Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 411

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 405←Archive 409Archive 410Archive 411Archive 412Archive 413→Archive 415

The Talk Button

Does anyone know what the talk button does or if there is a private chat or something? But really I just want to know about the talk button. ~Whale_lover347 Whale lover347 (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Whale lover347. The talk button is used for conversations about improving the article (not making random comments on it). For example, you can start a talk page conversation if you think an article needs more content in a particular section or if it has contradictory statements, things like that. As for "private chat" the closest thing we have is user talk pages, and they themselves are for conversations about improving the encyclopedia. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Whale lover347: clicking the talk tab itself does not do anything other than bring up the discussion page for you to view. to participate in a discussion you need to edit in the appropriate section. to start a conversation , click the new section tab. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank You so much this explains a lot!!
                                          Whale lover347 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Publishing a new term where references will be added in the coming months

Good afternoon. Our startup developed a solution that introduces completely new concept to the IT & media industry. Product will be launched in March. Worldwide Press Release will be carried out in January/February. But we want to publish the term on Wikipedia already now - it is very important for us from the business perspective. Is it possible to publish a term...where the only reference is our landing page? Any suggestions what would be the best thing for us to do? I appreciate your reply and wish you a nice day. With kindest regards, Eva 2003:84:AD47:CCE8:252B:D5F6:8469:8770 (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait until there is significant coverage of this "solution" in reliable independent published sources before you try to create a Wikipedia article about it. Otherwise you will be wasting your time. Maproom (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The best, and only, thing to do is to wait until the subject becomes notable in Wikipedia's terms, and then someone else can write the article. You shouldn't do so as you have a conflict of interest, and you must not do so without declaring that you are a paid editor, as required by Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. You need to realize that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not publish neologisms, and has absolutely no interest in what is "important for you from the business perspective". Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. Although Wikipedia may include well referenced content about upcoming events, such as the next World Cup soccer competition, the next U.S. football Super Bowl, and the 2016 U.S. presidential election, this is because these upcoming events are already the subject of extensive discussion in reliable sources. This does not apply to what you say about what your business may introduce next year. That is nothing more than speculation, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You could get hit by a bus, though I hope you won't. Please read about why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate all the answers. To conclude, once we are in media we are also in Wikipedia, sounds good. Thank you all, Eva 2003:84:AD47:CCE8:6048:989:9036:7797 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ma page est sytématiquement refusée je l'ai amèlioré en fonction des demandes rien à faire,j'aimerais savoir comment je pourrais la modifier pour la faire accepter, je suis ouvert à toutes vos suggestions ,

Ma page est sytématiquement refusée je l'ai amèlioré en fonction des demandes rien à faire,j'aimerais savoir comment je pourrais la modifier pour la faire accepter, je suis ouvert à toutes vos suggestions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yves_Moshe_Ayache 109.64.134.56 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bienvenue à la maison de thé. Ceci est le Wikipedia anglais, donc les questions doivent être en anglais, s'il vous plaît. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Pour la Wikipédia en français, aller à [fr.wikipedia.org] Kharkiv07 (T) 16:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
But the OP's question was about Draft:Yves Moshe Ayache here on the English Wikipedia, not about anything on the French Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You have not yet addressed the concerns of the reviewers that declined your article. You need to add references to show that the article subject meets Wikipedia's notability policies -- see WP:GNG. If Ayache does not meet these criteria, he is not eligible for an article here. I note that this article has been repeatedly deleted already on the French Wikipedia.[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The article appears to be an autobiography. The submission of autobiographies in the English Wikipedia is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

How to Engage Wikipedia as a Researcher/Expert

Hi There!

I am a researcher and avid wikipedia fan, eternally indebted to wikipedia getting me through university. :o) I've fiddled with the odd wikipedia page in the past and am just starting to get involved more actively with my own account.

In addition to touching up random pages here and there, I am a professional researcher. I especially try to get involved when I see wikipedia pages on subjects within my expertise that are shoddy, poorly sourced and clearly in need of an expert. This brings me to editing wikipedia pages that are closely related to research I've been involved with, bringing in up-to-date references, new discoveries, salient facts, correcting mistakes, improving language and all that good stuff.

I guess I'm basically looking for tips on how to do this without being continuously hassled by editors for one reason or another. I've had some early missteps which I try to learn from, but recently an editor came along an undid over an hour's worth of work due to objections that seem rather arbitrary. This kind of thing is starting to get really discouraging. I want to do this right because I feel like there is an important place for subject matter experts on wikipedia but sadly this experiment starting to feel like a big waste of time...

Please advise!

Knowledgeninja100 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Knowledgeninja100, A couple of suggestions that may be helpful for you.
Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Knowledgeninja100. I have not looked at all your edits but quite a few as well as the reverts of them, and my take is that all the problems you are experiencing are directly or indirectly related to manner, use and type of sources. The default sources you should be looking are secondary, independent sources (rather than primary or tertiary sources related to the topic of your edits) in high quality reliable sources.

Translating something concrete from this – and these are just general points, not laws of nature that are always true – but look for paper newspapers, books, scholarly journals, magazines as your default for sourcing before ever turning to pure web based sources, and especially think of the website of the organization you are adding material about, for example, as a desperate last resort. That means in turn, don't even consider using a web-based Google search before first searching Google Books, Scholar and News. The world is not limited to Google but search engines are most people's first stop. There's lots of other places to turn though some require subscriptions. See, for example Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources, Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, and note that if you find what looks like a good source but can't access it, you can request it be provided to you by someone who can at WP:RX.

Second, be scrupulous about citing your sources properly. That means not a naked URL, not a link to a search result, or just a link and title, but providing full attribution. For example, when citing a book, common things to include are, yes the URL to the page you're citing, if it's online, but also the author, the work's title, its year of publication, the page number(s), the publisher, its location, and the ISBN number. Or for a journal/magazine, the URL, the issue no., volume no., page nos., month and year of publication, author(s) name(s), title of article, title of the journal, ISSN number or doi and so forth.

We have templates that make this easier, such as {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}}. We also have some resources like Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books to easily get the citation to place (though I always tweak its output, usually adding location information; changing the name format to last, first; changing the exact publication date to just the year; and most importantly, the page parameter always needs fixing: either add an end page for the range, or remove the en-dash – then hit make citation and copy the code).

I think if you take what I've written to heart you will find much of the problems you're experiencing will disappear – and your edits will be better because proper sourcing is at the heart of being a good editor. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Knowledgeninja100. I agree with the points made above, but I will add another suggestion. Newspapers.com makes some one-year subscriptions available to Wikipedia editors at no charge. You can see details at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. Certain criteria must be met to qualify. If you meet those criteria, you can apply for a subscription by following the procedure outlined on that page. I was fortunate to receive one of those subscriptions for the past year, and the archived newspapers helped me greatly in creating and editing articles. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgeninja100: I haven't looked specifically at your edits, but based on what Fuhghettaboutit stated, i think this might be an important frame of reference for you. Writing for Wikipedia is different than writing for almost every other thing you do in the world and almost completely different than writing for academia. At Wikipedia, we dont actually do "research" as such - we merely collate and compile what the actual researchers and academics have already done and published - without making any new claims or presenting anything other that what is directly stated in that published material. So for people who make their living bringing new thoughts and views about subjects into the world, writing for Wikipedia is like asking a fiction writer to ONLY use passive verbs. It is a completely different mode of writing and thinking and runs counter to everything you have been trained and rewarded for doing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in Cities Most Highrise

Vandalism in Cities with the most high-rise building article. This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise

In this source Shanghai only had 1,232 building. Emporis data completed with list the name of the highrise so we can verified not just city claimed. Somebody claimed Shanghai had 14.000 higrise. But cant give the name of the building just number claimed which is cant verified. Shanghai is international city why no single foreigner report it to Emporis ?? For example in the year 2014 Emporis count the highrise in Moscow only 3000 buildings. But there is a report completed with the name of the building. So Emporis change highrise count for Moscow more than 10.000 highrise.

There is a pattern for building more than 180 metre : Hongkong had 143, New York had 100, Chicago had 50, Shanghai only had 70. For the city without height restriction there is impossible Shanghai only had 70 buildings more than 180 metre but had more than 14.000 highrise building. New York had 100 building more than 180 metre but New York only had 6.000 highrise building. Except city with height restriction such as Sao Paulo. http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandajovi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
question moved from bottom of the page by GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mirandajovi, and welcome to the Teahouse. The correct article title is List of cities with the most high-rise buildings. I see that multiple IP users have been edit warring over these numbers, and that the page has therefore been protected. The correct thing to do now is to visit the article's talk page, and present your case there — which I see you have already done. Other editors will discuss what numbers should be used in the article, and, once a consensus is reached, the decision arrived at by the participants can be implemented in the article. In the meantime, you should not make any (more) edits to the article which change the numbers being questioned.
Also, please do not refer to other editors' edits as "vandalism" simply because you disagree with the information they added. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is the requirement that we each assume good faith on the part of other editors. In this case, that means assuming that the other editor(s) sincerely believe that the numbers they have added to the article are correct. Ascribing other motives to such edits is considered a personal attack.
And please remember to sign your non-article posts with ~~~~ four tildes. Thanks! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Mirandajovi. I have posted at the reliable sources notice board asking if the source now cited for the Shanghai figures should be considered notable, and particularly asking to the help of an editor fluent in Japanese. You wrote above "This article based in Emporis sources...". But no article is restricted to a single source or set of sources. Other sources, including ones not in English, can be used if they are reliable. I don't know if this source is reliable, which is why I have asked for help at the notice board. DES (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I dont see that emporis is a reliable site. no evidence of any editorial oversight and they are purely a commercial site as opposed to the types of sources we actually prefer to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

But only Emporis had a highrise list in each cities. Not just number claimed. Emporis already had a list of 1,200 Shanghai highrise. But somebody claimed Shanghai had 14.000 highrise. So there is 13.000 highrise in Shanghai which not included in Emporis list. But why none of this 13.000 highrise reported to Emporis by people in Shanghai ? Not single of this highrise. Shanghai is big city with thousands foreigners. And none of this foreigners reported the so call 14.000 highrise in Shanghai. So somebody from other cities could claim their cities had thousands highrise based on local sources which is not neutral. Only Emporis neutral sources with list of completed highrise. I think its only China propaganda because they dont regard Hongkong as their own. Shanghai only had 70 highrise more than 180 metre compare to New York and Hongkong had more than 100 highrise up to 180 metre. So its impossible total highrise in Shanghai outnumbered New York and Hongkong. I already been to Shanghai twice and Hongkong. I saw Hongkong bigger than Shanghai--Mirandajovi (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mirandajovi, but Emporis doesn't even claim to present a complete list of high rise buildings. Its totals merely indicate the number of buildings listed with it. There is no indication of where the building data comes from, nor how it is checked, if it is checked at all. I'm afraid it cannot be considered a reliable source for these sorts of figures. DES (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just take a look this is Emporis list for each highrise in Shanghai, Moscow, Hongkong, New York and other cities. Shanghai had more than 1,000 highrise, Moscow had more than 10,000 highrise, New York had more than 6,000 highrise, Hongkong had more than 7,000 highrise.

Emporis is a international standard for counting highrise. It just like in counting GDP countries wikipedia relies on IMF, World Bank and CIA. But if somebody claim his country had bigger GDP based on local source did wikipedia accept that claim ?? Emporis already had more than 1,000 highrise in Shanghai if is it true Shanghai had more than 14,000 highrise why no one in Shanghai report it to Emporis ?? Not even foreigners in Shanghai ? Most of people who work in highrise construction know Emporis very well. I already ask the man who claimed Shanghai had more than 14,000 highrise to show the list of highrise in Shanghai which dont included in Emporis. He cant answer it not single one. --Mirandajovi (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious syntax

This user User:Michael Bednarek is showing suspicious syntax in his signatures. How do I report it? --Xavier (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If you view the history on this talk page you can see what I am talking about. --Xavier (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: Are you sure you don't mean User:Fixuture's signature? Michael restored the section here containing that user's outlandish signature, not Michael's.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Michael Bednarek has a standard signature. Do you mean the unusual characters in the June 2 signature by Fixuture in [2]? Fixuture fixed it long ago after User talk:Fixuture#Your signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: No, the signature was not fixed as I found the suspicious syntax myself just moments ago. Again, if you look in the talk page history you can see it. I also fixed the signature as you can see in my edits. This behaviour is indicative of harmful syntax.
--Xavier (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean the old occurrence of the signature was fixed. I meant Fixuture fixed the signature field in preferences long ago and don't make new signatures like that so there is no need to discuss with Fixuture. The rendering depends on the browser and font. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder what clicking on the link will do but I am not brave enough.
--Xavier (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You were seeing posts which Fixuture signed before he changed his signature. As you can see Fixuture changed his signature on 7 June 2015, but this was posted on 2 June 2015. Apparently CreativeName1 copy-pasted what's on Fixuture's signature on 28 October 2015 in order to ping him. Per WP:TPO you are allowed to change problematic signatures back to standard form, but be careful not to alter others comments while doing so. -- Chamith (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a normal link to User talk:Fixuture. It just includes some unusual characters in the link text. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Okay, I understand the problem now. Thank you for clarifying. I did exactly that, altered his signature to remove the syntax without altering his comment. On that note I apologize for the removal of his comments. My conclusion came because I found no way to alter the syntax.
--Xavier (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Abdulhamit Gül

I made this article recently, but I am simply stumped on what more to add or what templates to use in its current state. Any help please?Sige |д･) 21:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well more information about this person would be more helpful. Other than that a picture is about the only other thing I see missing.
--Xavier (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm relying on machine translation and the results are coming out so badly I can hardly understand enough to add reliably. Should I give up and wait for someone else to fix it or is there any more I can do? Also I am looking for a fair-use picture.--Sige |д･) 21:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Sige, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that there are quite a few news sources about Gül - if not in English. One option might be to ask for help translating some of these articles. I note that you have already requested translation of the of the article, although since the latter isn't sourced, you might have to put some additional work in to make the translation acceptable here. You might also consider contacting one of the editors listed at Wikipedia:Translators available#Turkish-to-English, asking if they can help translate a few key Turkish sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't Find Draft Article from 10/30/15

Hello there, Thank you for your availability. On 10/30/15, I created an article using Article Wizard for Gregory V. Jones, and because I wanted to review and revise before publishing, I did not SAVE. Instructions seemed that SAVE would publish the article and so release immediately, but that the draft could be available for some time. I can not find the article searching draft space. Have I lost my draft? Thank you for your help- Maureen.Mbattistella (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Saving is vital. You have lost your work. Fiddle Faddle 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the only edit that you have made. Saving a draft using the Article Wizard saves the article in draft space. It does not immediately submit it to Articles for Creation for review. Unfortunately, you need to re-create the draft, either using the Article Wizard or by editing directly in draft space. When you are ready to submit it for review, you can submit it for review. I know that losing your draft is frustrating. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem! I had a full backup. Thanks!!Mbattistella (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

How to move Draft for approval

My sign on is jwmtaldem. I have created a draft page called DRAFT: Band of Robbers (2015 Film). How do I move it to the right place for approval to be published? I do not have a "more" button in the menu bar. Is there a code I need to put at the top of the page? I can't find anything in the HELP sections to explain this. Any help would be greatly appreciated.Jwmtaldem (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jwmtaldem, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the necessary code to the top of the draft; now all you have to do is click "Submit" when you're ready. I would note that the references you are using, while cited appropriately, appear to be mostly or entirely not to what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources, and the draft would probably be declined as a result. The "critical response" may also read as overly promotional, and should be formatted as prose, not a list. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any additional questions you may have. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey Jwmtaldem. The reason you could not move the page yourself is that you are not yet autoconfirmed – a threshold for taking certain actions that is [usually] passed when an account has made more than ten edits and is more than four days old. Your account will reach the threshold at 19:46 (UTC) on November 7, 2015. By the way, the name of the draft is fine, but if ever approved, it should be moved to just Band of Robbers, as we don't disambiguate page titles unless there is an existing article to disambiguate against. However, the reviewer should take care of that if passed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Uploading an image from Journal Article

Hello, this is Hseong2, a student editor in Western University. I have a following question:

I would like to use an image from this UK Gov agency article (Civil Aviation Authority). On page 13, there is a Threat and Error Management model. Here is the link to the article: CAA Article.

I am trying to upload this image onto the Wikipedia Commons but I was unsure of which copyright tags to use. It is the work of UK Government agency (Civil Aviation Authority) and on page 2, it states that "You can copy and use this text but please ensure you always use the most up to date version and use it in context so as not to be misleading, and credit the CAA."

Which copyright tag is appropriate for this source?

Thanks in advance. Hseong2 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You have also asked this question at Wikimedia Commons, where it has been answered. Maproom (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Maproom: The Commons question seems to be referring to a different source. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hseong2. That specific image, according to the references, is taken from here, (page 2) and there's no indication that that article is under a compatible license. So, I don't think you can use that particular figure. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't get my article approved

Hi,

I've been working on an article on filmproducer Els Vandevorst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Els_Vandevorst, and although I have added quite a few references, I can't seem to get it approved. Does anyone have any tips on how to improve this article.

Thanks allot in advance! Gertsik (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse User:Gertsik. The answer to your question is yes just go to this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article for help if you have any more questions feel free to come back to the Teahouse or you may leave a message on my talk page. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gertsik and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to the above link, the main problem with the article currently is that it does not establish notability through significant coverage in third-party sources. Notability is the overall influence a person or thing, in this case Els Vandevorst, has. This can be shown through the subject being written about in source that are third-party, meaning they are not directly linked to the subject: for example, a news reporter writing about Els Vandevorst because he is newsworthy, rather than because he is being paid by, affiliated to, or otherwise immediately connected to the individual. Significant coverage doesn't mean an entire page has to be written about the article's subject, but he cannot be only mentioned. Sources are also required to be reliable, meaning they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (as many newspapers have.) A good place to start would be looking for coverage of him in national news, as local news is too small scale. Feel free to come back if you have any more questions, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The question about Els Vandevorst is not whether he is notable, but whether she is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Gertsik A quicker way to link a draft is to write [[Draft:Els Vandevorst]], which produces Draft:Els Vandevorst. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not resubmit an article immediately after it has been declined without addressing the reviewer's concerns. This annoys the reviewers. If you don't know why the article was declined, you may reasonably ask here without first resubmitting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Feedback request service

On Wikipedia:Feedback request service, a template is given but it is not stated where this should be place or how to change it depending on topics. Please advise, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey RC. I have attempted to clarify the instructions with this edit. Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fuhgheettaboutit: Ha, beat me to it! Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Updated file not showing?

I recently did an overhaul of the Boonie Bears article, and uploaded a new version of [[File:BonnieBearschars.png]]. However, in the article Boonie Bears, the image (which is referenced in the infobox) doesn't show the newer version. Could someone point out what I did wrong here? Thanks! ~Liancetalk/contribs 04:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange... Earlier, no matter how much I purged or refreshed it stayed that way, but now it's displaying the new version, but clicking on that image in the article shows the old version... ~Liancetalk/contribs 04:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems as if it took a bit for the image to update through the wiki's servers. Sorry about this question! ~Liancetalk/contribs 04:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Liance; the Teahouse is here to answer questions, and newer editors often read other editors' questions and the responses to those questions to help them learn about editing Wikipedia. It's much as the old saying goes: There's no such thing as a stupid question. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Help a new editor?

Hi everyone! I'm at an edit-a-thon at the University of Virginia with User:Rdd6h and she's interested in writing an article about herself, if possible. There has been some coverage of her by people in other countries(she mentioned a Jack McGee wrote about her), but we need some help finding sourcing. Her name is Ruth Dillon, if anyone wants to help. This will likely take a while to find, so can anyone help mentor her and take her under your wing? I can help some, but I am somewhat sporadic nowadays due to class.

I'm getting her started in her draftspace for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tokyogirl79, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being involved in a Wikipedia edit-a-thon! Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy strongly discourages people from writing about themselves or any topic to which they have a direct connection, because it's difficult for anyone to be impartial about such topics. Ms. Dillon is welcome to start an article draft with references to reliable sources that have devoted significant coverage (not mere mentions) of her, where such sources are independent of her (not her own website or an institution she has a financial relationship with), and then hand that draft off to other editors to complete. There are plenty of other topics which need articles written about them; you and she can find some at Wikipedia:Requested articles, which is another place she could propose the article about herself, if she hasn't already done much work on her draft. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure about that reporter's name, I think she may be pulling your leg, "Jack McGee" is a character in the Incredible Hulk Television series, who is also a reporter. KoshVorlon 16:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me with sources and what content I can use?

Hi there my question is regarding Moa Brewing Company, in basic terms can you explain what I need to do Jesse Moa (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jesse Moa, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure that I understand what you want to know. What is it that you are seeking to do? Create an article about Moa Brewing Company? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I now see that you previously created Draft:Moa Brewing Company. This was deleted because the article text was a copyright violation. When writing Wikipedia articles, you can't use text that is subject to copyright, except for short, attributed quotes. In terms of finding sources, you need to demonstrate that the topic is notable, by citing third-party sources that discuss the company in significant detail. Examples might include newspaper profiles of the brewery. To avoid further copyright violations, you need to summarise what these sources say in your own words, rather than simply copying the text. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a good example of a suitable source that helps to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jesse Moa, looking at your user name I'm curious to know what connections, if any, you might have to the Moa Brewing Company. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 17:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on an article about Ahmad Fawzi. I have supporting evidence in PDF files, what's the best way to refer/link to these files? Klhartog (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Where have the documents been previously published? If they haven't, you don't refer to them, see verifiability and reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If the same documents are available on a website or an available source on the web, give that as a reference. If not, give proper details of the author, publication, etc. but make sure it is a reliable source. You may quote the documents you have if they are reliable. Take help from WP:Citing sources to best place your references. Hope that helps.JugniSQ (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Klhartog. The page Help:Referencing for beginners has lots of information that you will find helpful. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Klahartog heres an article that could help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline of Draft:Bud Harner

User:Budharner submitted Draft:Bud Harner for review via Articles for Creation. I declined the submission on the grounds that the article appeared to be an autobiography and that the submission of autobiographies is discouraged due to conflict of interest. User:Budharner replied that he is not Bud Harner, but created this account in order to create the article. My advice at this point is to read the user name policy anCd request a change in user name, because his user name could easily be taken to indicate that he is Bud Harner. Do other experienced editors have other thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Robert McClenon, always good to see you around the Teahouse. I agree with you that Budharner should request a name change if they are not in fact Bud Harner, as otherwise not only is there the appearance of conflict of interest you pointed out, but the issue of impersonation becomes pertinent as well. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Budharner needs to change their user name if they are not actually Bud Harner. However, the Articles for Creation process was set up, at least in part, to allow editors with various types of Conflict of interest an acceptable method to draft articles for review and input by experienced editors. That includes autobiographies. Although I am not completely convinced that Harner is notable, at least there is quite a strong claim. He was the drummer on six Barry Manilow albums notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, several of which charted and included charting singles. He was co-producer of at least two notable albums. Let's pay more attention to the baby than the bath water. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Disagree - as long as he declares he's not Bud Harner the drummer he should be fine, per this page, | and this one and this one too . KoshVorlon
Hi all, thanks for your feedback. I should have made a personal account to create Bud Harner's page- but as I'm doing this for the first time I wasn't sure what the process was. I think it makes the most sense for me to request a name change. Where do I need to go to make that happen? Also, in terms of Bud Harner's notability- he meets 6 of the 12 musician/music Wiki requirements and the page states a musician or an album/track needs to meet at least ONE of the 12 requirements. Bud has a Gold Barry Manilow record hanging in his office. He produced a record (Wild Heart by Mindi Abair) that was nominated for a Grammy this year as well as a single that topped the Billboard Jazz charts in 2014 and 2015... If that's not notable, I'm not sure what is. And one more note: PLEASE keep your language gender neutral...... the creator of this account is not a "he". Thanks again-

Budharner (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I found the username change page- thanks again for your help.

Budharner (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

On Good Sources

Hi,

My article has been declined thrice already. Basically, the editors want me to provide more sources to make it "verifiable." I've done this but still more proof is needed. The latest is this: "These articles are often challenging as there won't be much good coverage about them considering the field is promotionalism and advertising, but are there are more good sources about them overall?" My question is what do we consider "good sources" here because I think I've already exhausted all sources that I could find? I also followed Wikipedia guidelines re: this topic. Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Tlagura (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tlagura. I only looked at a few references in Draft:Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications, and all of these were to articles by Nidal Abou Zaki, the founder and MD of Orient Planet. These are almost completely irrelevant to a Wikipedia article on Orient Planet, either as references or as content. Roughly speaking, in an article about a company, Wikipedia has no interest at all in what that company or its employees or associates say. None. (That's a slight overstatement, but it's broadly true). An article should be based almost 100% on what people with no connection to the company have published about it - and if nobody unconnected has considered Orient Planet notable enough to have written substantial material about it, then nor does Wikipedia. That's what the reviewer meant about the difficulty of finding sources. The only things that are acceptable from Orient Planet's own sources, or from Zaki, are uncontroversial factual information like dates and places. Anything else (whether about the company, or about anything else - even the company's finances) that is sourced only to publications by the company or by Zaki, should be removed from the article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Those in the marketing field generally have a tin ear for recognizing inappropriate promotional tone, words and content. Wikipedia's content and presentation requirements are essentially antithetical to the work they do day in and day out.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth Information about Mark Mobius is contradicting

Hi,

I was reading Wiki article on Mark Mobius and found his Birth details are not correctly maintained. Please have a look.

Summary of the issue: In the main para you have mentioned, Mark was born on August 17, 1936 but on the right hand side box depicts August 17 1935. There is a typo in Year. (59.160.59.3 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Since there is no reliable source in the article that verifies his date of birth, I removed both contradictory dates. Anyone who cites a reliable source can add the correct date. I also corrected his nationality, as the New York Times reported that Mark Mobius renounced his U.S. citizenship. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen328 (you beat me to it). I looked for reliable sources for Mobius's birthdate, but did not find any online; the only sources reporting a birthdate for him seemed to be websites which took the information from Wikipedia in the first place. And thank you for visiting the Teahouse and bringing the matter to our attention, IP editor. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 07:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@GrammarFascist: I found at least some sources that I would deem accurate (Members of the Supervisory Board, An interview in Financial Times and a link to a pdf available if you Google "Mark Mobius curriculum vitae Financial Times 2054 - macau daily times" but the direct link to that one was a Google-link and somehow on the black list here) and they all says 1936. w.carter-Talk 22:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject shortcuts

How do I create shortcut links for my WikiProject? I tried looking in the help department but searching became long. --Xavier (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Xavier. Is WP:SHORTCUT of any help? Deor (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes I just found the page right when you answered haha!
--Xavier (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Xavier enc: Since we're on the issue of shortcuts, which you eventually found at a shortcut name, taking any of a vast number of words that are commonly used for editing matters or are part of the interface, and prefixing "Wikipedia:" (or "WP:"; same result) will land you on an appropriate information/explanation/help page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you for the info! I was reading all about it, whew! -Xavier (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Bal des debutantes

Hi, there is an editor called Dbarthelme who is currently editing an article about Bal des debutantes in Paris. I suspect that this person is a publicist or working for the subject as this person is continuously adding blatant promotion. This entire article looks like one big advertisement. Since it is a protected article and I am a new editor, could a kind and friendly experienced editor edit this article to make it look like a neutral and objective article for this encyclopedia? Thank you. --Antipromotion (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Bal des débutantes. (Unlike the article page, the talk page is not semi-protected.) Read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you to begin on the article talk page, and will describe steps that can be taken if discussion does not succeed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

About: Writing Articles

Can we write an article directly from a book? Moreinformation 222 (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Moreinformation 222. Not if you are asking about copying from a book, that would be a copyright violation. —teb728 t c 10:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
all content claims must be verifiable as having been previously published in a reliable source. However, all subjects must demonstrate that other publications not related to them have found the subject worthy of discussing at length - and so a book does not do anything to establish that there should be a stand alone article about that book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: CobaltAir

I reviewed the draft of Draft:CobaltAir and declined it. The airline is not yet in operation, although it is hiring personnel, and I cited, among other things, not a crystal ball. User:Thirstyforeigner has asked me to reconsider. I am seeking the input of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not notable and does not exist as far as I am concerned. Who knows what could happen to this company. --Xavier (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The user should keep the draft until the company becomes established and notable, if and when that is. --Xavier (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I would be guided by the references. At the moment, I can't see anything there to satisfy WP:GNG. But patience is a virtue: once they start operations, which sounds like it might be soon, there should be plenty of coverage to bring it up to notability. It also looks like the author could use some guidance about how to lay out the references properly. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Recovering a deleted Commons image for non-free use

The article An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments used to have an image of the cover of the book. Unfortunately, that image had been placed in Wikimedia Commons (Commons:File:An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments Cover.jpg), and it was deleted from there. I want to recover it so I can put it into en-wiki with a non-free use justification. Is there any way to get a copy of that original image so I can do this? Gronk Oz (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your question raises several interesting issues, Gronk Oz. Our article An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments indicates that the book was published under a Creative Commons license, which hints that the cover art might be eligible for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. However, not all Creative Commons licenses qualify. If the license restricts commercial use, for example, it is not adequate for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. I have not examined this issue in detail, since you can do so yourself. If the image is not appropriate for Wikimedia Commons, then I would not bother to try restoring it from there. Instead, just do a Google Images search for "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments". There, you can find the cover art. Download it to your computer, use any image editing program to reduce its resolution, and upload it in accordance with WP:NFCI #1. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen. I didn't even consider the Creative Commons aspect: I will check that out. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the Commons Deletion request the book is licensed CC-BY-NC, which is not free. —teb728 t c 07:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, TEB728 - that also agrees with the book itself; the C-C licence is "non commercial". So I will do as Cullen suggests and find a suitable image online that I can use with a non-free justification. Thanks to you both for your help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous nomination of Draft:Olfactory Art for speedy deletion

I'm an olfactory art specialist trying to start a Wikipedia entry for Olfactory Art, so far a glaring omission on Wikipedia in terms of art. I started with a paper I wrote on the topic as part of my postgraduate research. First, my submission was declined for copyright violation; so I worked with the admin who deleted it, Diannaa, to grant Wikipedia permission to copy the material. The admin then restored it and put a note clarifying that "This submission has now been cleaned of the above-noted copyright violation and its history redacted by an administrator to remove the infringement. If re-submitted (and subsequent additions do not reintroduce copyright problems), the content may be assessed on other grounds." But then a tag was placed on the draft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Could you please help? I'm trying to offer my own research and expertise as a basis for a non-existent but much needed Wikipedia article, yet I seem to be caught in a vicious cycle of bureaucracy and absurdity! Thanks. Archmemory (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Archmemory, don't worry. See [this, speedy tag has been removed. It was mistake but it is fixed now. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 10:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Archmemory (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Archmemory: while no longer being in danger of speedy deletion for copyright reasons, it is still a long way away from being an encyclopedia article. all personal commentary such as "With the digitization of sight and sound, smell has become one of the last bastions of materiality in an age of immaterial globalization." will need to be stripped from the content. and something will need to be done with this whole section: Draft:Olfactory_Art#Resources ... either converting it to something like "List of olfactory artists]]" while converting every external link to an internal Wikipedia link and removing from the list everyone who does not have an article and a third party reliable source identifying them as an olfactory artist - or complete removal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
and you dont even mention Polyester (film) ???? probably THE most famous olfactory art piece ever. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't be playing so fast and loose with encyclopedic entries. I doubt if most of this is sourced. Is Marcel Duchamp really an olfactory artist? Was his output sometimes olfactory art? Would this be because it smelled? Do good quality sources assert this? Is the whole article giving undue weight to relatively minor comments that might exist in sources? You can't spin tall tales and make them into lengthy articles. "Other artistic lineages from which olfactory art emerges are conceptual art, minimalism, site-specific art, and installation art." Really? "Like many genres of contemporary art, olfactory art is interdisciplinary in nature, or takes on hybrid forms. Olfactory art can engage with a range of subjects such as Arte Povera, land art, pop art, found or environmental smells, explorations of the human body, sculpture, and an ever-expanding set of subjects that are part of the current discourse of contemporary art." Stop it. The reader isn't here to absorb mere possibilities. Anything said in an encyclopedia should be well-sourced. This is essentially un-sourced. Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@TRPoD: Yes, it may not be a perfect Wikipedia entry yet, but it is much better than what is there on Wikipedia right now, which is nothing. And the whole point of Wikipedia is supposed to be that it's collaborative, right? So people can add what they think is missing and fix what they think is wrong. As for Polyester (film), it has its own entry; in fact, there's an (incomplete) category of Films with scents, more than can be said for olfactory art.
@Bus stop: Did you read beyond the introduction? Did you actually read the whole section about Duchamp, and the following sections establishing the links to Fluxus, Arte Povera, etc? Do you even know of the exhibition Belle Haleine – The scent of art which demonstrated all that? Did you see the 50 sources at the bottom? And have you seen other comparable Wikipedia art entries, like that for Sound Art? They are far more thinly sourced, yet they exist, no problem, better than nothing.

It seems some people's idea of "help" is putting spokes in the wheels without doing anything constructive. This introduction to the "Wikipedia community" is proving to be a sobering experience in misanthropy. With a "friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia" like this, who needs enemies?! Archmemory (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to pull the wool over the reader's eyes. It is not our province to elaborate on that for which sourcing is sparse. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
While you might not see this article critique as helpful, the editors are actually trying to tell you what improvements the article needs to avoid being deleted. If you don't find the Teahouse useful, you can also try going to the Help Desk with your questions. If you are looking for editors to collaborate with, I recommend visiting one of the WikiProjects that make up Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts and starting a discussion about your article on a talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 15:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Referencing archives of non-Wikimedia wikis and other ongoing websites

The game Ingress is being continually modified by its creators, with an ongoing back (and front) story. The page's § Unofficial sites lists several non-Wikimedia wikis and other player-run sites. Like the official web sites, they are continually developing, but their durability is less reliable, and so I feel it is more important to list archives for them. But since the archive will frequently lag behind the site itself, I feel uncomfortable giving the archive URL as the lead link, as Cite web does, so I've listed it separately after the Cite web. Is there some policy or standard way of doing this? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thnidu, I'm sorry to say that no matter how you cite it, you cannot use a Wiki of any description as a source here, not even Wikipedia itself. WP:RS is very clear on the subject--nothing user created, be it a Wiki, YouTube, or a blog, can be deemed reliable enough to cite. A source must have some mechanism of fact checking in order to be considered reliable. John from Idegon (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
John from Idegon, you misunderstand. I am not citing these external wikis as sources or references for any content in the article. Rather, I am listing them as websites associated with the game and of interest to players. Perhaps, though, I should reword the descriptions so that they don't seem so much to be recommended sources for verifiable information. Would that be satisfactory? (And I shouldn't have used "referencing" in the title of this Talk section.)
PS: "anything nothing user created...can be deemed reliable enough to cite", yes?
--Thnidu (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Thnidu. There is a section in many articles called "External links", but it is not a collection of all the "websites associated with the game and of interest and relevance for users of the game". I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:External links, especially the sections on "What to link" and "Links normally to be avoided", and consider whether each of the sites you have fit the guidelines there. If you're not sure, feel free to come back and ask at the Teahouse. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is enshrined in policy, but my personal rule of thumb is "If I can't use it for a reference, in most cases, it shouldn't be an External link either." John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Thnidu. Standard procedure is to include one link to an official website in an article about a commercial product such as a video game. It is completely contrary to policy to include links to "unofficial websites". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and accordingly has no interest whatsoever in what may be "of interest to players". Fan sites cater to such interests, not a neutral encyclopedia. I urge you to remove these excessive external links immediately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328, John from Idegon, and Gronk Oz: Thank you for your advice. I will remove these and keep them as a private reference. Since the game is web-based, I'd like to keep them in my user space; would that be OK? --Thnidu (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Your userspace is for work in progress for Wikipedia. If you cannot use the links on Wikipedia, there is no reason to keep them here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_411&oldid=1039080633"