Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 424

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 420←Archive 422Archive 423Archive 424Archive 425Archive 426→Archive 430

Admin's Talk Page

I had an entry removed recently by an admin and wanted to discuss edits to the page in order to have it reinstated, but I'm not seeing anywhere at the bottom of their talk page to discuss changes. It's my first article and I'd like any help I can get to ensure it meets guidelines.

Bfmaccount (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bfmaccount, welcome to the Teahouse. Just go to Jimfbleak's talk page - User talk:Jimfbleak - and click the "New section" tab at the top of the page to create a new section on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Bfmaccount. When you visit a user's talk page, you can click on the New section tab at the top of the page. You can also go to the last entry on the page that has a side edit link, click edit, then create a new section below the last of the text by placing a title with two equal signs on either side, and then posting below that, e.g.,

==Title==

Text of your message--~~~~

Or you can do the same after clicking "edit" at the top of the user's talk page. I have looked at the entry deleted by Jimfbleak (who will now be pinged to this post) and note that it was a copyright violation of this website. Unless you wrote that material, it was also plagiarism, as it presented it as if it was your own writing.

If you are the owner of the text, we could only use it if you or someone else with ownership over the copyright released it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain) and provided that release in a verifiable way; we could not use it simply with permission for use here. If applicable, some of the the methods for providing a copyright release/freely-licensing are given at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please don't copy and paste previously published material again. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the author of the material, but it was originally posted under an account that was unusable due to its name being the same as the Wiki article (Username was Baldorfoods) - is that where the plagiarism is being noted?

I've pared down the material significantly to avoid being promotional/advertorial. Is there another option outside of releasing any copyrights? Bfmaccount (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not if you want to use previously written material in the same form, or closely paraphrased. Most business owners and others with a conflict of interest coming here to promote their business would not want to give up the copyright to their website text, and for good reason. Usually it's far too promotional to use anyway (though Baldor's website material is not nearly as promotional as what we often see). Also, any article will not be acceptable unless it meets notability standards by citation to reliable, secondary, independent sources, e.g., material like this this, this and this. Be aware that an entry here cannot be controlled by its subject; being the subject of an article does not give the subject any "ownership" over the content. So, if sources publish unflattering material, as seen in the last source, that very well might make its way into any entry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I created a page - It has been proposed for deletion - how do I overcome the objections

I created a page - Firebug (Dinghy)

It has been challenged on two grounds - relevance and promotional

I believe it is relevant because...

1. The design is the work of a highly significant boat designer. John Spencer (boat designer) 2. Over 1,000 of these boats have been built as part of a continuing programme. 3. Examples of the Firebug have been built in over 30 countries, often in places where resources for recreation are limited. 4. The class has been reported in multiple boating magazines. Watercraft (Highly respected UK publication), Wooden Boat (High circulation USA publication), Afloat (Australia and New Zealand) and Australian Amateur Boat Builder. 5. The large scale construction of boats at home was the foundation of mass dinghy sailing post World War 2. This activity has been greatly reduced with the availability of fiberglass craft, but the Firebug represents a significant number of people and community groups reverting to the earlier model.

Promotional?

(I regard) the content of the page as factual, but I have been connected with this global community for a decade, so it is difficult to avoid being partisan. I have waited all these years for someone else to write-up the Firebug on Wikipedia and no one has, yet many far less significant dinghy classes are documented.

I seek guidance to overcome the objections from more experienced users of Wikipedia


MRossV (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You need references. For a specialist dinghy this is not as easy as it seems. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.
Obviously this is likely to be from specialist press rather than major national dailies. Once you are sure that you have achieved it, you, yourself, may remove this particular type of deletion notice. Not other types, though. Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, MRossV, and welcome to the Teahouse. The concern is not relevance, but notability. To demonstrate that a subject is notable in the sense that that is meant on Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You can do this by citing sources, as described at Help:Referencing for beginners. The multiple boating magazines you mention will help here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You should look for coverage in books and major newspapers. books.google.com and news.google.com are good places to find generally appropriate sourcing although not all hits there are reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: editor Velella has removed the PROD tag. He/she is also helping with rewording and adding a reference, plus I added some as well - but it needs more since it is still tagged for Notability. MRossV, if you can provide details of any of the magazines you mentioned above that will help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, MRossV, WoodenBoat, published for over 40 years, is an excellent source for helping establish the notability of recreational boating topics. Keep working to improve this and related Wikipedia articles. Thank you, and I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done - An independent editor has reviewed the article and removed the Notability tag. There are enough references to determine that it is notable, although more would still be better.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
When I initiated this page, I felt that it, and I were most inadequate.

I am deeply grateful for the efforts and encouragement made by more experienced users to make the page acceptable. I understand the removal of interrogations on the page mean it is now considered acceptable.

In simple naivety, thank you to all of you.

MRossV MRossV (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

using a picture from German wikipedia

Hi, friendly people. I recently translated an article from the German wikipedia. (It's here: Wilhelm Neumann-Torborg). The German article included a picture of Herr Neumann-Torborg: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:NeumannTorborg.jpg I would have liked to include this image in the English article, but I don't know how to make it appear. Help please? Many thanks. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. There are two possibilities: You can try to upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons under an argument that copyright has expired, which seems highly likely. If you click on the image on German Wikipedia, you will see the data associated with the photo. The German editor who added it thinks copyright has expired but little is known about the origins of the photo, so that has not been proven. It would be up to you to convince the volunteers at Wikimedia Commons that it is copyright free.
The other option, which is easier but more limited, is to download the photo to your computer and then upload it here on English Wikipedia as a fair use image of a person who is dead. For details, please read WP:NFCI paying special attention to #10. In that case, the photo could only be freely used in the English biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
In order to upload files, you must have a registered account at least four days old and must have made ten acceptable edits with that new account. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the artist died in 1917, if it can be shown that this photo was published in a book, newspaper or magazine while he was still alive, then it would indisputably be copyright free. Under US copyright law anything published before 1923 is free of copyright restrictions. US law governs because our servers and WikiMedia Foundation headquarters are in the US. The only hitch would be if it was a private family photo first published much later. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have any sources older than the '60s so I guess that means I would not be able to convince anyone that this picture is ok to use? Please let me know what other arguments would be convincing. I did a reverse image search but this image seems to have originated with the German wikipedia so there is no further information on it.184.147.121.46 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can't find any evidence of publication earlier than the appearance of the photo in the German Wikipedia, then I recommend that you proceed in accordance with WP:NFCI #10. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again. I still don't understand what to do next though. Is there a link with instructions? That one only lists rules.184.147.121.46 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How to delete a messed up draft and write a new one

Hello I was working on a draft article. and it has been rejected several time due to some formatting issue and absence of in-line references. Though I have corrected it now..it looks like all messed up. can I delete the draft and make a new one totally fresh?Sathyamvada (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sathyamvada, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is rarely a need to delete an article completely and then to start a new one. If you don't like the formatting, you can replace it. In fact, you can replace all of the content of the draft article if you wish. That is to say, you can delete and replace the content, but I don't see the need to delete the article itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, if you abandon an article altogether and don't want it any more, you can request deletion by adding the following code at the top of the page: {{db-userreq|rationale=Draft article I no longer need.}} (you can put whatever explanation you want in the "rationale"). An Administrator will see that and clean it up.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. this is helpful.. I was waiting for the aproval of the page. if fact I have corrected the page and hoping that the page will be approved. let me wait. Thanks Sathyamvada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusing feedback from different reviewers

I'm working on my first Wikipedia submission, a profile of Jon Lee (volleyball). The first reviewer said I needed more references, which I added. The second reviewer said that the submission didn't meet the "notability" standards, which left me incredulous. Do you have a sports editor or someone I can work with to figure out what additional information and/or references I need? Thanks. Mdelapa (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mdelapa and welcome to the Teahouse. The subject of Notability as implemented in Wikipedia takes some time to get familiar with. The first thing I can suggest is that you can direct specific questions back to the reviewers involved. In your case, more references is not the same thing as better references. It would be helpful to read the article WP:42 to get a quick overview of the sort of references that we need: they need to be independent, the need to be reliable sources, and they need to discuss the topic in depth. Secondly, the draft article just has a list of "references" at the end, without providing any indication of which reference supports which statement in the article. There is a good description of how to do that at User:Yunshui/References for beginners. And of course, if you have questions you are always welcome to come back and ask at the Teahouse.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I would also suggest that you read the sports notability guidelines, which go into considerable length about professional sports notability, and give more general guidelines about college sports notability. Did he ever play volleyball professionally? (I don't know if volleyball is played professionally, as it doesn't have professional notability guidelines.) Did he ever play in the Modern Olympic Games? If so, that qualifies him for notability if properly referenced. Other than that, he needs multiple independent reliable sources of coverage to be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It is true that one will sometimes get different decline reasons from different reviewers. That is because a reviewer gives one reason. The basic problem may be that he doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's definition of notability. I will also point out that some reviewers are likely to decline a very quick resbumission after giving it a quick review, and you resubmitted very quickly. You ask if there is a sports editor or someone. Wikipedia doesn't have specialized editors, but it does have editors who specialize in particular subjects. However, as far as how to ask for feedback on improving an article, this is a good place to discuss declined articles. I suggest that you ask the two declining editors to come here and discuss with other new and experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mdelapa! Athlete notability is not an area I'm terribly familiar with. When I declined the article, I was unsure whether notability could be presumed from a few years of professional play and a national indoor American championship. (Also, was it a college national championship, given that Lee would have been about 20 when competing?) This prompted my decline and request for more sources with significant coverage, which is the "fallback" basic sports notability requirement. /wia /tlk 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he played professionally, as noted in the article. Yes, he won a National collegiate indoor volleyball championship at UCSB 1969 (beat Bruins in final). He was named All-America '68, '69, '70. He coached Todd Rogers who won an Olympic Gold Medal (Todd's page mentions Jon). He coached a bunch of other collegiate/professional players. Turns out that volleyball isn't particularly well referenced, but I thought the references I supplied were adequate. Not sure what else I can provide without going to Santa Barbara and digging into old newspaper archives, etc. At a loss about how to proceed. Mdelapa (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC) mdelapa

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mdelapa. Yes, you "noted" his professional play in the article but did not provide any detail. It seems like he played in 1975 for the Santa Barbara Strikers of the International Volleyball Association. You should also provide the team names and league names for the European teams he played for. Some of your references include private correspondence and a PDF of a letter praising him in connection with the naming of a sports facility. These are not acceptable sources for a Wikipedia article as they are unpublished. The best source is the Volleyball magazine reference, but it has shortcomings because it is not independent. Lee is a former editor of that magazine, after all.
In my opinion, Lee is probably notable, given his collegiate athletic success (which needs to be described in greater detail), his career as professional player and ESPN commentator and his long career as a coach and teacher. It is up to you to demonstrate his notability by providing better sources that discuss him in depth. The importance of high quality reliable sources here cannot be overestimated. We summarize what reliable independent sources say about the topic, Lee in this case. So, do the work and find and properly cite the sources. We are always here to help at the Teahouse. Good luck to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cullen - thank you! I appreciate the helpful guidance. I'll work on beefing up the sources. Would further personal references/endorsements be helpful, e.g., from Karch Kiraly, Todd Rogers and other volleyball Olympians? Regrettably, volleyball is a digital laggard. Much of its history is oral and not easily recoverable. Mdelapa (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) mdelapa

No, I am sorry, Mdelapa, but personal endorsements are not allowed as references. Please read our restriction forbidding original research. We rely overwhelmingly on published reliable sources which should have professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and error correction. Independent sources are required for establishing notability. Letters from various people, no matter how famous, do not qualify. However, the sources need not be digital or available online. Published paper sources are fine, but should be thoroughly cited: author, publication, article title, date, page number, city of publication and so on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The same article in different languages (Wikidata error)

Hello,

Someone had erranously linked the same article by two different synchronizations, and I can't fix it myself, unfortunately. Basically the same article was having two different wikidata-links. These need to be linked to each other;

The same version in other languages got lost as well due to this, (In the Azerbaijani, Georgian, and some other languages, but I cant find them right now...)

Is it some bug? Can anyone link them all together again? That would be great. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

LouisAragon, it quite often happens that more than one Wikidata item gets created for the same topic. I've merged two items so that the four pages above (and the Arabic version) are linked (not wholly without hesitation, as some of those pages are not just in languages that I don't know, but in scripts that I can't read). I'm going to ask Kober, who created the page here and who I believe to be a speaker of Georgian (another particularly beautiful script that I can't read), if he/she would be kind enough to tell us if there is also version on ka.wp that should be linked with these. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:, thanks much for your helpful response. There are indeed a few more left to link, and perhaps indeed Kober could help with that. Good to know as well that often more than wiki data items are created. Will help for sure localizing the issue even faster in the future. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How Can I get my profile approved by wikipedia ?

Why my profile gets rejected by wikipedia as i am following all the rules made by your community?


Regards RMOS (RMOS Christopher (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RMOS Christopher. Your account only has two recorded edits that created this Teahouse question. Any other edits must have been deleted by an administrator, so I cannot give specific feedback. However, the word "profile" gives a clue, since profile implies social networking and self promotion. Wikipedia is not a social network but rather a project to build an encyclopedia. You can have a user page (as I do) describing your interests as an encyclopedia editor and your work here to build this encyclopedia. Otherwise, a "profile" is inappropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi RMOS Christopher. You are not following the rules of our community. The article you posted at RMOS Consultancy was a copyright violation. It was a blatant commercial, full of promotional marketing speech and puffery, extolling the virtues of the topic and hawking it to the reader in the first person. It cited no sources but its own website to demonstrate the world had taken any note of the topic. It was posted not by a disinterested person but by you, the apparent owner or at least someone intimately involved with the company, against our conflict of interest guidelines – and someone having a financial stake in the company, meaning you have not complied with our mandatory disclosure requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use for paid editing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Erm, see also
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 September 23#How I can create a wikipedia page for RMOS Consultancy?;
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 398#Regarding RMOS Consultancy;
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 407#RMOS Consultancy profile creation in wikipedia ?;
Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 September 28#How to edit a page for RMOS Consultancy ?; and
wikt:Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/September#RMOS Consultancy new word addition in your dictionary
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

someone deleted what I wrote yesterday

Why?

And how do I complain?

Radical Jazz Woman (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Radical Jazz Woman, and welcome to the Teahouse. The changes you made to Cal Massey (which are summarized here) were reverted by editor Chubbles with this edit, with the comment that they did not conform to Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view and using reliable sources. If you wish to discuss whether those changes should be included in the article, the best place to do that is to start a discussion thread on the article's Talk page, at Talk:Cal Massey. If so, the discussion will centre around what can be verified in reliable sources, and iTunes is not generally considered reliable for comments like "Massey was shut out of recording because of his radical politics", so you might like to collect some other references to back it up first.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the photo you added, as, given your assertion on Wikimedia commons that you own the copyright on the photo and agree to license it for use by anyone (including commercial use without compensation), it is a useful addition to the article. It would be useful for you to add on commons when you took the photo, as currently this is listed as yesterday's date. --LukeSurl t c 13:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I work with Musicians that PLAY the music of Mr Massey.
One of those Musicians is a protege of Fred Ho and what I said came from the mouth of Fred Ho who ALSO wrote extensively about Cal in his book Naked Practice
Radical Jazz Woman (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Radical Jazz Woman, I have good news and bad news.
The bad news is that, unfortunately one cannot use private statements from persons to verify claims in an article. Wikipedia content needs to be based on published, reliable sources that people can check for themselves. The policy discussing this is called the "No Original Research" policy, and, although it seems restrictive at first, it is a necessary policy for building a reliable encylopedia.
The good news is that the book you mention, Naked Practice, would be an excellent source. The things that Fred Ho says about Massey can be written into the Cal Massey article. Please have a look at Wikipedia:References for beginners for guidance in using this book as a reference.--LukeSurl t c 15:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not an official teahouse host but Radical Jazz Woman, I am concerned about the status of the image you uploaded as being yours.[1]. It looks as if it might be a scan of a print of a photo taken by someone else. If it is, the copyright holder might justifiably feel aggrieved and have cause to complain. It is easy to get muddled about copyright and if that has been the case here, a proper Teahouse host may be able put you on the right path. SovalValtos (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like a photograph or scan of a newspaper picture that uses stippling to obtain shades of gray, with the pixel frequency of the camera or scanner beating with the dot frequency of the printed image. The point is not that "the copyright holder might .. feel aggrieved", but that Wikipedia's lawyers require us to respect copyright law. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons – it could not have been taken on 2 December 2015 and is obviously taken from a print publication. Radical Jazz Woman, if you did really take that photograph of Cal Massey before he died in 1972 and still own the copyright (i.e., you did not cede it to whoever published the image), you can release permission to us by following the instructions here. If you do so, please put a note on the talk-page of the image to say that you have, or leave a note on my talk-page and I will do so for you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The photo in question could be uploaded here on English Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), Radical Jazz Woman, under our non free content policy, for use only in the biography. Please read WP:NFCI #10 for the details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This picture WAS a scan...

but it was scanned by Cal kids!!!! I have no idea when it was taken but if you want I can get permission to use from one of them

Radical Jazz Woman (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Radical Jazz Woman. If you want to go down that route, you'll need to read Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. Two main things to consider:
  1. The copyright of the image will likely belong to the photographer (possibly their heirs if they have since died) or to the publication that commissioned the photo. Taking a scan of the image does not make one the owner of its copyright. Copyright law in the US (where Wikipedia's servers are based) is extremely restrictive, and if the copyright owner cannot be traced one has to assume full copyright restrictions.
  2. Even if the copyright owner can be traced, Wikipedia cannot use images based on simple "permission". Wikipedia's free content can be reused by anyone, so giving one can't simply give permission to Wikipedia, one has to effectively give permission to anyone in the world, for any purpose. This is done by the use of free licenses, such as the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Copyright is tricky here at Wikipedia because, unlike the vast majority of the rest of the internet, we take extreme care to remain on the correct side of the law. My advise to you would be to drop the photo for now and work on the text of the article. As Cullen328 discusses above, there is an alternative path of non-free content/fair use that one could employ, but this is quite tricky for a new editor. --LukeSurl t c 14:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Radical Jazz Woman, you seem like a cool cat and must find it a nightmare to be caught up in the bureaucracy of the Wikipedia. The WP operates under the copyright laws of the US, and boy can they be tricky! The thing is, that even is the pic was of Cal and scanned by him, the copyright can belong to the photographer who took the picture. The absolutely best thing would be if someone had a pic of Cal that he/she took themselves, and that person uploaded it on the Commons. As for "kids"... I doubt many of us here have been called that in a looong time. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Lost draft?

Hi I've just opened an account (3 Dec) and went to look for the draft of a piece I'm writing on a British government film organisation in WW2 but can't find it. I thought it would be there when I logged on - my user name comes up ok - but there doesn't seem to be any way to discover what's happened to my draft. When I tried to ask a question in the Help page it said I couldn't as I don't have an account, but I do (I think!)....I've tried sub pages etc. Your help/guidance would be most appreciated. Thanks PAULFSARGENT (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi PAULFSARGENT. This is the only contribution you have made under this username. You could try using the search box with some key words.Charles (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
... and if you can't find it that way, check whether you have created two accounts with similar names, or possibly were not logged in when you created the draft. If you have a fixed IP address, then look for contributions from that address. Dbfirs 21:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You can try logging out and clicking Special:MyContributions if you were not logged in at the time and still have the same IP address. Or you could just tell us the name of the organisation so we can look for it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all for your quick responses. I've looked under all your suggestions, but it's not there....I guess I made an error and didn't save it or something (but I'm sure I did....!). Oh, well, I have a copy of the draft and will start again. It's called the Army Kinematograph Service (AKS). The only other references relate to specific films.PAULFSARGENT (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I write another entry while one is waiting review?

Hello, I would like to know if I can write another entry while another one is waiting review, also when I go to my sandbox I can not do another, there appears the one which is being revised. Yurenni23 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, @Yurenni23:: thanks for being so eager to help out! Sure you can create a new article at any time. If you read at Wikipedia:Drafts, it includes instruction on how to create two types of drafts, either in the Draft: namespace OR in your User: namespace. You can start as many drafts as you'd like; just give each whatever name you want. The instructions there tell you how to do it manually, but ALSO include a helpful dialog box that will create it for you automagically. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 20:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox was left as a redirect when the draft was moved. If you had clicked at the top of the article, under the title, where it said (Redirected from User:Yurenni23/sandbox), that would have taken you to the redirect page and allowed you to edit it. I've done that to change it from a redirect to a simple wikilink, and you can edit it again to whatever you want. Note also that you can put further userspace drafts at whatever title you want, such as User:Yurenni23/whatever you want the new title to be. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to create a new page

Hii, I am a new comer to Wikipedia and I want to learn how to create a new page. I want to create a page on a small town located in the Dhemaji district of Assam, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagat Subedi (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jagat Subedi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest that you have a read of the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article and then make use of Wikipedia:Article wizard when you are ready to get started. If you do that, you will get feedback on your submission from experienced editors, which will ensure that it complies with Wikipedia policies and significantly reduce the chance that it will be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Even I want to create a new page for my organisation "RMOS PVT LTD" but it gets rejected everytime .


(RMOS Christopher (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:RMOS Christopher hello and welcome to The Teahouse. This happens a lot. Not all companies are notable. One problem is people writing about their own company have trouble with neutral point of view. Also, they tend not to use independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for promotion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Elementary and Middle Schools

I looked at schools that have articles on them in my state and they are all high schools. Is there a restriction on adding articles about schools below a high school in grade level or can I add articles about elementary and middle schools?ShadowDragon343 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi ShadowDragon343 - There's no restriction, per se, but non-secondary schools have to pass the general notability guidelines (or GNG, as you'll see it referred to). Very few elementary/middle schools can meet that criteria. Wikipedia works on consensus, and per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, a secondary school generally only has to show it exists and is accredited in order to be eligible for their own article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 17:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
So unless say a to be president went to one or a major news event happened there then it can not be added? Okay thanks!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that wouldn't count to making the school notable. Notability is neither inheritable or transferable. There has to be significant independent coverage of a school in order to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 18:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, a primary school needs to be of historical or architectural significance to be notable enough for an article. If the school is on the National Register of Historic Places in the US, or a similar official list in another country, that would be strong evidence of notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm having difficulty following your reasoning here, Cullen328. If a school is housed in a building that meets our notability requirements (and I agree that listing on a national register of historic buildings would go a long way towards establishing that), wouldn't we then want to have an article on the building, regardless of who the current occupant happened to be? And to have an article on the school only if it was notable for its activities and achievements? A school cannot inherit the notability of the building it happens to be using, any more than any other tenant can. I grew up in a listed building, but even that can't make me notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Justlettersandnumbers. Although I understand your point, you seem to be making a far stronger distinction between a school and the building that it is housed in than I do. In my experience, it is infrequent that a school moves from building to building. And even after instruction stops, a former school is usually thought of as a school building. And if that building was of historic or architectural significance, our article about that structure would certainly describe the teaching that formerly took place there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey Shadowdragon. Let me try to simplify it. The only thing that really matters is can you find enough substantive, reliable, independent source text to use as references to write a reasonably complete Wikipedia article. Everything else you see is of secondary consideration, and really just "general guidelines" and dealing in "likelyhoods" rather than rock-solid reasons to write an article. The nature of schools is that schools of a certain level (generally high schools and higher) usually generate enough reliable source text (from reliable sources, news media, etc.) to mean they almost always qualify anyways, in much the same way the every single head of state of a nation would qualify; we expect that by the nature of being a head-of-state, one would always have lots of writing about your life. When one deals with lower level schools (middle, elementary, preschool, etc.) one does not expect there to always be enough source text outside of Wikipedia to support writing an article at Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that no elementary schools merit an article, because the notion of being an elementary school is not an exclusionary criterion. The only criterion that matters is reliable, independent source text. If any elementary school has that text, go ahead and write the article. But make sure you can find source material first. --Jayron32 03:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Cullen328 while it doesn't happen often, Central Elementary School (Albemarle, North Carolina) did move into a historic building. However, it turns out the school's former building qualified for the National Register and is being converted for another use. I had a hard time with the school's article because of all the confusion this generates. It is true the article is mostly about the two buildings.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that interesting article about an unusual situation, Vchimpanzee. I think that the article would benefit from more details about the architecture of older building, and photos would be great as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How to upload an image that is a graphic?

I am having trouble to upload an image, i do know where it fits. It is a graphic that is crucial for the article I am writing. It is not free, it belongs to ArtTactic Deloitte, but with the due quoting its legal to use it. How can I upload it?Yurenni23 (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yurenni23 and welcome to the Teahouse. You most likely can't use the graphic. If it's possible for you (or anyone else) to make a graphic that contains the same information as the existing one - as is the case with most maps, charts, tables, diagrams and other graphics - then due quoting (or "non-free content use" as we call it) is not possible. This is because our non-free content policy is stricter than fair-use. Specifically, such use would fail the no free equivalent criteria. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
So, I understand that as a negative, sorry, but it is not a very clear answer. What can I do to upload these graphics, or is it impossible? I made them again on Illustrator, with their due quoting. Yurenni23 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Yurenni23, and sorry for any lack of clarity in my previous answer. I did raise some skepticism about it being possible to upload and use the graph here on Wikipedia. Copyright issues can be complicated, and here we need to determine a few things before we can tell for sure. It would help if you could link me to the original graph. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any one here at this moment?

(AAU-OMm (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AAU-OMm. I'm here at this moment, but I may not be by the time you ask another question. —teb728 t c 06:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The page is watched and frequently visited by a reasonable number of editors, so most questions get an initial answer within a few hours - and the majority quicker than that, I would estimate. Ask away! Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Account created to promote event or organization?

If an account appears to have been created for the single purpose of promoting an event or organization and its staff thru creating multiple pages (many of which have other issues) how can I best reach out to an admin to review it? JamesG5 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JamesG5. Well, you could mention the username here. Or if the username is promotional, my favorite way is to report them at WP:UAA. —teb728 t c 06:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi I edited / restructured the lyrics of the different versions of God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen , but i am wondering if i made some mistakes somewhere, can somebody check my work and maybe improve the article even further ? (we could do with some featured x-mas articlles ) WillemienH (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I've changed the original lyrics to British spelling, as in the ref. Do you have any evidence that The Beauties of the Magazines (1775) used American spelling? If not, then you might like to change that, too. I haven't found anything else wrong except for a minor preposition ("bought off" is colloquial usage). Dbfirs 12:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I edited was the layout (compare https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God_Rest_You_Merry,_Gentlemen&oldid=692744838 (28-11-2015) and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God_Rest_You_Merry,_Gentlemen&oldid=693511646 (3-12-2015) I hope I did not change the texts itself. WillemienH (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my quick look at differences didn't reveal that your edits were change of layout only, so please ignore my comments on spelling. I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether the verses are better shown contiguous or better with similar ones side by side. I don't have a strong opinion either way. Dbfirs 02:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
WillemienH, off-topic but when we post diffs we are supposed to leave off the "https:" part and start the diff with "//" only. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

English translation of an already-existing French wiki page (from the teahouse question) - some more questions & issues

Hi, I wasn't sure how to refer back to the teahouse section where I asked questions about translating/writing a new bio of French artist Gabriel Delmas. The hyperlink to make more comments there is gone, although this is (I think, I hope) the page I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&oldid=693005208

Once the teahouse page updates, there is no longer any 'join the discussion' or 'edit source' for me to click to return there. Of course I can come directly to an editor's talk page, but how is it done if I wanted to return to my teahouse question?

In any case here is the issue I now have:

I probably should be creating the article in my sandbox but I'm writing the bio from scratch offline because it seemed easier. One of the issues I'm having now is, even though I am creating a new bio, the sources I will use as citations, references, etc are in French. I'm very confused about how I cite them because this is English wikipdedia and I just realized that, they are obviously not translated into English. So my whole strategy of making this easier by doing an original article in English, will still have me dealing with the translation-of-foreign-sources issue. My French is not fluent, I do understand how to read it but I am by no means a proficient speaker and don't want to attempt to translate the citations.

That's one issue. The other is, this artist is fairly prolific in several different art media (painting, drawing, graphic novels, multimedia installation), but what he is most known (and notable) for are his contributions to the underground comic book scene, which is a major industry in France, Belgium, Italy and Japan. All his books have been published (by major publishers) and one of them has just been reprinted by a new small press in Italy. The book (Largemouths) was a cult classic when it was published 10 years ago (also had a different name, Grangousiers) but I am having very little luck finding reviews of this because it just came out this past November. So would I write about what people have said about the book years ago, since it is the same book, or try to find more sources for the newly published reprint? The artist has a body of published work I will talk briefly and generally about, but this particular book I wanted to highlight and focus on because it crystallizes what is considered to be his original vision. And yes, I can find sources for this assertion.

But that brings me to two other issues. Please bear with me, I know this is long!

The next issue is that, unlike in the U.S. where comic books are seen as frivolous, something for kids, not taken seriously as an art form, it is a major, serious, respected industry in France (also Japan, Italy, Belgium). Everyone reads them, they are written about in journals and publications and....this is the reason I want to write about this particular artist....they are the place where many innovative and unconventional artists make their mark on French culture. The graphic novel is a form especially suited for those artists who are out of the mainstream. Even though the industry is mainstream and many of the artists working in it are also doing work that is mainstream, both the form itself and the industry are open to the kind of artist who wants to expand and challenge the boundaries of this art form. Very open to it. This is not the case here, in the U.S. or in most English-speaking countries. I bring this up because some of the assertions I will make in writing about him may be skirting the 'neutral' tone requirement. I agree that the French wiki article has a tone that is, in many places, bordering on promotional, something I am mindful of and do not want to do in this article. However, having said that, there really is no way to talk about an artist who is outside of the mainstream (even though widely published in it), whose books and art challenge many aspects of society (satirically) without resorting to language that is not neutral. To me, to adopt a tone that is scholarly and sanitized when I am describing an artist whose work is unconventional and avant-garde is not only weird, but wrong and misleading. I do see the need for neutrality, but this is not merely an issue of neutrality.

Here's the last issue. I've noticed a lot of broken links on the original French wiki article. I've managed to find the sources elsewhere for some of them, plus I"m starting to find new sources, but what do I do if I can't find them? If the publication is gone? Or if the source is now only available if you pay to read it? This is difficult enough in my own language but I feel lost in this quagmire of searching in a foreign language. All of his books have been published, but some are now out of print, and others are in the process of being reprinted. Can my article, providing it passes all of the other tests (a big if, I know...you haven't seen it yet) on neutrality, reputable sources, notability, be accepted even if it is not definitive, not complete? How much or how many sources would be enough to qualify it for acceptance?

And that leads me to this. I also don't quite understand the meaning of wiki's test for reputability. Because even though this artist has a body of published work, and I can find sources for citations, he, like many artists working in a form that is considered part of the underground art scene, is often reviewed in publications that would not or may not pass wiki's stringent tests for mainstream writers and artists. The kind of publications that review artists in France are very different than those here. Some of the best sources I have found (meaning the material is rich and interesting and perceptive) are among his peers. Other artists, editors of art magazines and blogs, these are the people that have the most to say, and who say it in a way that demonstrates exactly why the artist is notable.

Does any of this make sense?

I appreciate any advice and help and any strategies editors may have to help me with this article. I know how difficult it is to write about any living artist, but to write about a foreign one, but have to abide by a standard that he wouldn't even meet in his own country....seems very strange to me.

Alphaville3467 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The place to find the answers to your previous question is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 422#English translation of an already-existing French wiki page. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I linked to it, I do know where it is, my question was how to join the discussion after the question is dropped into the teahouse archive. I just didn't understand why the hyperlink "join the discussion" disappears. Or how you can respond to an editor in that question. It's ok, because going directly to an editor's talk page is probably a better idea, but I just was curious to know how you could 'reply' later on. Alphaville3467 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It is technically possible, but you're not supposed to edit archived talk pages, Alphaville3467. The best thing to do would either be to just start a new post here, linking to the old one (as you've done), or contact the previous respondents individually. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Alphaville3467: You posted the exact same text on my user page where I'm writing an extensive answer to you. You should not be posting the same question on multiple forums. Do you want my help or not? w.carter-Talk 20:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To be accurate, no you didn't link to the archived version, you linked to an earlier version of the page before the archive, and before all the answers were provided. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The link at the top of Alphaville3467's long comment above is to a version of the page with all the answers, David Biddulph - if not the current, archived version. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In which case I'm confused, @Cordless Larry:. When I follow the link at the top of the OP's message it takes me to the version timed at 20:32 on 29 November. I can't, for example, see the message from w.carter signed at 00:14, 30 November 2015 and shown in the history as 00:15 that day, which was included in the archive done later that day. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
True enough, David Biddulph. I thought you meant that it was to a version without any answers at all, and was also thrown off by the fact that not all of the replies are in time order. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
w. Carter, yes, I'd like your help. I'm not familiar with how to do this, I'm a new user, so if I posted it on your page and here, my apologies. This may be obvious to experienced editors but it is not obvious to me. Alphaville3467 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Alphaville3467: Ok, I'm almost done with the answer, so we can continue your tutoring at my talk page. See you there, w.carter-Talk 21:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

w.carter, great, thank you! And here will be a perfect example of my confusion because I don't even know how many colons to add to respond to you.... ;) In any case, I look forward to your help. Alphaville3467 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Alphaville3467. I am going to try to respond succinctly to the main points you made above:
If discussion of your previous Teahouse question has been archived, simply ask a new question to continue discussion. You can link to the earlier discussion if it is highly relevant but that is not usually necessary.
It is not necessary to translate foreign language sources. Simply cite them in their original language. But only cite sources that you have personally read and confirmed that they verifiy the assertion. If you cannot read the source, do not cite it and leave the assertion out of the article.
The neutral point of view is mandatory and required by policy. If you are incapable of writing about a topic neutrally and disinterestedly, then you should refrain from writing about that topic on Wikipedia. Blog about the topic elsewhere.
I disagree with your assertion that comic books and graphic novels are not taken seriously in the English speaking world. There is plenty of serious literature in English about this art form. Despite your feelings on the matter, you are obligated to summarize what reliable sources in any language say about this particular artist. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world and universe. It is not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world.
Reviews of the original publication of a work are perfectly acceptable and are likely to be more relevant and abundant than reviews of subsequent editions. Publication of a later edition does not render reviews of the first edition weaker in any way.
Do not make claims like "everyone reads them", when discussing comic art in other countries. Infants do not read them, illiterates do not read them, those with advanced Alzheimers do not read them, and so on. Be very careful and precise with your assertions here. We are building an encyclopedia, not chatting on Facebook. If you can find a reliable source that says "95% of all French citizens read comic books", then cite that. I doubt you will find any such source.
Broken links in the French article are of no use to you, unless you can find a current link and correct it. You can only cite a reliable source here on the English Wikipedia if you have actually read the applicable part of the source yourself, and verified that it supports the claim. You can't assume that the French editor read the source so therefore it must be true. That doesn't fly here. When you cite a source, you are personally vouching for its accuracy and relevance.
There is no need that an article be "definitive and complete" at the very beginning. I have spent several years working on various articles to bring them to Good Article status, and am aware that additional work may be needed to bring them to the highest Featured Article status. A halfway decent article will be a good introductory overview of the topic, but there will be many opportunities for further improvement as time goes by. That is normal.
"Reputability" is not a term commonly used by experienced Wikipedia editors. It seems to be a mashup of notability, which applies to topics, and Reliable source, which has to do with references. These are entirely distinct concepts.
The vast majority of blogs are not allowed as references, unless the blogger is a universally recognized expert in the field, or the blog is under professional editorial control. This is rare. Do not use blogs as references until you have a deep understanding of what a reliable source is.
Indenting using colons is pretty easy. Just use one more colon than the person you are responding to. If they used two, you use three. If they used three, you use four. And so on. Consistent indenting frequently breaks down here at the Teahouse, since so many participants are new to Wikipedia. That's OK. Just try to resume indenting, and carry on.
I hope that my comments are helpful to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen, this is really helpful, I appreciate it. Alphaville3467 (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy about citing print sources?

Hello - I have searched the answer to this question and haven't found exactly what I'm looking for. How do you cite print sources that can't be linked to? For instance, I found an article from Fortune magazine through my local library that I want to cite, but the archives for that time period are not available online.

Thank you in advance for any help,

Erin Erinbh (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Welcome to the Teahouse, Erinbh. When citing a paper source that is not available online, it is important to provide as many relevant details as possible. This includes complete title and subtitle, author names, publication and/or publisher name, publication date, page numbers and so on. If it is a book published in recent decades, provide the ISBN number. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everyone, that is exactly what I needed to know.

216.49.153.36 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_424&oldid=1077822222"