Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 458

Archive 455

Archive 456

Archive 457

Archive 458

Archive 459

Archive 460

→

Archive 465

how to link to an article's (sub)section?

As in: instead of linking to VERYLONGARTICLE, I would like to link to VERYLONGARTICLE#Personallife. How do I do that in in the text? I have tried this form but it doesnt come out right: [| VERYLONGARTICLE] Mang (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to use a wikilink, rather than an internet url. [[VERYLONGARTICLE#Personallife|VERYLONGARTICLE]] renders as VERYLONGARTICLE. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Book citation

If a user has cited an 800+ page reference book but has not included the page number(s)what is the appropriate way to handle this? Unconventional2 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Unconventional2. You can try asking the user on their user talk page to see if they could provide it. Otherwise, you can insert {{page needed}} in the article after the citation, which produces . Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mz7 ! Unconventional2 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This method will work some of the time but not always, Unconventional2. Enter the book title at Google Books. There will often be a search box for searching within the book. Enter distinctive keywords related to the passage in the Wikpedia article. This may show the page(s) from the book that support the passage, if the publisher has authorized in depth searching. If so, add the page information to the reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Unconventional2, if Cullen328's method has worked and you have identified the page, you can also try this:

• get the plain Google url of the book, usually from https to the first ampersand (& sign), ignoring everything after that; an example is https://books.google.it/books?id=FR0vn7z-I2sC
• add to it &pg=230 (or whatever the page number was), so you have e.g. https://books.google.it/books?id=FR0vn7z-I2sC&pg=230
• test that, and if it takes you to the page, use it as the url in the citation (Google's pagination is pretty random, so it doesn't always work; you never need any of the cruft that gets added after that basic url)

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your help and suggestions, I appreciate all of them!

I was able to sort this out with the user who created the cite so didn’t have to try any of the other suggestions, but will surely get a chance to use them in the future. Unconventional2 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

how to get an article reviewed?

I have written an article and saved it. It now shows up as "Draft." What's the process for getting someone to review and approve it? Wrihker (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wrihker, you simply post "{{subst:submit}}" (without the quotes but with the double curly brackets) at the top of the page, then the draft will be in the queue to be reviewed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Wrihker (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

New page

I've been trying to creat a page for an author, with his permission of course. I need an easy way to do that, the articles are so vague and not helping, Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crysvio (talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Crysvio, there is a welcome message on your talk page that has some helpful links to guide you on writing your first article. I created a sandbox for you to work on your article (see User:Crysvio/Sandbox) and submit your draft to Articles for Creation when you would like it reviewed so you can receive some feedback on it. I'm also sure there are experienced content creators passing by the Teahouse who can offer you additional help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz' i created something, i guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crysvio/sandbox will you take a look and tell me what to do now? please help Crysvio (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, i created something, i guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crysvio/sandbox will you take a look and tell me what to do now? please help Crysvio (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Crysvio. It looks to me like this is an article on a non-notable, self-published author. (It also appears likely that all the images on the page that you uploaded to the Commons are copyright violations.) Don't take offense at that – most of the people in the world are not notable and encyclopedic in the Wikipedia sense (I'm not, for example). It's not a comment on the intrinsic worth of the topic, in this case a person, but on whether the topic is the proper subject of coverage in an encyclopedia – which should only have articles on matters of knowledge. That is, topics the world has taken note of by writing about them substantively in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of that topic.

Occasionally self-published authors are notable for their writing, but it is not common. I did some searches and did not find anything useable for him – which doesn't mean I'm not wrong, but the write-up you did certainly does not demonstrate any notability by citing any such sources. If you do think such sources exist, then please read Help:Referencing for beginners for how to cite sources and get crackin'. Note that the manner you embedded external links in the text is not the way we cite sources, and none of those sources are the types we are looking for in any event.

As to the images, the book covers, do you own the copyright to each of them, are you their author (which is not necessarily the same thing), and did you really mean to irrevocably give up all rights to them but for attribution, even for commercial purposes? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Crysvio. When you write "with his permission of course", that indicates that you have a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. We do not ask permission of notable people before writing biographies of them. Instead, we summarize what reliable sources have written about them, without much interest at all in whether or not they want a Wikipedia biography. If the person's notability is marginal, we will certainly listen to objections to the article. If the person is indisputably notable, a state or provincial legislator or Oscar winner for example, we will keep a neutral article no matter what they think. But if the person isn't notable, we ignore their desires for an article, and delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I will agree with the previous posts but add a few comments. I have looked at the sandbox draft, which has not been submitted for review. If it were submitted for review, it would almost certainly be declined, because it doesn't include any references, let alone references (as in-line citations) to independent reliable sources (third-party sources). My advice is not to submit the draft for review, or to find multiple independent reliable sources commenting on the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

So what's my next step? what should i do now? should i give up and forget about the whole thing? and he is notable, I don't know him personally, just a fan, so...

I guess i could provide some reliable sources. Crysvio (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Providing reliable sources is the only way to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, Crysvio, so if you have the details of some, then add them to the draft article. See Help:Referencing for beginners if you need guidance on how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That said, a Google search for "Dai Alanye" does not give me confidence that such sources exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Prevent School Page Deletion

Hi,

I just started a school page for a local middle school, and there have been requests for deletion. How do I prevent this?

Seabasscampos (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had provided a link to the article, Peters Township Middle School. However, middle schools are not usually considered notable. If you think that there is a reason why the school is notable, you should add that to the article, and add a note to that effect to the deletion discussion. You have the right to !vote Keep, but it is likely that consensus will be against you, so either provide a reason why the school is notable, or accept that the article will probably be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Seabasscampos. Can I suggest that you consult WP:NSCHOOL so as to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines as they relate to schools? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Seabasscampos (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Seabasscampos, I have just noticed that you removed material from the article at the request of the school. there may well be a good, policy-based reason for removing that material, but note that we don't censor Wikipedia at the request of subjects. This is one of the things about Wikipedia articles that you should know if you are creating it on behalf of the school: there can be unintended consequences of creating an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

different forms of sourcing

I have written an article and would like to have both references (which I think is the term for in-line footnotes) and a bibliography (sources at the bottom of the page that don't have a reference spot in the main body text). I have figured out how to insert the footnotes, but can't seem to get a separate section for the other sources. How do I do that? Wrihker (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wrihker, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the problems with sources that are not cited in the text is that it remains unclear to the reader what parts of the article text they support, and how. So generally I think the approach you describe should be discouraged. However, perhaps a further reading section would work if you want to flag up additional sources that are not specifically used in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wrihker. It is possible to add a "General references" subsection under the references section if there are sources that wqere consulted generally, but that are not cited inline. This was once rather common, but now is rarer and is usually discouraged for the reasons that Cordless Larry lists above. I have, however seen it in cases such as a math article where there is a general cite to a textbook chapter on the topic. A Further reading section is the normal place to put lists of possibly useful sources that were not specifically used in creating the article. DES ^(talk) 23:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I submit my content for feedback?

Hi,

I'm hoping you can help.

I'm a PR practitioner and I've recently been asked by one of the CEOs I work with to create a Wikipedia page about himself. I was already aware of Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to creating/editing content about yourself/your brand/your client, but even more so after doing some further readings.

Let me start by saying that the last thing I'd want to do is cause offence and fall foul of your guidelines, which I do intend to respect. I've made my client aware of this and his intentions are, believe it or not, noble. Our objective is to create an educational entry about a leading business figure, similar to the ones existing about Lord Sugar or Richard Branson, not to promote the business he's at the helm of.

As such, I've drafted the copy and before uploading it, I'd be really grateful for the opportunity to have it reviewed by one/some of your volunteer editors, to make sure it ticks your boxes: reliable sources, original content, no controversiality etc. What is the best way to do this?

Thanking you in advance.

Best Wishes.

JFatMF2016 JFatMF2016 (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JFatMF2016, welcome to the Teahouse! I think the best way to handle this is to post your draft in your sandbox (User:JFatMF2016/Sandbox) so that editors here can read it over and offer you an opinion. Post here again when you have done so and I'm sure an editor or two will look it over.

Also, please read over Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. It's not really clearly written but the gist is that you have to declare your conflict of interest on your user page. I hope this helps! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Liz!

I've just added my draft to my Sandbox. Best wishes JFatMF2016 (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JFatMF2016. I looked the draft over and did some edits for format, such as proper section headers. The references need to be incorporated properly, see Referencing for Beginners. I did the first one as an example. It looks to me as if this person is probably notable but I haven't done a through check. Some of the content is probably puffery and should be removed. More independent published relaible sources that discuss the subject would be helpful. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi DES, thank you so much for your help! I have had a go at the referencing, took me some time but I got there in the end! I have removed the bits that could appear as puffery. I've also added new reliable sources. Finally I've inserted links to other Wikipedia pages and external sites for things where there were no Wiki page. I hope I've not gone too OTT!

Something I'm not yet sure how to do is how to insert images - I have a few that I thought may add value to the article. If you'd be kind enough to take another look at my work, that'd be very much appreciated. Best wishes. JFatMF2016 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello JFatMF2016. There is an overview of images at Help:Files. BTW, I do not see where you have complied with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. —teb728 t c 21:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello JFatMF2016 This is looking better. Note that Wikipedia is very strict on copyrights for images. You should not include links to sites outside Wikipedia (and partner projects) in article prose, as if they were wiki-links. All such links should be part of citations to sources (aka references) or else in the External links section. I removed a few as examples. I'm not sure if all the stuff in "personal life" is really relevant to the article. But this is really much improved. Do get the paid contributor disclosure done promptly, please. Images can wait. DES ^(talk) 23:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

does single user have power to block me from editing?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

seems user "Laser brain" is trying to tell me that he/she has the power to block me as a way of intimidation...on my talk page at bottom.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have been warned by numerous editors about your disruptive behaviour, so an administrator (and Laser brain is one) can, if necessary, block you to prevent further disruption. Please read the advice which you have been given by experienced editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

numerous people falsely accused me of things (like soapbox, which doesn't apply whatsoever..)...but I don't believe I engaged in anything remotely close to "disruptive behavior" according to what's laid out in Wikipedia's guidelines..so is being accused what matters or actually having done something wrong?? 68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocks are open to appeal, and if you are blocked as a result of false accusations then you would have a pretty good case for appeal. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked into what the underlying controversy is. I can see that you have been combative and have been warned about combativeness. If you have a dispute about the content of an article, read the dispute resolution policy, discuss on the article talk page, and then if that is inconclusive, follow one of the content dispute resolution procedures described in the policy. Is there an article content dispute? If not, what is the problem? If you don't think that your editing has been disruptive, then politely ask User:Laser brain for an explanation of why they see your behavior as disruptive, rather than just insisting on your own rightness. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

And remember that it's not just Laser brain that says that you're being disruptive. Have a look at your user talk page and count how many other editors have said the same (and look at how much Wikipedia experience those editors have). How likely is it that they are all wrong and that only you are right? --David Biddulph (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

redirected my page

I am new to Wikipedia, and am making one for my class. I created a new page on children bullying children with disabilities in schools, however my page was redirected to abuse with disabilities. Do you suggest I continue working on my original page or create a new one, and if so is there a list I can find where the list of topics on education is not taken? I am also unsure of of my page being redirected, what does that mean?Christina3607 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Christina3607. I don't think there is such a list. But one of the standard steps you'll find in your first article, even before assembling your sources, is to check that there isn't already an article on the same subject. WikiDan61 felt that your draft was not sufficiently different from the existing article Disability abuse, so they converted your draft to a redirect to that existing article. Your work is still there, in the history of the page . Like everything else in Wikipedia, this is a matter of consensus: if you think WikiDan61 was wrong, and that your subject is sufficiently different, you could undo his change (or, better, discuss it on the talk page). But I think they are probably right that another article is not needed: you could improve the existing article, or you could go and try something else.

In my personal opinion, creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to get some experience improving existing articles before embarking on it. If you teacher has asked you to create a new article, I would suggest you respectfully show them this advice, as they have set you a very difficult task. If you are doing it for your own satisfaction, I would very much suggest that you set your initial target lower, to improve existing articles. When you have got some experience, then is the time to create a new article, after reading Your first article carefully. (I have been a Wikipedia editor for ten years, and made over 11000 edits, and I have never created a new article). --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure, Colin? This page thinks otherwise. David Biddulph (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the advice, I found your advice to be extremely helpful.Christina3607 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Another inexperienced editor question - Submitting things that are not drafts

I have another question for inexperienced editors. Another frequent observation that I make as a reviewer is that I see a lot of pages submitted to review that are clearly are not meant to be articles. They may be test edits. My question is: Is there some reason why pages get submitted that are not meant for article review? For instance, is there a button that just says Submit without explaining what Submit does? If so, should the wording of the button be clarified? (Some of the submissions, of course, are meant to be articles, and that is a matter of the creation of articles being difficult, and new editors don't understand how much is required. However, some of them are clearly not meant to be articles, but go into article review. Is there a reason why things get Submitted that shouldn't be, such as it not being clear what the button does?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we can narrow the question down to - When a brand new editor clicks on their Sandbox link for the first time, does the page have any content at all - like a big fat irresistibly tempting "click me" submit button? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think so but am not sure, and the only way I could find out would be to create a legitimate alternate account, because I have the AFCH script installed, and that replaces the Submit button with the afch button, and reviewers know what it opens up to. I think you are right and there is a tempting Submit button that doesn't explain what it submits. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, there is a great big blue submit button there. I don't use any special scripts, just default, and it's there in my sandbox. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Improve the wording of the Submit button to say something like Submit Draft Article for Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks like one for the Village Pump techie section. Although on my sandbox, the big blue button of doom does have little text by it that says, "Writing an article? Submit your draft for review". Which you'd think just might, possibly, tip people off. I guess the temptation is just too overwhelming. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 02:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, for instance, at User:Poseyrdhnkbhgvfhbk/sandbox. Do you think this user is likely to read the text before clicking the button? Maproom (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That particular user has been indeffed, but it may well make sense to strengthen the words before the "Submit" button in {{User sandbox}} and include an appropriate link. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My first article Help

Hi,

I have created an article in Wikipedia for the first time, and I would be very grateful if you could give me your opinion about it.

I work for EF Education First (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_Education_First) and I would like to publish a non promotional article about EF, in the Italian language.

Here there is the link https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sara_Perniola/Sandbox/EF_Education.

Thanks a lot for your help in advance.

Best Sara Sara Perniola (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sarah Perniola: and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately this is English language Wikipedia, and so we have no control of what happens on Italian language Wikipedia. I would recommend asking at a help desk on Italian Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sara Perniola: try it:Aiuto:Sportello informazioni. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joseph and John,

thanks for your kind help, ok I will try to ask to an help desk on Italian Wikipedia.

Best

Sara Sara Perniola (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How are 'issue' notices resolved?

There are many of these littering the annals of Wikipedia, some of which have been in place for years (does some template guru want to add cobwebs to the tag as the creation date ages?).

I recently decided to have a go at resolving them for one particular article but cannot find any information on how to go about removing them when I think the issue has been fixed.

I'm guessing that doing it myself would work, but isn't good etiquette.

I intend to simply ask folk to come give their opinion when I'm ready, but thought it worthwhile asking if there is an approved procedure first.

Is there?

Arfisk (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arfisk. If you truly believe that an issue that caused an article to be tagged has been resolved, then remove the tag yourself. It is perfectly good etiquette. These quality tags are placed by humans and removed by humans such as you. All that the robots do is to date such tags, not add them or remove them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your concern for etiquette is appreciated, Arfisk, although I agree with Cullen328 here: if you think you have resolved the issue, then go ahead and remove the maintenance template. Removing such templates from articles that you have yourself created is more of a problem than removing them from aricles you've found and improved, I think, as one is arguably less able to judge whether problems with one's own writing have been addressed. Perhaps if you want to be extra sure, you could ask a more experienced user to look over the article you have been working to improve? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

rfrf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

why havent i been invited here yet Poseyrdhnkbhgvfhbk (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Poseyrdhnkbhgvfhbk. This is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia. So far, your contributions appear disruptive rather than productive. How do you plan to improve the encyclopedia? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Super Immediate Deletion

Hello. I am totally new to this however I have edited an article that is relevant to me. I wanted to write an article about a company involved in an area of technology. Some really relevant stuff that was done years ago in the early day of illuminated clothing - years before wearable tech was even a "thing"

I followed the instructions to basically create a page. I searched the word, It was read lined. To a clicked it and the advice was write anything to at least start the page. So a wrote a very straight forward sentence and linked it to 2 other Wiki Articles. - Within minutes it is put up for speedy deletion. I wrote the sentence to hold the page and then start writing the article in the coming days and research the correct links etc.

I hate to say it but I feel like a naughty school boy. I have contested it and am now waiting to hear from the site -

How long will this take?

I should add it was set for deletion in about 3 minutes -

Light EngineerLight Engineer (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I'd be interested to hear what instructions you were reading that told you to start an article without any sources to demonstrate the subject's notability; perhaps you could give us a wikilink to those instructions? You need to read the links provided on your user talk page, and particularly WP:Your first article. It isn't worth trying to write an article unless you can provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than deleting your article, an administrator has moved it into your user space, so that you can complete it with references. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Light Engineer, I have a major complaint with that advice of how to start an article. When you do put an article directly into the encyclopedia, it is subject to review by editors (every new article is reviewed) and articles that don't demonstrate the significance of the subject are normally deleted. However, most new editors gradually work on an article, looking for references, adding content as they find more relevant information that would be useful. This kind of editing doesn't happen in an hour, it happens over days.

So my advice to you is to work on your article in your sandbox which I just created for you (User:Light Engineer/Sandbox). Articles in Draft space or User space are not evaluated as strictly as new articles but they are considered to be a work-in-progress. As long as there aren't violations (like copyright infringement or defamation), the sandbox version won't be deleted and you can continue to polish it up. When you think it is ready for main space, submit it to Articles for Creation and you can get feedback from experienced editors and maybe some editing help, too.

I looked at your deleted contributions and I don't see any article that has been deleted. Did you edit it as an IP account or under a different username? Because I can likely restore it and move it to your sandbox if you would like so you don't need to start from scratch. Let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: - it isn't there because, working down the speedy-deletion queue, I didn't delete it (though it qualified for WP:CSD#A7) but userfied it to User:Light Engineer/Elumin8 and left a talk page note to explain.

Regarding advice, at the top of the new page creation page there is a box like this with five bullet-points giving all the right advice like reading WP:YFA, providing references, and making a userspace draft specifically to avoid the risk of early deletion. It does seem that many new users don't read or at any rate don't take any notice of that advice. @Light Engineer: Did you read that box? How do you think we could make it clearer, or more eye-catching? JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Liz @JohnCD Firstly want to say thank you for your support and input. John, I will now craft the article over time and won't publish until finished. Liz, I think I got confused when I read "How To Create A Page". Under the para How A Page Is Created - It explains how it is created but then said save page - which I am guessing actually published it. Maybe if something is written after it along the lines of "You should only save the page if you are happy for it to be published. Otherwise use the sandbox." Just a suggestion. Anyway guys - thank you so much for your help. For a minute there I felt a bit like I had comitted some terrible faux pas. Light EngineerLight Engineer (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

sufficient notability (for Draft:Vienna Institute of Demography) now?

Hi there all and do enjoy your tea! An article I recently created (Draft:Vienna Institute of Demography) was initially rejected, quite politely, and I now searched for additional corroboration and tried resubmission. Maybe someone can take a look and tell me if this is more "waterproof" now. However, while I understand that WP wants to discourage self-praise and pro domo advertising I do wonder why research institutes are treated in the same way as commercial enterprises. In this case, many of the statements about VID (the institute in question) are made by themselves, by its "roof", the Austrian Academy of Sciences, and by partner or sister institutions. Most press snippets about VID would be about very specific research results or interviews with individual scientists, as the general public doesn't seem to care much about that institute's relocation or a change in directorship (no quotes to be found). The notability is undisputed—well, IMHO—but it's not easy to substantiate. But maybe my efforts this morning already make a difference. Best regards --WernR (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WernR, and welcome back to the Teahouse. The fact is, Wikipedia wants to discourage promotion of anyone, anything, and any group or organization in its articles, whether commercial or not. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and factual, and based to a significant degree on what independant published reliable sources have written about a topic. You write above "The notability is undisputed—well, IMHO—but it's not easy to substantiate." But on Wikipedia "notability" means precisely the ability to substantiate independent coverage in some depth of the topic. It is unfortunate that this term has come to be used for this concept here, as it is significantly different from the more ordinary meaning of the term. But this means that the notability is not undisputed until it can be established by suitable independent sources. These do not need to be press sources. Academic publications that discuss the Institute itself would be perfectly acceptable, provided that they were independent.

I briefly looked over the draft, and I would not be comfortable approving it at this time. Several sources are in German, which i cannot accurately evaluate. But it appears that all sources are either from the institute or its "roof" as you call it (and so do not count towards notability at all), or are inclusion of the institute in various lists or directories (which demonstrates its existence but not its notability) or are brief passing mentions in other contexts (which do not give the depth of coverage needed for a Wikipedia article). This rule is in significant part because without independent coverage, there is nothing to base an article on. It may be that the institute is simply not notable in Wikipedia's sense. If it is, additional INDEPENDENT sources that discuss it in some detail are needed to establish this. German language sources are fine, if those are what is available. DES ^(talk) 13:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles about Religious people

What is the notability rule for living people related to religion. Captain Spark (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide#People, and (for catholics) Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide#People. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Captain Spark. The specific notability guides are usually in addition to the general notability guide, to specify certain conditions that will allow somebody to be considered notable even if they don't meet the GNG. If there is no specific guide for religious topics, then the GNG is all that applies. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Captain Spark, regarding categorizing biographies, Wikipedia has specific guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Briefly, you can not categorize an individual by religion unless he/she has self-identified as being of that religious tradition/faith. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition of reliable sources

Dear Wikipedia....my proposed article for inclusion on Jack The Ripper Forums was rejected because I didn't have enough reliable sources. If I add more independent links which acknowledge the Forums, would this pass the acid test ? Thanks ! Howard BrownHRBrown (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

HRBrown, Jack The Ripper Forums has already been tagged for speedy deletion. For it to survive you will need to quickly add a number of independent reliable sources which discuss it in enough depth to establish at least a credible indication of the significance of the topic. Unless of course you are (as seems likely) the owner of the website, in which case you are strongly discouraged from making any edit at all to that page. Instead, please read about conflict of interest as it applies here, and understand that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Sorry! We have five million articles, many of them in need of improvement. Perhaps you'd like to work on one of them? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Howard. Likely not. We are not looking for mere mentions of the forum in reliable, secondary, entirely independent sources, but sources that talk about the topic substantively, showing the world has taken note of the topic by writing about it in some depth. Your use of the phraseology "...which acknowledge the Forums", gives me the impression you have located more sources but they are just such "mere mentions". Note also that every piece of information in an article needs to be verifiable in reliable sources – though that can be a blend of independent and primary sources. We do not allow original research here.

It is not impossible, but exceedingly rare for online forums to be notable topics of knowledge warranting a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. If this is one of those rare exceptions, I'll gladly help you cite the sources properly – just drop me a line on my talk page – but a few searches I just conducted make me think this is a non-notable topic, and that you should not spend your precious time on an article that cannot succeed. There are many other sites on the Internet that are not encyclopedias, and where such a write-up would be welcome. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Why was my article declined?

My submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mralexopoulos/sandbox) was declined. The subject is a very well known figure where I am from (central VT) but there are not a lot of sources to reference. Is that the only reason the article was declined?Mralexopoulos (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mralexopoulos and welcome to the Teahouse. Judging from the message left by the reviewer, the lack of sources was the reason it was declined. Note that this — the existence of independent, reliable sources — is the standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It does not always correspond with being well-known by the general public. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mralexopoulos. Your draft was declined because your references do not show that this person has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I see a blog and something self-published, which do not contribute to notability. The relevance of the book source is unclear. High quality reliable sources of obvious relevance are the fundamental building blocks for creating a Wikipedia article. It is up to you to furnish them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mralexopoulos. I declined this draft for substantially the reasons given by Cullen328. The blogspot reference is an interview with the subject of the draft, which does not offer an independent look at the subject. An even bigger problem is the scribd source. It purports to be from Wheeling Jesuit University professor Richard Mullin, but in fact if you look at the original paper, it does not mention a "Kyler Shea" at all. The scribd version appears to have been subtly modified to insert the name "Kyler Shea". That sort of reference manipulation will not help an article about Shea to be accepted. As Cullen328 and Finnusertop have said above, reliable sources that are independent of the subject are necessary; the draft currently offers neither. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 03:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There is also a draft article on the subject at Draft: Kyler Colby Shea that has also been declined. I want more than one independent reliable source to establish that a sixteen-year-old is a notable theologian and philosopher. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem with the 'ask a question' frames on THIS page?

This field in which I am typing is not displayed correctly on my Firefox 44.0.2 (Mozilla Firefox for Ubuntu - canonical 1.0).

This field is against the far left page margin, placing it under the left side bar text/links for Tools and Print/export.

Is this an issue with just my machine or is it a known problem? If it is known, are there any fixes/workarounds?

Housiemousie (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Housiemousie: It's not a known issue as far as I know, though Ubuntu users are pretty sparse on here as you might imagine. I don't think it's something browser-specific, unless there's something drastically different about Firefox for Ubuntu. Does it just happens on this page? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have never noticed any other display problems with Wikipedia before, or with any of the 'editing' pages. What pages would you have me view for display errors of this 'text entry field' type? Housiemousie (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Housiemousie: The Teahouse is pretty unique in that regard. IdeaLab pages on meta like this one use a text entry field. I was also wondering if this happens with any other pages around discussion like Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) or the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: I poked around a bit but did not see anything other than the typical 'edit' fields -- no pop-up/pop-in fields -- and all was well.

I wish I could find out if this is just me, just Ubuntu/Firefox, or if others are having the same issue. I would hate to send it to tech when it might just be a crossed wire in my set up. Thanks for the feedback. Housiemousie (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability Issue - Updated

Hello!

This is regarding this issue from last month. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_449#Notability This is for Draft:Alex Gilbert

The article has been cleaned up and new sources have been found. Now are these ones notable for this article? Can we please unsalt the article and then reviewed again? I don't feel that anyone is helping. This article has coverage lasting 2 years now. Will this article really be nominated for deletion if it gets to the mainspace? Can someone please assist and help?

New Sources since the last discussion.

• [1] - Campbell, Leigh. "The Social Media Project Helping Adopted People Find Their Birth Parents". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2016-02-28.

• [2] - Family Topics | SBS. SBS Australia. Retrieved 2016-03-02.

Please can someone help with this article? Someone that can look at the sources clearly?

Thank You DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi DmitryPopovRU. As I opined at the prior discussion, I believe deletion review to be exactly the correct forum and process for this, and seeking to go around it, when it was previously considered there and its undeletion declined, is problematic. You could note there that you are seeking undeletion based on that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", citing to the existence and discovery of additional sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I have put it into yet another deletion review with the new coverage and sources. Thank you --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit memo

How much information should we include in the edit summary? Yankee starbase (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yankee starbase. Best practice is to always leave an edit summary, which is a brief explanation of your edit. How brief depends on the circumstances and whether it is likely that another editor will disagree. If you correct a spelling error, then "typo" is sufficient. Many editors who revert obvious vandalism will use the abbreviation "RVV". For this edit, I will use "answer" as my edit summary. On the other hand, a substantive content change requires a more detailed explanation, like "removed contentious material that is not supported by the reference provided". In such cases, be prepared to discuss the matter in greater detail on the article talk page. Please read Help:Edit summary for full details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I would only add to that the importance of discussions on the article talk page. In particular, if an edit is substantial, it is probably even better, in the edit summary, to say something like "removed contentious material - see talk page" and then go to the talk page. Dispute resolution procedures require that there have been previous discussion on the talk page, not merely via edit summaries. Also, it is even more important to be civil in edit summaries than on a talk page (even though civility is required in both). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

thanx a lot Yankee starbase (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Newly Added Article

I added a new article to Wikipedia, Class and Education. When I moved it from the sandbox to an article it also added the message that was in my sandbox, "This is a user sandbox of Class and Education. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article."I just wanted to know how I could take it off, if at all. Mgvasquez94 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mgvasquez94. Yes, you moved Class and Education to the encyclopedia main space, but I encourage you to move it back to your sandbox. The article is very short and does not discuss the topic in any depth, and it is poorly referenced. It needs much more work before it is ready for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. How can I move it back into my sandbox?Mgvasquez94 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Frame to contain the image and information of the person in my article.

How can i add a frame to contain the image and information of the person whom i wrote an article? Yobems (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yobems. Please see Template:Infobox person. There are also more specialized infoboxes for various types of people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving an article

How do I move an article back into my sandbox? Mgvasquez94 (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it needed to be moved over a redirect, it needed attention from an administrator. Thank you, C.Fred for taking care of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

CANNOT POST MY WIKI BIO (Hassan Tajideen)

> Dear, > I hope that this e-mail finds you well. Let me first thank you for all the efforts > that you made to move Wikipedia into the current progress, wishing more and more > of success and prosperity. > My reason of contacting you, is that i have been trying so long to post my > biography on Wikipedia, but many rejections was received due to the fact that you > find the topic miss notability and verification.I have lately edited my Wiki, and > i have added some resources, since I have many but you didn't consider it > previously, I am still waiting for verification so the text could be published. > I wish that you consider this e-mail and provide me with solutions, since I don't > find any reason to decline my submission. > Looking forward hearing from you > Kind Regards, > Hassan Tajideen

213.204.92.45 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy links: deletion log1, deletion log2, Draft:Hassan Tajideen

Welcome to the Teahouse anonymous user. Some websites like Facebook allow anyone to post a bio; Wikipedia is not like that. Wikipedia determines what we call “notability” by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In the current version of Draft:Hassan Tajideen you give 5 references: The 1st and 5th are interviews—so they are not independent of you; the 2nd is a link to your programming company—so it is not independent either; the 3rd is a zip archive—no smart user is going to open that for security reasons; and the 4th mentions you on only one line—so it is not significant coverage of you. Besides that, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography—it is very hard to judge whether you are important enough to have a biography in an encyclopedia—and harder still to write an acceptable one about yourself. —teb728 t c 10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, you accidentally removed the previous reviews from the top of the draft. I have restored them. —teb728 t c 11:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi 213.204.92.45. If you are the same user as User:Hassan A. Tajideen, then I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:User pages because currently your page seems more like a fake article than something normally considered appropriate for a user page. New users often mistakenly treat their user pages as some sort of personal website, but this is not really what they are intended to be. Just for reference, user pages which do not comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be deleted by an administrator per WP:U5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem with my Article Legal Software

Hi, I just posted an article about a legal Software that I am using and My article is reported as Contest this speedy deletion. Please anyone can let me know what is the issue and how can I stop this from rejection?Jaikumaar (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jaikumaar, your article Legal software has been proposed for deletion because it is blatantly promotional, and reads like a PR release from the company, not an encyclopedia article.
I suspect the article will be deleted shortly, and, in any case, the article needs to be entirely re-written. If you wish to re-write it:-

Firstly you need to be sure that the subject is "notable" in Wikipedia's meaning of the word - has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?

Not passing mentions, but books or major newspapers or magazine articles
Not a blog, or user edited website, like Wikipedia, or IMDB, or your personal "knowledge"
Not press releases, or the subjects website, or comments from people related to the subject in any way.

If so, then please check out the specific additional requirements depending on the subject. As it is about a company/product these are at WP:Notability (organizations and companies).
If you think it still qualifies, please read WP:Your first article and start your article at WP:Articles for creation using only what independent third parties have said, not what the company has said.
However, if you have any connection with the company whatsoever, then please read and follow our guidance on conflict of interest. - Good luck - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A better title for the article would be Law Office Manager, since that is the name of the software. However, you need to demonstrate that the subject is notable by providing third-party sources, as Arjayay outlines. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability vs. Notoriety

I've submitted my article Draft:Sam Pepper at AfC twice now and it's been declined both times due to issues with notability. I still don't quite understand the reason for it being declined. The first time it was declined, the reviewer left a comment saying that there's "not much to suggest solid notability here aside from getting some expected coverage for controversies". This seems to me like the reviewer tossed those controversies aside when considering my article, which I don't quite understand. A few months later, this person I wrote about gained media attention again, so I added some more info and tried again. However, it was declined again and the reviewer left a message saying "we don't recognize notability for self-published musicians, bloggers, nor writers, and youtube is essentially the same". The reviewer went on to say that "notoriety is not notability". Is this a policy or unspoken rule that I don't know about? I'll admit that the person I wrote about is notable mainly because of the controversies he's stirred up, but is there a reason why this kind of notability doesn't count? Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 01:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability is being used here as a term d'art at Wikipedia, and it always has been an unfortunate choice of words because it has meaning outside of Wikipedia which is distinctly different from what it means inside of Wikipedia. Ignore the word for a moment. Here's what is trying to be said: In order for an article to exist here at Wikipedia about a subject, there needs to exist good source material which to use to write the article. If the quality source material exists, the article should exist. Here's the important bit for what is trying to be explained: if the quality source material does not exist, the article should not exist at Wikipedia. Just forget the word notability in any of this discussion. All Wikipedia cares about is this: Is there enough quality source material to use to research and write an in-depth article about the subject. Does the source material comprehensively cover the subject, and most importantly, is the source material reliable (see WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source) and is the source material entirely independent of the subject (see WP:IS for a discussion of that). If the source material exists, write the article. If the source material doesn't, then don't write the article. It's that simple. --Jayron32 02:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There are tens of thousands of mayors in the US, many doing estimable work and diligently serving their towns, but only one of them is Clint Eastwood and he's the one that gets an article. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it has nothing to do with a person being a mayor or not. No random facts about a person's life or job title do or do not make them "notable" (to use Wikipedia's terrible word). What makes them qualify for a Wikipedia article is if there is reliable, independent source text about their life. --Jayron32 14:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

I submitted an Edit Request for the Tanya Tagaq page. How long does it usually take to have the edit request reviewed? Also, when I submitted this request I was a paid editor and did the request with COI disclosure. Now there is not a conflict of interest. I am not a paid editor, nor do I know Tanya Tagaq or have any vested interest in her success. Is it acceptable for me to go ahead and make the edits? Thanks. Redediting (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Redediting. Can I ask where you posted the request? Talk:Tanya Tagaq would be the appropriate place, but I don't see the request there. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I followed the Requested Edit guidelines that wikipedia provides and added the link to my sandbox as advised. The link is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redediting/sandbox?venotify=restored Should I put it on the Tagaq talk page? Thanks. 20:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Redediting (talk)

You need to set out the proposed edit on the article's talk page, Redediting, not write a revised version of the article in your sandbox. I'm not sure where you were advised to do the latter, but the appropriate guidance is at Wikipedia:Edit requests. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. If I get a moment, I will look back for the page I used for guidance and share with you, possibly for its own edits if it is inaccurate. One more question, the edits were not intended for a rewrite, but rather to shift the focus to her accomplishments rather than her connectedness to other artists, and to add other notable updates. Initially the page was created when she was up and coming, but she has since established herself solidly on her own merit. Should the edits reflect this? Redediting (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are asking whether the article should reflect recent developments in her career, Redediting, then the answer is yes, absolutely it should (although bear Wikipedia:Recentism in mind). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Wes Ives

I reviewed Draft: Wes Ives and declined it as inadequately sourced, and said that independent reliable sources were needed, not affiliated with the product. The author, User: Lord Doom, asked me to check a revised draft of the article. If I were re-reviewing it, I would decline it again. I still don’t see what I consider to be independent reliable sources. I would suggest that the author find an obituary, which is normally considered an independent reliable source.

Do other experienced editors have comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Obituaries often use a person's full name rather than common name. Did he have a middle initial? Is Wes short for anything – maybe Wesley? I did a search of newspaperarchive.com (millions and millions of newspaper pages) restricted to 1994 to 1996 to span the year of his death and found zero results for the exact name, as well as "wesley ives". I also did a search, unrestricted by date, of his name and "game" as a delimiter and found nothing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are two types of obituaries. When a truly notable person dies, many newspapers will independently publish obituaries, which consist of professional reporting summarizing the person's life, which have been reviewed by professional editors. Such obituaries are excellent sources on this encyclopedia and contribute to a person's notability if we did not have an article before their death. Then, there are paid obituaries, which are usually written by family members or friends, and are published without editorial review. These obituaries often include tell-tale phrases like "there will be a viewing Tuesday at ABC Funeral Home, and the family requests donations to the American Lung Association in lieu of flowers". This second type of obituary does not contribute to notability and should be used only for noncontroversial biographical details such as date and place of birth, spouses, college graduation and so on, if the person's notability can be established through better sources.

Regarding the specific case, I do not see significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. The sources that discuss him in depth are unreliable blogs. Perhaps some day, a university press will publish a book about early figures in the video game industry, and that book will devote significant coverage to Ives. But at this time, based on the evidence I see, he does not appear to be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cullen328 that there are two kinds of death notices, except as to a terminological point. Newspapers use the term "obituary" to refer to obituaries written by reporters about notable people. Paid death notices, which are placed by the undertaker based on input from family members, are known as "death notices". The terms are not always used consistently, at least not outside of newspapers. If the individual was notable, they should have had an obituary written by a reporter published in a newspaper. If the individual didn't have an obituary written by a reporter, that tends to indicate that they weren't notable. I agree with Cullen328 except as to terminology. I was asking the author to try to find an obituary written by a reporter. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)