this way: An article about someone famous often mentions their parents. Does that mean that their parents are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, since they are mentioned? If so, then those articles should mention the parent's parents, and they should have articles too. Then the great-grandparents, and the great-great grandparents, and so on. Following this logic, we will soon have biographies of every 13th century peasant. But individual ordinary 13th century peasants are clearly not appropriate subjects for encyclopedia articles. The bottom line is that we welcome biographies of people who are truly notable, and we have standards for determining that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand the logic that just because somebody is mentioned in an article that it does not necessarily mean that they are worthy of having their own article. However, Bill Reed is a highly notable individual in his own right. He is both an accomplished singer and voice teacher, founder of the musical theatre program at the Circle in the Square Theatre School in NYC, and has trained countless successful Broadway actor/singers. I just don't understand how someone of his caliber doesn't qualify to have his own article on Wikipedia.Sally Ann Olson (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
If the person you mention is "highly notable" as you claim, Sally Ann Olson, then you should be able to easily produce citations to significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources that demonstrate that notability convincingly. If you did so, then no attempt to delete such an article would possibly be successful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a pic. of myself

I would like to put a pic. of myself on my teahouse profile. I am not able to copy and paste and I am not finding an icon to upload from. Would you please give me instructions on this? Thank You, CharCnixon1 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you've decided to make profile here. If you took the photo yourself, you should actually go to Wikimedia Commons, which is a place for "free content" (things people can use for whatever purpose with few restrictions). Uploading to the Commons means it can be used here on Wikipedia or any affiliated site. When you create a guest profile, there should be a link offering you to upload your picture to the Commons. (Or use this direct link.) If you still need help, feel free to respond here. Welcome to the Teahouse! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

His Last Vow

Hi, an IP keeps adding the line "As of 15 January 2014 "His Last Vow" has acquired a 9.7 rating on IMDB with more than 5,500 votes,[24] and a 9.7 user rating on TV.com with a little more than 80 votes.[25]", despite the fact that I have raised the issue on the talk and on their talk page, whenever I remove it, they simply re-add it, ignoring any comments of mine. What can I do? Thanks, Matty.007 20:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of edit-warring to me. I'd take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Matty.007 08:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Notices sent to qmmckenna@comcast.net

DragonflySixtyseven just sent me a notice that "Drip pulse irrigation" has been "reviewed." I don't understand this because it is already an accepted article appearing on Wikipedia. The only change that was recently done to this article was to remove it's "orphan" designation because other Wikipedia articles have since been linked to it. On another matter, I keep receiving notices that another article I wrote "Drip feed pulse irrigation" is ready for imminent deletion. However that article has already been deleted months ago.Qmmckenna (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Qmmckenna: Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe the message was sent automatically by the software. As for marking as reviewed, this could have been new pages patrol or page curation. --Jakob (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Logos

How do I upload a logo so I can include it on a webpage? (Mande40 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This page, logos, gives an in-depth explanation of Wikipedia's policies towards logos. three considerations that are notable are: 1. logos are non-free images; 2. logos come with copyright concerns; 3. how appropriate is the logo for the article or page in question? if the logo is for advertisement or promo - a no-no etc. the page explains it all. Emekadavid (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks this is helpful. Mande40 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

submit article for review

Hello,

How can I improve my article and have it reviewed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mimi_Smith_(artist)

Thanks!

Archiveassistant (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Archiveassistant and welcome to the Teahouse. It can be difficult to evaluate the notability of an artist with the surname "Smith" due to the incredibly large number of false positives. When I look at your references, I see several that are seemingly "print only" and not available online. Although such sources are permissible, they may prompt suspicions among reviewers. I recommend incorporating quotations of a sentence or two from offline sources, to demonstrate that the coverage is significant. One of the sources from MOMA is a press release, which mentions many artists in passing including Smith, but says nothing substantive about her and her work. That type of reference does not inspire confidence, although one hopes for confidence when an artist appears in a MOMA source. My best advice is to highlight the best sources that clearly show notability, and downplay or remove sources that are marginal. It is far better to have three or four rock solid sources than eight or ten mediocre sources. The article can always be expanded later after notability is demonstrated convincingly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

How can I create a page?

Very simple question! How do I create a page on wikipedia?

Najia 80.1.32.72 (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse!
To create a draft which will be reviewed by an experienced editor, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and click the link there. It will take you through a wizard to help you create the draft in a nice format.
Please note that creating new articles is not the only way you can help Wikipedia. We have over 4 million articles already, and all of them can be edited and improved by anyone. For an introduction to how you can help Wikipedia, please go to the Wikipedia:Community portal. Creating a new article is quite tricky, I would personally recommend first spending a bit of time doing other tasks to help you get used to Wikipedia's way of doing things.
Lastly, I notice you are not logged in to an account. While not a necessity, creating an account on Wikipedia is easy, secure, and has many benefits. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Why create an account?.
Happy editing!
--LukeSurl t c 13:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking to an article in the french wikipedia

I have an article and the only resource to link to for the biographical account of a living writer is the french wikipedia. I believe placing a link from english wikipedia to a french article which my readers might not be able to read would be contrary to the purpose of a link and the english articles. Am I right? Then, I should just place the name and forget the link since the biography doesn't appear in the english wikipedia? Thanks Emekadavid (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean to link to the writer's article? If there is no such article on the English wikipedia, it's best to either leave it as a redlink in cases where you believe the subject of such an article would be notable enough to get its own article, or to not link it at all if you do not believe the subject is notable enough for its own article. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello again Emekadavid. The suggested practice here is to use a redlink and a piped link to the French encyclopaedia, so that readers can see that there is no article in English, but if they read French they can follow the link. The template {{ Ill }} will do that for you, and has the advantage that if somebody does write the English article, it will no longer display the French link. For example, {{ Ill | fr | Herman Prigann }} appears as Herman Prigann [fr] because there is no English article, but {{ Ill | fr | Emmanuel Grenier }} appears as Emmanuel Grenier. --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You guys have the answer to every question on earth? Pas possible? Wikipedia is a product that is beyond this age. Thanks. answered. Emekadavid (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to extend the discussion a little. What if the link is to an external reference because it is not possible to find an english for your facts. I have a situation here, Médecins de nuit where the references I can find from a google search are all french articles because it refers to a french tv series. What do i do? Very important please? thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the guidance is at WP:NOENG. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Policy on editing another editor's talk page

Hi. I am being followed by an IP hopper who has been range blocked in the past for their disruptive and uncivil behaviour. This IP hopper has now left a tirade of unfounded allegations against me on a third editor's Talk page. It even mentions my name in the section heading. I would like to delete the section and its heading from the talk page. Is this permitted?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello DrChrissy and I am sorry you are having such trouble. You can calmly post a reply on that thread. You can ask the third editor to redact the comment. If there are overt threats, racism, slander or the like, you can ask an administrator to revdel the comments. But I advise against removing the comments yourself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. I thought this might be the case because I would not like another editor editing my own Talk page without discussing it first. Thanks for the advice.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Susan Powell

Good evening kind and smiling teahouse host. I'm here not so much with a specific question but with a need for a place to put my bag down, sip a strong cup of Earl Grey, and, while I'm at it, is it ok to slip off my shoes? I made a random choice to copyedit this article that was on the need for copyedit list and set off with all the enthusiasm of a Burke or a Wills looking for the great inland sea. However, the article got the better of me: it seems all wrong in tone and, well, it's really creepy. Is there someone to provide sooth on such articles? Should I leave it well alone before PTSD sets in? With sincere thanks once again, Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, Myrtlegroggins. This is an article about a horrific and disturbing series of crimes, so I understand your feelings. About a year ago, I helped a new editor with an article about a notable murder that had shocking elements, and reading all the coverage in the sources reduced me to tears.The family tree in this article seems odd and not necessary, though I guess that there is nothing specifically wrong with it. All I will say is that if working on this article upsets you, feel entirely free to move on, as we have millions of other articles that would benefit from your attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for wise words, Cullen. I think in this case I will leave it and move on. Regards, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

I was about to nominate this article for FA, but it would be nice to have a third-party opinion on whether it's ready since all my FA nominations have a tendency to crash and burn. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello King jakob c 2 and welcome back to the Teahouse. I will give my impressions from reading the lead: I wonder if detailed statistics about flow rates, Ph levels and dissolved mineral composition of its water are really appropriate for the lead? Is that type of information common in other FAs about rivers and creeks? I wonder why the trout species and ruffed grouse are not wikilinked in the lead? The lead mentions "Albrights series and the Leck Kill soil" but we don't have articles on what seems to me to be these obscure soil types, so I wonder what value that information adds for the reader? At the other end of the spectrum, the lead states "The area around Fishing Creek has been inhabited by humans for thousands of years." Since it is well known that pretty much all of North America has been inhabited for thousands of years, what is the usefulness of this sentence to the reader? Perhaps mentioning the earliest known tribes that lived in the watershed would be more germane. And is it really necessary or useful to state the obvious that people walk their dogs near a creek? After all, people walk their dogs pretty much everywhere that dog walking is permitted. The lead should summarize the interesting and distinctive features of the topic. It should include neither highly technical details nor broad generalizations that are pretty much self evident. I hope my observations are helpful to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal regarding the reliability of a website

Hello. I was making a proposal concerning the reliability of a website which has been questionable in the past, and I was wondering where I should post the proposal. It's not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and the reliable sources noticeboard says that questions posted on the noticeboard are suppose to be about whether particular sources are notable in context. In this case, the website concerned is about a certain topic, so do I post in the talk page of the Wikipedia portal that is concerned with the source? Thanks! -KJ click here 11:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kkj11210. Please mention the specific website and we will give you a general opinion. The reason why the reliable sources noticeboard asks about the specific context is that no source is reliable 100% of the time, and pretty much any source is reliable for at least a few basic things. Consider the New York Times, commonly considered reliable the vast majority of the time. But part of their reliability comes from their reputation for correcting their errors. So, if the NYT published an article on January 2 making claim "X" and then published a correction on January 4 noting their error, saying that actually "Y" is true, then we can't cite the January 2 article to claim that "X" is true. That January 2 article is not a reliable source, even though it was published in a highly regarded newspaper. And no New York Times article with a byline of Jayson Blair should be considered reliable. At the other end of the continuum, there are kooks and conspiracy theorists who are notable. Let's say that notable conspiracy theorist John Johnson believes that a certain U.S. politician is actually a space alien. Johnson's website is NOT a reliable source for stating in the politician's Wikipedia article that the politician is a space alien, but the website is a reliable source for stating on Johnson's Wikipedia article that Johnson espouses this specific conspiracy theory. This is based on the assumption that Johnson is notable based on other significant coverage of him in reliable, independent sources. The bottom line is that generalizations can be made (New York Times good, conspiracy website bad), but every source needs to be evaluated in context. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, @Cullen328:. In this case, I'm talking about [allkpop.com allkpop], a website that has information regarding kpop. It has been previously discussed on the noticeboard at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#allkpop.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_125#Allkpop_and_Soompi. In this case, either the website checks out as a mostly reliable source, or it doesn't. Since so many kpop articles are dependent on it, I wanted to draw a consensus about the validity of it as a source.Thanks! -KJ click here 08:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that Allkpop features "Latest celebrity gossips and news" according to the The Korea Herald. The site itself says "allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts. Information on this site may or may not be true . . ." This calls into question the reliability of any of the site's content, so it seems to me self-evident that this can't be considered a generally reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. There may be occasional exceptions, Kkj11210, but if so, specific reasons should be advanced as to why a specific item should be considered reliable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I'll try to establish some sort of consensus though, Cullen328, especially since it's used so widely on Wikipedia.Thanks! -KJ click here 00:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Upload a .svg file

Hi, I want to upload a .svg file with Upload Wizard in Wikimedia Commons, but he said «This file might be corrupt, or have the wrong extension» Can you help me please? (Excuse me for the mistakes, I normally speak french) YoshiNoirMC (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I put the .ai file in my personal website: http://www.yoshinoir.com/176587.html

YoshiNoirMC (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I see you created it with adobe illustrator, you're the cover-artist of the OST, therefore copyright is not a problem here. I tried uploading it myself and encountered the same problem. Try uploading it at English Wikipedia using Special:Upload and select the cc-by-sa template from the drop down list and provide a summary, see if it works this way. Soham 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but he said now: «The XML in the uploaded file could not be parsed.»

YoshiNoirMC (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes...

YoshiNoirMC (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is settled ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Touch-generations-soundtrack-cover.svg )

YoshiNoirMC (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

I will try this. Cnixon1 (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Find articles that need editing in specific areas

Hi, I am a new user to wikipedia. I am just wondering how to find articles that are about specific topics (e.g. education, technology, literature, etc.) and need editing. Just a way that I can contribute and reading interesting topics at the same time. Stay hungry, stay foolish -Steve Jobs (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes of course follow this link and you are in the write place to read what you want.


Andrew Eugene 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Which link, Andrew Eugene? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mr.Foolish,
Please take a look at:
I think that you will find many articles needing work there. Feel free to ask questions here at the Teahouse any timeCullen328 Let's discuss it 04:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Details unknown- how do i proceed?

Hi, I am a new user here. I would like to know how should I proceed when I have to create a wiki entry regarding a new start up; and not much is given in its website. mgul.prMgul.pr (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse - I wonder by your phrase "I have to" whether you are doing this for your a company you are related to - either as owner or employee? If so, please read our guidance on conflict of interest.
Another possible problem is you describe it as a "a new start up" - such companies are unlikely to have the significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the company, which we require to show that the company is notable, as defined here. Without such sources, any article you write will almost certainly be deleted.
If you have no conflict of interest, and have reliable sources, please read WP:Your first article which explains how to proceed. Arjayay (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia does not aim to have a page on every business. The businesses we do aim to have articles on are those that are "notable" - the definitions of which can be found at WP:NCORP. It is exceedingly rare that a new start up meets these criteria. New articles written about companies that do not show how they meet these criteria are deleted. Please note, creating articles is not the only way to help Wikipedia, there are thousands of other things you can help with. --LukeSurl t c 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes by an author

Hello, how can I get in touch with an author who changed my edits? Via his talk page? But how exactly?

Thanks Marevoula (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Just click on the "New section" tab at the top of the user's talk page if you want to start a new topic of discussion there. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

question about resubmission

Hi,

I created and submitted an article that was not accepted. I have now edited the article to reflect the suggestions, and saved the changes. Has it now been automatically resubmitted for review again? Or is there something else I need to do?

Many thanks.

Patent675 (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. No, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Minesoft Ltd has not been automatically resubmitted; you need to either click the blue resubmit button, or add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
For some reason of which I am unaware, the blue resubmit button was sometimes not showing up (for me, at least) on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Minesoft Ltd (and on similar pages), though it can be seen at Template:AFC submission/declined. The button function was there if one clicks in what looked like a blank space to the left of the text on that bottom line in the pink box. The button is now showing for me, having seen it at the template page, so I wonder whether there was some caching issue? David Biddulph (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both very much!I'm pretty sure the resubmit button was not showing up at the time, but it was showing just now so I've had another go. Patent675 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Kindle and page numbers

I often use books on my Kindle as a source. Sometimes the books do not have page numbers. Is it sufficient to cite the Kindle location, or is it necessary to go elsewhere to get the page number? Thanks in advance. LesLein (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

These are wise words from NtheP who answered a similar question a wee while back: "If you want to use a Kindle version of a book as a reference instead of a paper copy of a book, because that is the only version you have, that is perfectly permissible. if you are using the {{cite book}} template then you need to set the parameter |version= to Kindle and use the Kindle location numbering system (if the book has it) as the parameter |at= instead of page numbers."
--LukeSurl t c 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

editing my company's page

How do I update my company's webpage?205.193.82.252 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse - Perhaps you could tell us which page is it? and what do you need to update? - Arjayay (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, person editing from an IP, and welcome to The Teahouse. You are discouraged from editing the pampany with which you are associated; see WP:COI. You are welcome to suggest changes on the talk page (click on "talk" or "discussion" at the top of the article you wish to edit, and then "new section" on that page). Be sure to provide reliable sources, preferable independent of your company, for those changes. If you want to make a relatively minor edit, you certainly can, but with major changes you are unlikely to be able to write with a neutral point of view. It's not your fault. It happens to most of us.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

How to change our CEO's name on our Wikipedia page

My name is Holly Leiker, and I am the Media Relations & Internal Communications Lead at Johns Manville, a Berkshire Hathaway company. I updated our Wikipedia page with the name of our current CEO, and the change appears on our main Wikipedia page. However, when you do a Google search for Johns Manville, an image comes up with some details on it and it shows our CEO's name -- but it's showing the wrong CEO name. (It attributes the source as Wikipedia.) Could you please let me know how to make that change?72.37.249.188 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. That is a problem with Google, not with Wikipedia, so you would need to take it up with them (though it is very recently that you updated the Wikipedia page and it takes a while for Google indexing to catch up). Under the Google response you'll see a link saying "Feedback/More info", and from there you'll see links saying "Wrong?" for specific items. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The wrong CEO is actually not attributed to Wikipedia but a lot of people have made similar assumptions due to a confusing Google layout. Google's Knowledge Graph to the right of a Google search uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information. The fix in Wikipedia's article is unlikely to affect the error in Google's CEO field. Google's "Feedback / More info" link seems like your best option. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing etiquette and neutrality.

I'm sorry if these questions have been asked a hundred times...

1. What is the courtesy when editing someone else's article? Do you have to submit your proposed changes on a talk page even if they're minor?

2. On my article for creation, I'm trying to be as neutral as possible writing about a company. Would it be best to leave out the company's accolades? I've included them with reputable sources.

HFMURRAY (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi HFMURRAY, welcome to the Teahouse. As far as editing other people's pages goes, there's no such thing as "other people's pages" here - all articles are released under a licence that allows you to freely amend them. No-one owns an article that they started, so there is no requirement to notify them before making changes, and it isn't considered impolite to edit an article without permission of its creator. As far as your article goes, I'd get rid of the product awards (since they aren't directly about the company) but retain the Business of the year/Entrepreneur of the Year ones. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I've made the changes. As for editing a page - I remember reading something about discussing specific topics on more general Talk pages - is this more for when you want to create a new page? HFMURRAY (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Because, as Yunshui said, no-one "owns" any page, talk pages are for all discussions between editors for the purposes of improving the associated article. You may want to raise a concern with the article (perhaps missing information or something you think should be clarified) that you're not sure how to fix yourself and a fellow editor will hopefully read these messages and help out. If editors disagree on what should be in the article, the associated talk page is the place to discuss the disagreement. See Help:Using talk pages for more details.
Articles for creation exist in the "Wikipedia Talk" namespace, however this is an anomaly that exists for technical reasons (which will be corrected in the next couple of months) and this is not representative of what Talk pages are used for in the project at large. --LukeSurl t c 16:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi HFMURRAY. If the article you're editing is controversial, you may want to discuss and get feedback for any significant changes first. Otherwise, you can't go wrong following the bold edit, revert, discuss process. --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help! HFMURRAY (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

OMFG Important

I wanted to move Sweeter than Fiction back to Sweeter Than Fiction because I know it is nominated for speedy deletion, and I accidentally moved it to Sweeter Rhan Fiction, and I'm damn freaking scared. What on Earth should I do??? --Nahnah4 (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Never worry too much about technical things like this, the way the Wiki software works everything can be undone. The situation right now is this:
If any admin is reading this, can we get those pages deleted super-speedily please.
Cheers, --LukeSurl t c 09:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I meant to move Sweeter than Fiction to Sweeter Than Fiction, not Sweeter Than Fiction to Sweeter than Fiction (because that's the starting name for the page before I kept moving).
Cool. Well, once the deletions have processed, move Sweeter Rhan Fiction to the desired title and set up a redirect from the other. --LukeSurl t c 09:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
But it's been SIXTY-ONE MINUTES and nothing happened. Help me check whether it was supposed to be like that. --Nahnah4 (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
All sorted now. Breathe... and relax. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Autobiography

I would like to create a bio article on myself. What are the acceptable norms and minimum requirements for "reliable sources" so that the article will be accepted? Rcampbel33 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rcampbel33, thanks for your question. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged for reasons explained here. You can read about reliable sources here but I also suggest you have a look at the guideline on notability as Wikipedia articles may only be written on notable subjects. Please do not hesitate to seek further help on my talk page. Best wishes, Flat Out let's discuss it 03:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Rcampbel, welcome! Yes, 'Conflict of interest' is a very hot topic in the Wikipedia community and, when other editors think there is a conflict of interest taking place, they are likely to be ruthlessly critical.
The answer to your original question is ...it depends. Notability can be proven if the subject has had significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources - so an absolute minimum to be 'multiple' would be two. But all the same, this may or may not be suffficient, depending on what the sources say, how much they say, who says it etc. All the best! Sionk (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Another way to put it is, that did a subject of an article accomplish something, or is known for something that was deemed to be worthy of attention in mass media? For example, was the person/event/whatever reported on in the newspaper, or on a TV/radio station, or on a commercial website? Anywhere that is designed to be seen by as many eyeballs as possible. Those are usually considered reliable sources that enhance the notability of a subject. If all you have is something talked about on Aunt Mary's blog or something like that, then it wouldn't be deemed notable. I hope that helps. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If you really want to let some one know who you are. It is wise to use your own user page. Then no policy is looked down.Andrew EugeneDiscuss06:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Rcambel33. I'm afraid that, on top of the discouraging responses above, I'm going to disagree with Andrew Eugene. A User page is a page for telling people about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. While there's a certain degree of relaxation, user pages which contain much material unconnected with Wikipedia, (and especially anything promotional) can and do get deleted by consensus.
What it comes down to is that Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind: not just for commercial companies and products, but equally for causes or individuals. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutral articles about subjects (including people) that have already been noticed and written about in reliable published sources such as books or major newspapers. If that is true of you, then there may be an article about you; but as others have said, you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Rookie

I have a really neat encyclopedia that I need help editing and then publishing. Since I'm a Rookie I would appreciate a glance before it's submitted.

I have draft but need real advice.

Thanks in advance,

ABA 01853601

ABA 01853601 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I presume you mean your draft at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Priesthood_of_Ezekiel? I have declined it because it essentially duplicates the content in the existing article Patriarchal priesthood. I presume you copied-and-pasted its content? If you would like to improve the Patriarchal priesthood article, you do not need to use the articles for creation service - (almost) all articles on Wikipedia are editable by everyone, and if you can think of improvements that need to be made, we advise you to just make them.
As a new editor, making small edits is probably the best way to get started. If you would like help getting started, then Help:Getting started is an ideal page, plus we'll be happy to help here at the Teahouse. If you would like some serious tuition from an experienced user, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is the place to go.
Happy editing! --LukeSurl t c 08:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
May I also suggest going to The Wikipedia Adventure, where (while also playing a cool game) it shows you the basics of navigating through Wikipedia, such as editing, responding on talk pages, and as you go along more advanced topics such as sourcing. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Template creation

Short version: How do I make a template that converts 

{{yyyy.nn}}

to 

<ref group="yyyy" name="nn" />

Long version: I've started writing topical and chronological Bibliography of Paul Erdős. Erdős was quite prolific, and I'm having to manage 1525 (or so) citations. Almost all of those citations have been already categorized using the Mathematics Subject Classification, so I've duplicated the relevant portions of that taxonomy and am using <ref> tags there to cite the individual papers. (The article is a lot clearer than I'm making this sound. I hope.)

One of the challenges is managing so many complex citations and references without making stupid copy/paste errors. Some of the categories will have many dozens of papers, and a pile of refs wrapping around and around makes the text difficult to edit. So I'd like to replace those refs with a template that takes a list of paper IDs instead and generates the refs when the pages loads. I think I know how to do this if the year and the per-year ID are separate paramters, e.g., 

{{myreflist|yyy1|n1|yyy2|n2|...}}

but that's awkward and error-prone (although better than what I'm doing now).

If this is a question better suited to the village pump I'm happy to post there, but if I'm asking something obvious I'd rather look silly here.

Thanks!

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lesser Cartographies. I guess you could make a template with <ref group="{{{1}}}" name="{{{2}}}"/> and then write {{templatename|YYYY|NN}} to call it. Is this what you're looking for? --Jakob (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jakob. That way will certainly work, but I was hoping to be able to split an argument in two at the "." and then use each half separately. (The indexes I'm using are in the form yyyy.nn, and since there are 1400-ish of them any manual data formatting I can avoid is a win.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Account problem

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but here it goes. In the last few days I have been having problems getting into my WP account. I put in my username (Volcanoguy) and my password but does not let me sign in. I tried resetting my password but when I fill everything out then press Enter it says "There is no email address recorded for user "Volcanoguy"". What could be the problem? Thanks. 209.105.212.89 (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds horrible. Are you able to log in as, or recover a password for, your prior account name User:Black Tusk? --LukeSurl t c 15:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't it the same acount that was renamed, rather than a separate account being started? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes my username was changed awhile back. I had the same password since I created my account in 2006. I tried logging in on a different computer just now and I got in so it must have something to do with the computer I normally use. Not sure what though. 209.105.212.89 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about a current entry

I am a new user at Wikipedia and I was wondering if someone could please explain to me why the article Edge Hill State School has been accepted when most of its sources are from the school's webpage, the school's own Golden Jubilee publication, its annual report and the school's guide. Thanks for any advice as I'd like to contribute some school articles. User: icuraj. Icuraj (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Icuraj. It is not really correct to say that this article has been "accepted". It was created back in 2008, and has remained here, pretty much unnoticed, among our current 4.4 million articles. No one actually accepted it. As a general rule, reflected in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the vast majority of primary schools are not considered notable. The exceptions would be schools of exceptional historic or architectural significance, as shown by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. You may want to nominate this article for deletion at WP:AFD or redirect it to whatever government agency runs it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your quick response. Icuraj (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The best indicator to see if a particular school is notable or not, is to see if it received any coverage in a newspaper or on TV/radio, or if it was written about in a magazine or mass media website. If any of those outlets considered it worthy of mention, than more often than not, it'll work here. And BTW, I've given you a Registered Editor Service Award, which all new editors are entitled to...it basically means welcome to the Wikipedia family. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Article was Declined

Hi , I have created article through Article wizard and but its was declined at Articles for Creation . Can you please how to make it acceptable , and please help me to fix the issues and make the page live .. thanks in advance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/hSenid_Outsourcing Das Beyondm (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is no extensive coverage in independent or reliable sources, the company isn't notable enough to have an article.Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Why useless history of articles kept?

Many articles have useless histories, like delinkingPrextexman (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The software that Wikipedia uses (MediaWiki) saves every edit by default, and it would be a lot of unneeded effort to filter "useful" histories from "useless" ones. I can't remember the exact numbers, or where I found them, but I seem to recall the hard drive space used up by all the article histories is actually surprisingly small. This archive of old versions is useful for purposes of attribution and being able to restore old versions if something goes wrong. Hope that's infomative! On a somewhat related subject, you might find this interesting/amusing. --LukeSurl t c 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_175&oldid=1074623089"