Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 376

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 370

←

Archive 374

→

Usefulness of trite entries in 'International Reaction' section in incident and accident pages

Hi,

Is there a Wikipedia policy on inclusion of international reactions in response to tragic incidents? Several articles I am contributing to have this section but several entries in these sections appear to be generic statements that do not require an explicit statement. For example, see the reactions section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Tianjin_explosions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Baghdad_market_truck_bombing, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Khan_Bani_Saad_bombing.

In most cases, several entries can be conveyed. For example, "Foreign Ministries of Country A, B, C, D, E, and F expressed their condolences," when the statements only differ in the words used but not the essence of their meaning.

Separate entries, I fee, are warranted when a community or nation has made material contribution (for example, Indian Air Force's involvement following the recent Nepal earthquake) or expertise (for example, Japan sending over skin specialists after the recent explosion at a park in Taiwan). These are unique responses, unlike standard statements. Of course, unexpected or surprising responses can be included (for example, responses among countries involved in long-standing disputes: North & South Korea, India & Pakistan, China and Taiwan...)

Please let me know if there is value in including trite statements; I am unaware of any but I am new to editing here. I strongly feel against inclusion of such generic statements.

FelixSeba7 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FelixSeba7. Although I agree at least in part with you about these "International reaction" sections, there are no hard and fast rules. This is a content disagreement and a matter of editorial judgment. Your best course of action is to discuss your concerns on the article's talk pages. Please be aware that emotions run high after such disasters, and you are only one editor among many. If consensus goes against you, it is advisable to move on for a while. Overly strong feelings about stylistic issues can sometimes lead an editor astray. Often, such articles can be improved and streamlined a bit when passions have receded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support Cullen328 here. You will probably find little opposition to the type of reduction you suggest in established articles, but might want to tread lightly with recent or current events. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Why pending?

I am not a new user (been here for ten months now; 2,200 edits), but my edits on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are subject to pending approval. This has not happened before; my edits have been auto-accepted. What is the issue? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a feature of certain (very few) articles subject to disruptive editing. It's called WP:Pending changes. I'll go and see about approving it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Help to improve this page and more

Hello, I have 2 questions and not sure where to ask:

1/I would like to know your recommendations on editing the below page with updated info of my own expertise.
2/I would like to propose to make video's regarding the use of Wikipedia, who can I discuss this with.

I am an expat myself, supporting other expats with their integration abroad as I find PREPARATION the KEY to success!!! So, I would like to write or add a website or perhaps video links to support expats. What can I do? What is allowed? What is not? Please advise.

It regards this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriate Below the page this comment is placed: Expatriate preparation[edit]

This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity, Wikibooks or Wikivoyage (April 2015)

Thank you RachelRachelisme (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Rachelisme: and welcome to the Teahouse!

While your interest in helping expats is good, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a "how to" or help website- so much of what you want to do is more appropriate to a personal blog somewhere than content for Wikipedia. An encyclopedia article would focus on other aspects of "ex pat" such as the history and meaning , not the personal experience. Wikipedia's project Accessibility Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility does work to make audio version of the content available. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's what she said, Red Pen of Doom (fab username btw). It sounds like she wants someone to move it to the proper place for it on a different wiki. ScarletRibbons (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @ScarletRibbons and TRPoD,

Thank you for your responses. You will have guessed I'm NEW to the Group here, so please stick with me here just a bit so that I learn and can get started contributing (I still hope I can).

I did indeed say that I am supporting expats, but it's not my intention to put how to or personal stuff here on Wiki. Yes, I do Blog about that too :) But I do like writing about different Expat related topics as I was reading about the short article that I copy/pasted here.

So, who can tell me how to start writing additional content and perhaps give me some hints on content ideas (which I would write). Just to get started.

Also, there are websites posted as sources, so that is allowed?

And third, I"m still interested in what can be done with Video's...so I'll look into your link right now. Thanks Rachelisme (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A new critical tag on an article which doesn't specify what it's critical of

A tag appeared on an article I recently created Alberto Gómez Gómez stating "This article has multiple issues... needs additional citations for verification... may need reorganization to comply with... layout guidelines," without stating what these problems might be. Certainly, I am interested in making this article the best that it can be and wish for it to comply with guidelines -- but this vague and unsupported. How does one respond? Please advise. Thanks, Rmark1030 (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rmark1030, welcome back to the Teahouse. The tags were added by User:Alpha Monarch. If you are unsure why the page has been tagged, or how to best resolve the issues the tags represent, I would either contact Alpha Monarch on their talk page for clarification or raise the issue on the article's talk page. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rmark1030. Some of the facts in the "Career" section do seem to me to need additional citations. I don't see a problem with the layout, but I would be inclined to add a "Critical reception" section or some section in which critical responses to Gómez's work could be noted, with proper citations, aside from the Florida AG's office controversy. I hope this helps a bit. DES ^(talk) 13:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved the "Example of work" section before the standard apparatus (references etc.).
There may be a better title for this section. You may want to use the Gallery feature.
There are issues over the licensing of three of the pictures.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich. Thanks for your contributions! And yes, it helps more than a bit. For the record, a criticism section is indeed in the works (gathering documentation now to put it up in two days) and more pictures are planned, which will make the gallery section more meaningful. There was some confusion about licensing, which has been solved by learning the requirements, rationale and syntax to make these images non-free, which removes any potential difficulty with licensing (which is what I'm doing today and tomorrow). Your edits and recommendations are and edits are greatly appreciated. Rmark1030 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I cite YouTube artists work?

Last year I spent many hours creating a page for musician/artist/producer Jesse Cale but it was rejected because Wikipedia doesn't consider YouTube a valid reference. Most of Jesse's accomplishments have been on YouTube, really big stuff with Ray William Johnson and Epic Rap Battles of History. So how do I cite his work on YouTube so that it doesn't get rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddyb60 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not all topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. They have to be "notable": this means that reliable sources must discuss them in detail. YouTube is occasionally a valid primary source, but never establishes notability. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) for notability guidelines relating to people. If you want to recreate the article, you should be able to make a WP:REFUND request for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jesse Cale. But please make sure there are reliable sources about Jesse Cale first: there are lots of topics which simply will not be included in Wikipedia, no matter how much work goes into a page about it, because they are just not notable. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to Bilorv's excellent reply, Daddyb60, in this instance, the YouTube videos featuring Cale are primary sources, whereas an example of a secondary source would be a newspaper or online news site article discussing Cale's YouTube videos. What you need in order to establish notability is the latter type of source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Daddyb60. I will expand further on what Bilorv has said: an artist's work - both its quality and its quantity - is of almost no relevance in determining whether Wikipedia can have an article about the artist. What matters is the reliability and quantity (and independence) of what has been published about the artist and their work. The reason for this is that if little has been published about the artist and their work, there is almost nothing that can go in the article. It might be able to say that the artist created such and such a work on such and such a date, and that it was exhibited in such and such a place (these are uncontroversial factual data, and may be cited to a primary or non-independent source): but that is all that it could say, and would not make a very interesting or illuminating article. Any summary, conclusion, evaluation or criticism must be cited to an independent source, and if these don't exist, there is nothing of interest that can go into the article.

This really does not depend at all on the quality of the artist. William McGonagall and Florence Foster Jenkins were notoriously appalling artists, but we have articles on both of them, because there is a great deal written about them. On the other hand, many contemporary artists are not yet notable (in Wikipedia's sense) but may become so in the future, if several people write about them in reliable sources such as major newspapers. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is already an article on Epic_Rap_Battles_of_History. Whether or not Jesse Cale passes WP:N and WP:42, enough to get a dedicated wikipedia article, he may more easily pass WP:NOTEWORTHY for one or more of his performances on this specific youtube channel. It depends on whether he was reviewed, specifically, for one of his works there. Here is the wikia page for Cale -- http://epicrapbattlesofhistory.wikia.com/wiki/Jesse_Cale . Turned up an NPR-affiliate (looks like anyways) at a college station, which gives passing mention[1] to Jesse Cale as part of some kind of art-slash-basketball event? Unclear prose, to my eyes. That's not in-depth, obviously, but it might merit the addition of Mozart-vs-Skillex to the Epic Rap Battles of History article. Ping Daddyb60, take a look at WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:SOURCES; youtube does not count, but almost any online magazine and/or newspaper does. Did some radio disc jockey comment on Jesse Cale, as opposed to just, play the rap-battle? Then that counts too, most likely. That is the sort of thing to keep your eye on. Meantime, you can edit the wikia-page about Cale, where youtube *is* perfectly legit as a ref. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Declined due to lack of reliable sources

I tried to create a page about a famous YouTuber, MyithZ. How can links to his YouTube page/videos be lack of reliable sources if THAT is where he is famous from? I left several links to his videos of the Apple Campus 2 which have landed him 1.5M views. This guy should be on Wikipedia. He's also done the Tesla Gigafactory. (these are drone videos by the way) And he's been on KTVU 2 news, for which I provided a link. How is the NEWS not a reliable source, he was interviewed. I don't really have tons of time to dedicate to adding things to Wikipedia, but was trying to get him on here... he's quite popular in the SF Bay Area.DroneFan645 (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If he is famous for his YouTube videos, are there newspaper (San Francisco Chronicle?) or magazine articles describing his YouTube videos? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi DroneFan645
Please understand that being "famous", or being "popular", is not the same as being "notable", in Wikipedia's meaning of the word, which is what we require.
Has he received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Unless you can cite such coverage (preferably at a national, or international level, not just local press or TV), no subject will meet our basic notability requirements. There are further requirements for people at Wikipedia:Notability (people), which also need to be met, before anybody merits an article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

9to5mac.com is a website devoted to Apple and obviously... worldwide. He's featured on that site as well. He's been featured almost EVERY month for the last 10 months. I've seen him on IMDb as well. Do those not count? I've never made a Wikipedia page before. Google: myithz, I gave up flipping through pages after page 15. DroneFan645 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also... His videos have been viewed around the world, in just about every country. And really... who even reads newspapers anymore? The SF chronicle will have the same information, if not LESS than what you'd get on the news. The SF Chronicle is a LOCAL paper, how is that any different? Most people (at least those in the tech industry) do not get a "newspaper" delivered to their house as they can obtain the same exact information from reading it online. Not to mention, CA is a green state... we PREFER to not kill trees to get our news. I'm not trying to argue, but nobody really uses newspapers anymore. Kind of like cassettes or CDs for music... they have gone by the wayside. He was given thanks by the Cupertino City mayor, Rod Sinks on Google Plus (A worldwide public forum), for helping him video the city for the Mayor's "State of the City Address", that's notable. DroneFan645 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers need not be on paper to be reliable sources. The crucial thing is a reputation for fact-checking and not rumor-mongering. This makes some paper tabloids unreliable and lots of online papers reliable. If he has been covered by good newspapers or given honours (online or on paper), cite that. Citing his work is not independent and won't demonstrate notability. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle is a regional paper, widely read throughout Northern California, both in print and online at SFGate.com, and indisputably a reliable source in most cases. Any new Wikipedia article must be based on what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Sources with professional editorial staffs and a reputation for fact checking and error correction are reliable. That rules out blogs, social media posts, user submitted websites like IMDb.com, and the like. If you want to write an article, DroneFan645, that's how it must be done. Please read Your first article which has lots of good advice. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the responses above, but would just re-emphasise that newspapers aren't the only possible reliable sources. DroneFan645, I suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which should give you ideas for where to look for sources on this topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above. However, DroneFan645 once the notability of the person has bene established, links to the YouTube videos he has created can be used to help a reader understand just what he is know form. You might look at Anna Kay Akana‎‎ s an example of an article about a creator of YouTube content that recently was nominated for deletion and was kept. Also, please note that IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source, because much of its content is user-generated. Neither are most online fora, for the same reason. The mayor's comments mi8ght be relevant, if he is clearly identified as the mayor and there is no doubt that he is who he says he is. On Wikipedia, a 'newspaper' often means an online news site, although sometimes it means an actual printed on paper newspaper. Online or printed magazine coverage can be good, as said above, any source with a good reputaiton for fact-checkign andf editorial control can be used. Press releases and anything from the subject or his assocaites is of limited value, and doesn't count at all towards notability. DES ^(talk) 01:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC) @DroneFan645: DES ^(talk) 01:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

DroneFan645 in response to "Most people (at least those in the tech industry) do not get a 'newspaper' delivered to their house as they can obtain the same exact information from reading it online", I look forward to that day. I haven't seen it yet, but until I go to the library and see that actual paper, I haven't seen everything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you upload your profile in the guest link?

I want to know how I do that, because, a young user like me, doesn't know a lot about the encyclopedia yet. Please let me know. Thanks. - Minionlover2015 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Minionlover2015. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors to start out. Please be very careful about disclosing your age and other identifying information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 I interpreted "young user" as meaning newbie but of course this is good advice if the person really is young..— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've seen the original version and I understand.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vasudhendra teertha vrindavana

I am a resident of Siruguppa in Bellary district of the Karnataka state, India. There is a place called kenchanagudda 5 km from our town. I recently found an article about this place in Wikipedia and also added a few lines about it. But there is no article about the deity of the place, Sri Vasudhendra teertha and about his vrindavana. This vrindavana is around 300 years old and is quite popular in the district. Can I write an article about this? I do think this topic is notable. YdhVyibvfyobvc+=== (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YdhVyibvfyobvc+=== (talk • contribs)

That depends, YdhVyibvfyobvc+===. And welcome to the Teahouse, by the way. A subject must be notable (in the special Wikipedia sense of that term) to have an article on Wikipedia. In general this means that the topic must have been written about in published works in some detail by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Who has written about this subject? How reliable are those sources? Are they academic or scholarly? Are they news reports? Being "old and popular" does not in and of itself qualify a subject for an article.

You might want to read our Golden Rule, Your First Article, and Referencing for Beginners. If after that you think the topic is notable and you have sources on which to base the article, I advise using the article wizard. This will mean that an experienced editor will review your draft article before it "goes live". It is thus much less likely to be quickly deleted, as many new articles are. DES ^(talk) 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC) @YdhVyibvfyobvc+===: DES ^(talk) 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, YdhVyibvfyobvc+=== I strongly urge you to change your user name. Having an equals sign (=) in your user name will break or make it harder to use many common templates, such as {{ping}} with your user name. Also, what looks like a random string of characters will be harder for others to remember and use. But the = is the real issue, in my view. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple for the process. DES ^(talk) 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) @YdhVyibvfyobvc+===: DES ^(talk) 23:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Exposing the trade secrets of professional magicians

Hi! Wanted to connect. Thanks for the prompt to do so. -- Here's the thing: WP's magic secrets policy fails to account for the fact that magicians, and people who legitimately teach and sell time-honored effects like "Out of This World" and "Card Warp" (etc.), have to make a living off of them. Sure, list where a trick can be found (as in any technical topic, books--academic sources--are best) but I don't think Wikipedia should share key information and concepts casually. I do think WP already does massive cultural damage by listing the plots of films and books in detail (so why read the book or see the film?). Hence, as I mentioned to you in another place, Wikipedia has become known as the greatest spoiler site in the history of the internet. Despite this, I'm hoping, very much, that WP will think again about this weird, unprofessional policy. What are your thoughts? 50.54.233.151 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"If you make this information public, it will prevent people from charging for it" could be extended to any form of knowledge; making information free which previously one had to pay for is pretty much implied in "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". What is special about magic tricks that they should be given an exception? (Surely in this particular field, YouTube is having a bigger impact, anyway?) ‑ iridescent 08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

On the why read a book or watch a film point, surely the answer is for the enjoyment! People don't read novels out of some necessity to find out what happens in them - they read them for the enjoyment. A plot summary on Wikipedia can't replace that experience. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"If you make this information public, it will prevent people from charging for it" misses, and in fact trivializes, the point. Primarily it prevents the professional from performing the trick because the method has become common knowledge--and here, nearly every trick or illusion, most of which are classics in the standard repertoire, is exposed. Perhaps you are unaware of the magician's code? It's real, among pro and amateur alike, and says that these methods must not be divulged casually. The reasons should be self evident so I'm surprised that WP doesn't understand them. -- This is "Coke formula", trade secret turf. That is to say that there actually are exceptions that make perfect sense. -- As for You Tube, that's a whole other place with its own issues and policies. Does the magic profession take a hit there too? You bet it does, but at least many enthusiasts post two versions of a trick; one demonstrating the trick as performed, the other describing and demonstrating the method. This is done deliberately, in the spirit of the code. At least viewers have a choice to be provided with a spoiler or not. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that there's a magician's code, but Wikipedia isn't bound by it. Wikipedia just reports what reliable sources say about a topic, and if this material is already in the public domain, then I don't really see why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Of course, if magicians are posting the material here without sources for verification, that could be a different issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cordless, referring to your "On the why read a book or watch a film point" comment, you're confirming half of my point, but it isn't about something vague like "enjoyment". If someone chooses to read a WP movie or novel summary, most of which are detailed and hit every major plot point and event, not only do they learn the secrets and surprises locked inside (so why repeat it?), they don't experience the detail, the author's or director's voice or vision. In short, they remove, or at least hobble, the possibility of enjoyment. But this is a side issue. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The particular article being objected to here is not only sourced, it's sourced to a publicly-available book, so this horse has long since bolted. As Cordless Larry says, Wikipedia isn't bound by the Magician's Code, nor should it be; if "there are some people who would prefer this information not be public" were grounds for censoring content, about 1⁄3 of Wikipedia would have to be deleted, and I can't see a good reason why magicians should get preferential treatment over the French secret service, the Russian government, or anyone else who has asked for material to be removed from Wikipedia. ‑ iridescent 09:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well at least I tried. You (edit: Wikipedia, editors as a whole, etc., not any of you in particular or personally) call the shots and have shot down every point I've thought to bring up, so I guess I'm done. Thanks, all, for responding though, even as I fundamentally disagree with this policy. In a few cases, like this one, it's bad one. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No individual editors "call the shots" - policy is determined by consensus, and you're welcome to try to argue for a change in policy. However, I don't fancy your chances in this case. As Iridescent points out, this material is already published in a book (first published in 1965), so it's a bit too late to be trying to censor it! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If magicians really do not want their "secrets" to be published all over the interwebz maybe they should learn to STFU instead of writing books about their craft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the attitude. ; ) -- Hey, you folks know as well as I do that consensus views are often too rigid to be applied blanket. But I trust that WP has mechanisms to consider that. -- Anyway, the reason I came back was to say that, despite our disagreement, there is a positive takeaway for professionals and amateurs here. It asks them to abandon the past and innovate, which is called evolution, and that's never bad. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Since our discussion is public, I've copied & pasted it to a text file for my archives and reference, and to send to the SAM (Society of American Magicians, of which I am a member) and the IBM (International Brotherhood of Magicians). This is probably the best way to go. Just talked to a couple of peers and, like me, they were floored. They had no idea. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

They had no idea about what? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think they mean that some other magicians they know, were also unaware that Wikipedia does not engage in suppression of Wikipedia:SPOILERS or other removal of material already published in reliable sources. The OP is now engaged in spreading such awareness, which will be helpful in avoiding such misunderstandings in future. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Because they certainly were not attempting to rile up a set of people to inappropriately try to influence Wikipedia and the content it presents. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely the best way to go. Thank you for helping to educate these organizations about Wikipedia policy. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks back atcha. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I will note in passing that Wikipedia:SPOILERS does say that "this does not mean such information [explanations of magic tricks] must be included" if it is not encyclopedic. In cases such as the one discussed today, where a trick is clearly notable and of substantial significance, summarizing a reliably published explanation is encyclopedic (though actually I find the length of the explanation, and use of the second person imperative, rather undue). But Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide for magic tricks, so lists of magic trick solutions or methods, or solutions of non-notable tricks coat-racked into other articles, would often be considered unencyclopedic and thus not suitable for inclusion... even if reliable published sources existed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said over at User talk:50.54.233.151, the greatest spoiler site is YouTube, where there are explanations of how virtually every magic trick is done. The toothpaste was out of the tube on Out of This World (card trick) many years ago, and is readily available in books. "Ssh, it's a secret" is hard to apply here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing Wikipedia policy. I responded to you about You Tube on the user talk page. The upshot was: "Many performers and enthusiasts who post tricks there post two versions: one demonstrating the trick as performed. A second detailing the method. In any case, the viewer has the _option_ to choose whether or not to have a trick spoiled. In these Wikipedia articles, no such choice is offered (spoiler warning, invisibly highlighted text, etc.)." -- With regards to toothpaste, if it's in a book, it's not out of the tube. So to speak. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What Arthur says above is quite true. Also, as one can read in Wikipedia:SPOILERS, Wikipedia used to include "spoiler warnings" and after a long, through, and acrimonious series of discussions, policy was changed to forbid their use. (Indeed IMO Wikipedia:SPOILERS rather minimizes the degree of conflict there was over that decision, and the arguments then made in favor of retaining spoiler warnings. The victors write history.) Given that history, i very much doubt if that decision will be changed now. However, as Arthur goes shopping says above, how-to details of a magic trick are often not needed for an encyclopedic article, while the ending of the plot (although not every twist) usually is for an article about a work of fiction. DES ^(talk) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that mathematicians used to have this approach. In other words, they developed ways to solve problems and did not share them, instead challenging each other. See for example Brachistochrone curve#History, though in this case the solution was published later.
There are two reasons not to publish solutions to magic tricks: Firstly for the benefit of audiences, however they may merely avoid reading about such things, so we may ignore that reason. Secondly as the IP says to preserve the livelihood of illusionists and associated professions. Stage illusionists should not be relying on the illusions that our grandparents were taken in by, otherwise we might as well watch films of the old school magicians. Instead they use stagecraft, new twists on old tricks, and new illusions or new combinations. Those who publish books about magic tricks provide more than just the raw method (or they should) they provide "how to" instructions which fall within what Wikipedia is not - and presumably advance upon previous volumes, now out of print, and eventually out of copyright. Those who sell pre-packaged tricks also supply detailed instructions, patter and props, none of which are availabel from Wikipedia.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

What is the policy for posting an article on a topic that has been previously removed?

I am working on an article that was removed for being a neologism that lacks notable sources. Since that article was removed, new events have transpired to provided adequate sources which legitimize the topic.Chreaton (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chreaton. Start by reviewing WP:NEOLOGISM. If you are highly confident that the topic is now notable by Wikipedia's standards, then I recommend that you use the Articles for creation process to draft the new version. Please be aware that editors who advocated for deletion previously may well have the topic on their watch lists, and may express their opinions if the article is recreated. So just be sure that the new version is solid and well referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the topic does not have enough scientific references to be valid at this time.Chreaton (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Do users have to be admininistrators to talk to users nominated for adminship and vote at WP:RfA? Thanks, Rubbish computer 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Rubbish computer. No they very much do not. To vote, they do have to be registered and logged in, but that is the only bar. Editors who are not logged in (IP editors) may comment in the discussion section, but may not post in the "Support" or "Oppose" sections. There was a discussion about this on WT:RFA recently. Some editors proposed that IP editors should not be allowed to post to such pages at all, but the suggestion did not gain consensus. I don't think anyone has ever even proposed limiting comments to current admins, and I doubt if any such proposal would come anywhere near gaining consensus. I would advise being even more careful than usual to exerciser civility and abide by WP:NPA on that page. Emotions sometimes get inflamed, and it is best not to be part of the problem. Moreover, if a comment is perceived to be out-of-line, some may take the opposite view just for that reason. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thank you. I will research RfA thoroughly before making any edits there. --Rubbish computer 23:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The main trap on RfA is that what other people post is their opinion, and may or may not be correct (whether positive, negative or neutral). It is very hard to research a prolific editor, or indeed even a single dispute, to establish who behaved well or badly. Having said that many RfA's are relatively uncontentious. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

Hello Rubbish computer. My opinion is that RfA needs thoughtful, calm, insightful comments. Every serious RfA candidate has made enormous contributions to this encyclopedia. Even if you (or anyone) conclude that the candidate should not be an administrator at this time, please acknowledge their contributions and offer respect. At the same time, be slow to jump on bandwagons. Read both "supports" and "opposes" carefully. If someone expresses a concern, take the time to look into it.

The RfA process can be emotionally traumatic for the candidates, especially when the ivotes are close to the 75% mark. Kindness and compassion are always in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: @Cullen328: Thank you both, your guidance is appreciated. Rubbish computer 02:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Warning about additional citations needed- how to get it removed

I'm updating a page that has a warning at the top: "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. " I've added a lot of references/ citations but the warning remains. What do I need to do to get the warning removed?Bhovers (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bhovers. I understand what you are asking, but that isn't a "warning" but rather a maintenance tag indicating that an editor saw a problem with the article. Thank you for adding references to Geoffrey Marcy. However, I noticed that the first two paragraphs of the "Background" section remains unreferenced. Once those paragraphs are properly.referenced, you can remove the tags. That can done by any editor when the issue is resolved, including either of us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If the tag is only applicable to a single section, there are section variants of most tags. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Note that I have reorganised the article slightly to confirm to what is pretty much the standard layout for biographies.--ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen/ Jim: thanks for responding to my question. Can you review it again and see if there are enough citations to warrant removing the maintenance tag verification warning. Ukexpat kindly changed the layout to conform with biography standards (thanks!). I'm new at all this, so appreciate any advice!Bhovers (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bhovers. The article appears to be improved, but the first paragraph of the "Academic career" section remains unreferenced. If you either provide a solid reference or delete that paragraph, then you can remove the tag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Page Title

Hey all,

Recently looked to amend some pieces on physical theatre, in line with some work I've been doing - one piece in particular, namely Enter Achilles, currently exists on a page with an incorrect title - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enter_The_Achilles.

How can I change this page from being Enter The Achilles to merely Enter Achilles, as the piece is called?

Thanks,

John JNL1990 (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, John. You change a page title by moving the page. Where the command is depends on your skin, but for me it's under the "More" tab next to the search box at the top of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

However, you need an AUTOCONFIRMED account to move a page - and your account is not even 20 hours old, so you cannot do it - so I have done it for you. The article does need additional references and other clean-up as identified at the top of the page - Arjayay (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly explain rejection of item and how we can put it up on your site

I wanted to put up an article about the Haifa Foundation, a non-profit organization in Israel (similar to Jerusalem Foundation which is on your site), under the category of "Foundations based in Israel". Yet for some reason my article was rejected. Could you please tell me how I can put it up on Wikipedia? Thanks93.173.163.14 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user: I can't find anything about such an article being deleted, so I can't answer specifically. But I recommend looking at your first article and WP:42. In short, you need to find writing about the foundation, by people who have no connection with it, published in reliable sources (such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers). Base your article 100% on what these independent sources have said about the foundation. If you are able to find such sources, and write an article, then you may add in some purely factual information (such as places and dates) from the Foundation's own publications; but for the most part, what the Foundation has said about itself is irrelevant to writing a Wikipedia article about it. And what it does or has done may not appear in an article unless already described in a reliable published source.

One more thing: your language "how we can put it up" suggests to me that you may be connected with the Foundation. Forgive me if I am jumping to wrong conclusions, but if you are part of the Foundation, please be aware of our policy on conflict of interest, and that promotion of any kind (whether commercial or not) is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. If we have an article about the Haifa Foundation, it will be a neutral summary of what sources unconnected with the Foundation have said about it, and the Foundation will have no control whatever over the content. --ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping User:ColinFine, the article was G11 unambiguous promotion, The_Haifa_Foundation. Someobdy with admin-privs can look at the deleted prose, and give some concrete constructive advice, and suggest they begin in Draft:Haifa_Foundation instead of mainspace while they learn the ropes. See also User_talk:HaifaF#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_The_Haifa_Foundation which is probably where how-can-we-put-it-up stems from. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, after having looked into the deleted article: The article was a major conflict of interest problem. Articles should not be created by anyone with a vested interest in their subjects, in order to maintain an appropriate neutral distance from the subject matter, Wikipedia expects its articles to be written by people with no vested interest in promoting the organization, individual, product, or concept being written about in the article. If you can provide reliable, independent sources, you can request that someone volunteer to create the article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Jayron 32 12:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

upload request for fair-use logo

Hello teahouse folks, can someone please take a peek at this section? Talk:Greylock_Partners#Info_Box Company changed logo in 2010, and wikipedia's article has not yet caught up. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:FFU is the best place to request that the file be uploaded.--ukexpat (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh... at first I misread that wikilink, and was about to remind you of WP:NPA. Thanks, I'll try there, appreciated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, can I ask that some eyeballs look at Template:Request_edit/Instructions#Current_requested_edits, there is a backlog, growing steadily since August 8th or so. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

Hi, What to do in these cases Talk:Green Motion Car and Van Rental International regarding copyright violations ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Greenmotioninternational says that "I am authorised to use this content as I work for Green Motion International", but it's not just a case of authorisation. Wikipedia's copyright policy makes most of the material on the site available under a Creative Commons license, so any source material from, say, Green Motion's website, needs to itself be available under such a license (the policy states that imported text can only be used "if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license"). The Green Motion website makes clear that this material is in fact subject to copyright, and hence not compatible. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

However, both the article and the talk page have now been deleted as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:

Thank you for such a clear explanation. Got it! And @Arjayay: Yes it is. Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia in a college writing class

Hi! I'm hoping to use Wikipedia as a fun way to get my college English students to gain control over writing in NPOV and conducting objective research. Does anyone have any tips/tricks, or know of any good success stories here? Jamdyer22 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I helped a professor with exactly that agenda last semester and many others have succeeded with our Wikipedia:Education program. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Jamdyer22, my main advice is to make sure, beforehand, that ALL your students know about WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:Q, before they start, and remind them to be WP:CIVIL, even if they feel 'attacked' by some other person (usually some other person deleting all my stuffz!!?!!11!!); along the same lines, make sure they know about the ViewHistory button, and about usertalk-pages, and how to use such things. Beyond that, would suggest that ALL your students read and understand WP:COPYVIO (images & text), WP:SOURCES, WP:NOTEWORTHY, and WP:42, plus of course WP:5. Those are relatively brief, but essential.

Finally, very strongly suggest that you give your students a questionaire-slash-pre-survey, to try and find out about their deep interests and their pet causes. A student that is a hardcore environmentalist should not write about GreenPeace as their first assignment, nor about Monsanto. Heavily evanglical? Should not write about the bible nor about atheism, as their first assignment. Strong political positions? Don't assign politically controversial article (person/topic/event/election/etc) to that student. Holds unshakeable opinions about UFOs, the CIA, and JFK? Avoid sending them into a controversial topic, where maintaining their neutrality will be extra-difficult. Biggest Fan(tm) of Justin Bieber, or the iPhone, or Dallas Cowboys, or Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream? Have them avoid the articles about those subjects, and the articles about the competition (e.g. Hannah Montana and Elvis and Mozart are all competitors in the eyes of Bieber-is-the-greatest-evah-EVAH editors). In other words, try and find something the student DOES NOT CARE DEEPLY about, as their first assignment (or their first three assignments preferably). See WP:THETRUTH, as well as WP:BLP, and have your students read both, and make sure they get the message behind both, please. Finally, although it should be obvious, please please please don't let them write an article about themselves, their garage band, their kinfolk, and so on. WP:NPOV is hard enough, without handing your students "unfair" topics as homework.

As for "positive" advice, articles that are relatively-low-traffic, and often need help with sourcing, include: high schools (NOT their hometown), hospitals (NOT their hometown), biological species (but see warning about students that DEEPLY CARE about environmentalism whether pro or con), and also politicians elected to the state legislature (but note the warning about students who DEEPLY CARE about politics being unsuited to edit such articles right off the bat). See WP:NPOL, WP:MUSIC, WP:WikiProject_Hospitals#Notability, and so on. Good luck, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, much sound and EMPHATIC advice, addressing classic newbie problems. Yes, get your class roster together, and lecture some words about such points as always logging in when they edit and not using ALLCAPS to show a thing is important and start your new articles, if new is what you're doing, as Wikipedia:Drafts. The class at Montclair State University where my friend and I served as Wikipedia:Education program/Ambassadors was about Young Adult fiction, and everyone chose a book in that genre that had got a Newberry Medal or similar recognition. Many English Department courses address similarly lightly controversial and lightly covered topics that have clear external standards of notability, hence students can easily be steered out of the pitfalls of such topics as Global Warming, ice cream, or their wise and lovely grandmother. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

addressing the independently verifiable links concern

Dear All, we are have been attempting to post an article on a product, but it kept getting rejected. it was only till yesterday that we got to the bottom of it and found that we needed to take out links pointing to our website about the product. Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of 3rd party links out there (e.g. on venturebeat.com or verge.com or techcrunch.com about us yet). Sure there are some press releases that were picked by other PR websites. We are still a small company. so now we have taken out all our website links and have links to gartner.com and ovum.com. That should be fine right? I've seen that most articles have other references. what kind of links can be post there.. can we post links about the company to make the cross references strong. Also, how do we declare conflict of interest. Does it make it impossible for the post to be published? We have written the content in a very neutral manner. Please share your wisdom. Thanks Nagahs (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that if "there are not a whole lot of 3rd party links out there " then the product probably isn't notable enough yet to qualify for an article. Please take a look at WP:GNG for the guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Nagahs, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not so much that links to the website of the makers of a product must be removed. Such links can be very valuable, in the right place and with the right formatting. However, there absolutely must be citations of published reliable sources that are independent of the makers and their associates, and that cover the product in some detail, for it to be considered notable. If there are no such sources, there cannot be an article at this time. Independent sources excludes press releases and anything that basically repeats PRs. Reliable excludes blogs, online fora or wikis, fan sites or one-person review sites, as a rule. See our golden rule and Your First Article for more detail. See Referencing for Beginners for information on how to insert source citations once you have found them.

Also, if you are an owner or employee or affiliate of the company, as it seems you are from your comment, you have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from writing about the product at all. If it is truly notable, someone else will write about it sooner or later.

Also, you say "we" above. All Wikipedia accounts must be used exclusively by a single person, not a group or company. DES ^(talk) 16:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nagahs. It sounds as if you are one of the many, many, many people who come to Wikipedia in order to advertise or promote their business/website/book/band/charity/theory/school. Unfortunately all these people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It may not be used to promote anything - commercial or non-commercial, humanitarian, artistic, whatever. Wikipedia articles are required to be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have said about a subject, not what the subject would want to say about itself; and if hardly anything has so far been written about the subject by independent sources, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about it, so we discourage you from trying - that is what we mean by "not notable". --ColinFine (talk)

Can I create and edit pages with a financial COI?

Hello,

I work for the Yale Oral History of American Music collection, and we recently came up with the idea of creating a Wikipedia page for ourselves as well as using information from our recorded interviews and transcripts to add to the articles of musicians we’ve interviewed. I (and potentially other employees) would be paid for time spent editing Wikipedia. I’ve read over WP:FCOI and I’m still a little confused: do these policies preclude me and my coworkers from either creating our own WP page or editing articles to add information we have? Is there anything we can do or disclose to make that more acceptable? As a follow-up, is it reasonable for us to add notes about, or external links to, information about our interviews? We don’t want to engage in self-promotion, but we have significant projects related to three musicians in particular and we feel they are important and unique resources on those individuals.

Thank you!

--Yale OHAM (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Yale OHAM: Hi, your post raises a few separate issues:

Your username - WP's username policy prohibits usernames that are organization names, and it prohibits multiple people from sharing an organizational username. I'd recommend going to Special:GlobalRenameRequest to request a new username. If you continue to edit with your current username, you are likely to be blocked.
Creating a page about your own organization - Please read the simple conflict of interest guide to start. WP policies require you to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. In addition, it is best practices to use the articles for creation process to propose an article when you have a COI. One concern, apart from COI, is that to qualify for an article, an organization must have been written about in reasonable depth by multiple independent reliable sources. For you, it would have to be reliable sources outside Yale describing the oral history project. See the general notability guideline for more. A quick google doesn't turn up many sources, so I'm not sure your organization qualifies for an article -- but I could be wrong.
Adding external links to the oral history project from article pages - Please see Wikipedia:External links for the general policy on external links. Wikipedia typically uses a very limited number of external links so unless your pages are truly essential reading about the musicians, they are unlikely to be good candidates. (Rule of thumb -- is your page one of the best half-dozen pages on the entire internet about that musician?) Before adding any external links, I'd recommend proposing the addition on the article's talk page so that you are not accused of spamming.
Adding information from the oral history project to the article talk pages (e.g. "XX musician played in 1930 at Carnegie Hall.[1] - sourced to OHAM). Please see WP:PSTS for Wikipedia's guidance on the use of primary sources. In general, primary sources should be avoided, particularly if sufficient secondary sources are available. For that reason, it is probably not a good idea to source much content to OHAM. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also note that even when the user name issue is resolved (by creating a new one that complies with policy), if you do create this article, even in draft, you are required by the Terms of Use to disclose your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Yale OHAM: You say "create our own Wikipedia page". While this may simply be the way you chose to word this, per WP:OWN nobody "owns" an article on Wikipedia and most articles can be edited by anyone. Rubbish computer 19:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Thank you for all the suggestions! The point about primary sources is a good one, and we've decided to table this idea for now.

@Rubbish computer: Yes, it was poor wording, sorry about that.Yale OHAM (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As a newbie editor, I am interested in providing better quality entries for literary magazines. As my first

As a newbie editor, I am interested in providing better quality entries for literary magazines. I made some updates to Backwaters Press which had seemed to be rather stagnant for some time and was missing some updated editorial information. As my first significant project, I would like to work on the entry for Mayapple Press which I regard as definitely a notable press with notable authors and note that there are some open issues there that need to be resolved. Yet the talk seems dormant (last post was 2009). What does this article need? How may I go about addressing the issues, and improving this article, and getting the flags removed?

Thank you.

Best,

Edward Dixon 174.74.86.239 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Edward Dixon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Backwaters Press still seems to be missing any citation to a source for the prizes it gave out in the past, or the specific winners. As for Mayapple Press, the first paragraph in particular could use additional citations. I don't know if there is more content that can be found in reliable sources. The tag is for COI editing. To remove that, one should verify that pretty much all the content is supported by independent sources, and do a search for omitted negative content. If that all voems out OK, the COI tag could be removed, along with a note on the talk page about what you are doing and why. DES ^(talk) 00:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The articles need what all articles need: to reflect what the third party reliable sources have stated about the subject, and then presented in the proportions that the sources have covered the various aspects. So, find what reliable sources have said and begin including that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. On the matter of Backwaters Press, the full list of winning authors is given on the Backwaters site. I can find no single reference that lists all the winners in one place, although each individual winner can be verified independently from either an author link, a newspaper citing, etc. How do I indicate this on an update? Sorry if this is a dumb question. I'm trying to get the hang of this but it seems like there is a lot I need to learn all at once. Edward 174.74.86.239 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On the matter of Mayapple Press, the information in the first paragraph can be verified at http://www.pw.org/small_presses/mayapple_press, which is a standard and reliable source of information on the literary community. Should I add this link as a new reference in the article? Would it also help if I included more additional information on Mayapple's notable authors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.86.239 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward, you can use that publication as a reference to the factual information in the top half of that entry (authors, publication schedule, etc.) but if you want to include any prose the bottom half, you should paraphrase this information or use a brief quote and provide a reference to this page. Small presses don't get a lot of attention and your work is appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Coding problem with a table

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Under_Secretary_of_the_Army

I changed the photograph to reflect the new USUSA in the position. I noticed while I was there that someone had made a change to the table that lists the past and current USUSA's. But that change corrupted the way the table displays. The overall information is correct... it just displays in the wrong spot and the U.S. Secretaries of War and the Army bar (that should stretch across the screen is now part of the table.

I do not know enough about coding to really dig into the source of the problem. Can someone help me out?Mmacro 46Z (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To the person who went in and fixed the table... Thank you.Mmacro 46Z (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mmacro: It appears to be @Nthep: who fixed it. Rubbish computer 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines

Hello! I submitted an article on a local private school (German School Phoenix) and it was rejected because of lack of notability and sufficient references. How much significant coverage does a topic need to receive to be notable? Racebuilder (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Racebuilder. The German School Phoenix offers adult education German classes at a local church. To have a Wikipedia article a school or organization needs to be already well-known (notable) and have been written about in reliable sources by people independent of the organization. The school may not have received that kind of attention. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more details. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)