Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 517

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 510

←

Archive 515

References from magazines and newspapers

Is it able to use notes from magazines and newspapers as references? I mean is it acceptable on Wikipedia to cite scanned image of a page from magazines or newspapers which will be uploaded to any image hosting sites which could be used as a reference. Júnior N 14:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

N Júnior: it is as acceptable to cite magazines and newspapers, by giving the name of the magazine or newspaper, the date, the page number, and if possible the issue number and the name of the writer. Uploading images will not help, and if the publication date is 1923 or later, will probably be illegal. Maproom (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: Why do people expect that sources need to be online? It never ceases to amaze me how we don't seem to get any message across :( – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why amazed? We are used to more and more stuff being accessed online, as in the copyright-be-damned days of YouTube. I know that I highly prefer openly accessible online references over references that either require payment or registration, or - worse - require visiting an actual good library. Sure, WP allows these other kinds of references, but they are much less likely to be checked by other editors. But then there's link rot, so nothing is perfect. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Vensim and promotional language in software articles in general

I reviewed Draft:Vensim and declined it as having a promotional tone. I then received the following from its author, User:Tomfid:

I've edited the Vensim draft to make it less promotional, per your flag. If you have any further suggestions, I'd appreciate a pointer to particular language that's problematic.
Looking at other items in the List of computer simulation software, they're generally less encyclopedic, but have not been flagged as promotional. For example, the Wolfram_SystemModeler page uses self-citations almost exclusively and the Anylogic page practically gushes over its own virtues. I think it's intrinsically difficult to describe a commercial product without mentioning features that could be construed as promotional.
Thanks for your time - much appreciated.

My question has to do with his comments about other software. It is very difficult to describe a commercial product without being promotional if one has a connection with the product. Do you have a connection with the product, or are you just interested in it? Should the other two products be tagged as having peacock language? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the other two articles seem particularly promotional to me, though AnyLogic is generally poorly written and rambly, so maybe a general cleanup tag. And despite their pessimism, Tomfid appears to have managed the task of writing about a product without being promotional in their latest submission, which I've just approved. Joe Roe (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Tomfid and User:Joe Roe. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

page and name declined

i have created a page on a musician - former Allman Brother - who has many magazine articles written on him - has recorded albums and plays to large audiences - and I have many links. How do I get this approved? I feel like i have to learn a whole new language to do this task but this artist deserves a page - his other band mates are linked to the main page The Allman Brothers as well as having pages of their own... I'm lost! Also the name is correct and like the other musicians "Jack Pearson (Musician). Jack Pearson (Musician) (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack Pearson (Musician). Your username indicates that you are writing an autobiography. Please be aware that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged (though not forbidden), and experienced editors will scrutinize your efforts carefully. You say that there are many magazine articles. Those should be added to your draft article immediately, and referenced properly. Please read Referencing for beginners for details. You have a long list of quotations praising Pearson. Policy requires that all quotations be referenced properly. This is mandatory and not negotiable. Even if properly referenced, this list of quotes lacks context and is promotional. It looks more like a book jacket than an encyclopedia article. Similarly with the long unreferenced list of other musicians that Pearson has performed with. That is promotional name dropping, and ought to be cut way back and properly referenced. A Wikipedia biography of Jack Pearson should summarize what reliable, independent sources have written about him, in a neutral fashion. No more and no less. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not Jack - but I thought that was how the user name should be (as it would show up that way when searched)? NO? Should I provide links for the magazine articles? I have way more information than is even listed so far - like concert tours - other bands he's with etc. I don't want it to look like promotion - am just seeking the recognition that the other Allman Brother members have that he is currently in a band with plus his own band. I also need to link him to a number of other pages where he is listed. I believe you are telling me to cut back the quotes unless I have the source they came from? ahh this is hard to figure out - someone should make wiki more user friendly :) Jack Pearson (Musician) (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are not Jack Pearson, then your user name violates our username policy because it appears to be that of a living person whom you are not. You need to request a change in your user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've requested a new user name - thank you - but I need to discover then how to have Jack Pearson (Musician) come up when someone does a search? Currently nothing related comes up when I search his name. Thank you Jack Pearson (Musician) (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack Pearson (Musician), it seems that you have confused a username with an article title. A username is either the real name of an editor, or more commonly, a nickname that editors use when working on Wikipedia. My username is "Cullen328" but there is no encyclopedia article with that title. The title of an article is an entirely different thing, such as Canada or Abraham Lincoln or Oxygen. If your draft article is brought into compliance with our policies and guidelines, then it will be moved into the encyclopedia with the proper title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A few new editors do confuse username and article title, and actually think that their username should be that of "the" article that they are creating. That is just a misunderstanding, that is in no way something that Wikipedia is responsible for, but it illustrates that, first, if anything can be misunderstood, it will be, and, second, if something can't be misunderstood, it will be anyway, so we need to be very patient with misunderstandings by new users. This is not the first or second time that I have seen this misunderstanding. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

you guys are great! i'm waiting to get the new name approved before doing more. Meanwhile migraine headache has arrived ... Jack Pearson (Musician) (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

ok I have my name change - how do I get my page approved enough to get it seen? I am wanting to format it similar to a other musicians - with their picture and info on the right and then their bio - then references, links, discography etc.... maybe another photo. Thank you again for your help - I couldn't do this without it! Jackguitarfan (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse under your new username, Jackguitarfan. Read all the advice you were given above and the included links. Read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. You mentioned some magazine articles. Add references to those articles and summarize what they say in your own words. Write neutrally, avoiding praise or evaluation in Wikipedia's voice. Check out WP:INFOBOX for the box in the upper right. Photos can be challenging unless you took the photo yourself. I suggest that you try to get a basic biography into the encyclopedia first and then improve and expand it later. Use Featured articles and Good articles about other rock musicians as models. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Featured articles about rock musicians include Frank Zappa, John Lennon, David Bowie, Ringo Starr, Jimi Hendrix, George Harrison, Roger Waters, Paul McCartney and Elvis Presley. For a more contemporary example, take a look at Katy Perry. These are among the very best articles on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

thank you Cullen for your easy to understand solutions to the issues I am facing in getting this page formatted and approved correctly. Could you please look at it again and help me to understand why Diannaa is saying it's all uncited? I have a lot of work still to do on it and I am referencing as quickly as I can but I can't keep up with their comments before it's complete. Thank you again musicfan (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what User:Diannaa and I have been saying on your talk page about copyright. It appears that you copied information from the musician's web site, and Diannaa deleted the copyrighted information. It also seems that you uploaded images, and that there are questions about permission for the images. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing title

Hi, I need to edit the title, as complete title is in caps.

Thanks, SmithaShanmugam (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Open up "edit source" or source editing if it automatically sends you to visual editing. The title is at the top of the thread and located between 2 equals = signs. The just type in he edited title. Eg what I have done above. It occurs to me after the fact that we may be talking a page title, in that caae youll have to move the page.Mr rnddude (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone has already taken care of the page move. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not allowing us to edit

We want to create a page called Bohniman_Systems

But wiki administrator is not allowing us to create one. Kindly help.BsplTest (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you have now been blocked for having a promotional user name, and making promotional edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promoting goods or services- Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

While you're allowed to create any article you want, another editor (not an administrator) has tagged Bohniman Systems for deletion because it doesn't appear to be a notable company. Generally speaking we advise new editors to get some practice improving existing articles, so they get a sense of what kind of topics Wikipedia includes and how we write about them, before they embark on writing one from scratch. If you want to create a new article anyway, it's a good idea to do so through Articles for Creation where an experienced editor will review your work before it is created, to ensure it isn't going to just be immediately deleted. You might find Your first article useful reading. Joe Roe (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

replacing a redirect with a new article

I drafted a new article about the Gray Commission, which won't post, probably because it's currently a redirect to a small background section of a large article on the Stanley plan. I am not sure how to get it looked at, but put a request in the uncontroversial moves section, as well as added a section on the Stanley plan talk page (which might not have been edited in 4 plus years since it achieved GA status, although the size has increased a few percent). The matter is timely, since the Smithsonian's Afro-American History museum is opening in a month or so, and the University of Virginia Press just published a book about the NAACP and Massive Resistance (another ungainly article). I envision a second similar article about the Perrow Commission, which was established after the Stanley plan was declared unconstitutional by the two court decisions that are still red links and that I propose creating articles for. I don't feel comfortable about putting this much info into the Garland Gray article that I put up a few months ago, nor the Mosby Perrow article I wrote more recently.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jweaver28. While Requested Moves/Technical moves would usually be the right place to request an article be moved over an existing redirect, in this case, since the content is coming from your sandbox, I would simply copy-and-paste it over. You can do that by editing the redirect page in the normal way.

By the way, I understood almost nothing of the rest of your post. It's usually best to discuss in-depth content issues either on the relevant article talk page(s) or with your fellow subject-matter experts at the relevant WikiProject (WikiProject History? WikiProject Virginia?) Joe Roe (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked. Part of the problem is that I think the WikiProject Virginia's unread or at least pretty slow, so I put a heads up note on the talk page of the editor (I think in Washington DC) who last edited the Stanley plan page (and got it to GA status 5 years ago).Jweaver28 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jweaver28, just one caveat to the absolutely correct advice of Joe Roe: If you collaborate with someone else on a sandbox article, so that 100% of the edits are not yours alone, then the page should be moved instead of pasted, that way the edit history is preserved.

As to the project, every project is different. Some are very active and some are not. No way to tell unless you get involved. TimothyJosephWood 22:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, wikimediaDC didn't have a wiknic this year, and its mailing list got flakey, but I finally did figure out how to join WikiProject Virginia this morning and posted a couple of comments and a request for help, so we'll see.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ray Foulk

Hi, I am trying to create an article on Ray Foulk, organiser of some of the most historic rock events of the 1960s and 70s. My posting was criticized for lack of citations, which I feel I have remedied, (by adding more in-line citations and footnote references) but the article still does not seem to be accepted. I don't even know if anyone has looked at it. It is just languishing inactive. What do I do now please? Houndleywoof (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Houndleywoof. Your draft article was accepted in June and moved to Ray Foulk. It has been tagged for a number of issues. If you feel that these have been resolved, then I suggest posting to that effect on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec):Hi Houndleywoof The article was already accepted on 30 June. You have even edited in mainspace, as recently as just over one hour before you posted here. So I really don't understand what problem you are experiencing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether Houndleywoof thinks that all revisions to existing articles are subject to the same review process as drafts, Dodger67? To clarify, Houndleywoof: they're not. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this response. I was a little confused. Yes I understand that the article is live to Wikipedia, I posted on it earlier as you say, but does not seem to be picked up by search engines such as Google, which is why I supposed it was not 'properly live'. I will do as you suggest and post to the article's talk page. If I can!Houndleywoof (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

When I search for Ray Foulk on Google, the Wikipedia article is the first result, Houndleywoof. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What Google does or does not do, and when they do it, is of no significance. They generally seem to like us, be we don't care. Sometimes they pick up changes here within minutes, sometimes it takes a few days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I see yes, good to know that. Thank you very much for this information. Well I just want to make sure I'm not doing something wrong.Houndleywoof (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Houndleywoof. That's what we're here for. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lifting large amounts of content from elsewhere. What to do?

I have found that much of the recent expansion of Albany_Park,_Bexley has been taken from http://hidden-london.com/gazetteer/albany-park/ either in terms of a re-write or direct copying. WHt steps should I take ?

CPBearfoot (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CPBearfoot. I presume that you are referring to these additions by Midnightblueowl. Midnightblueowl seems to have cited that source, so plagiarism isn't an issue providing that sufficient paraphrasing has been undertaken, or quote marks used. If large chunks of text have been directly copied, that is a problem, but a quick comparison doesn't suggest that is the case here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah. It seems I compared the wrong URLs there, but the duplication detector is now down, so I can't check again. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Cordless Larry.

My view was that there are a number of direct phrases that stick out (the one about the church and parochial status for example) and much of the rest is pretty much paraphrasing. The overall article is more in depth than it was before and becomes more encyclopedic but the tone becomes that of the Hidden London author. There is also a large reliance on this single source (as can be seen in the references section) which itself might be either incorrect or fall out of date. As an aspiring editor, these were the reasons I sought guidance, so thanks again.

CPBearfoot (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there's a copyright violation, you were right to ask about this, CPBearfoot. In my opinion, it's not ideal to be so reliant on a single source, but often we are constrained by what we can find and access in terms of source material for articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi CPBearfoot. As this doesn't appear to be a clear-cut copyright version, and I happen to know Midnightblueowl is an experienced, responsible editor, the best thing to do is probably to take up the issue with them, either directly or on the article's talk page. Or simply fix it yourself! Joe Roe (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I paraphrased the source material, which is fine by Wikipedia standards; indeed it is what all of our articles do. It is just unfortunate that I had to rely so heavily on one single source, but unfortunately that's what has to be done in those instances where we have so very few sources available to us on a subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks one & all. Hopefully educating novice editors like this is what the teahouse is for?

Do we close it down now? CPBearfoot (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we're here for. Threads get archived after a few days of inactivity - there's no need to close the discussion formally. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Is every radio station notable?

Does a station require a million listeners to be notable? A new article was created with no references. To me, that makes it non-notable because nothing is proven and no significant info uncovered in a search. Every station is going to known, it's business is advertising. The article in question is Radio Suomipop. Thanks, Cotton2 (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not every radio station is notable. WP:BROADCAST tells you which radio stations are notable, and as always, so does WP:GNG. That the article has no sources has no direct relevance on notability. The criteria for notability derived from coverage (GNG) is only concerned with coverage in sources that exist "out there", they do not have to be cited in the article to establish notability (WP:NPOSSIBLE). Naturally, only reliable and independent sources count, and advertising won't get a company a long way in terms of those.

This particular radio station is in Finland. I would expect that most sources to be in Finnish, which I happen to speak. My gut instinct is that this passes GNG with flying colors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, just what I needed to know (for next time). Cotton2 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just popped by and added some references for you that were found using a simple Google search, selecting the News filter and letting the search engine translate into English. Hopefully this helps, given the fact that it has a 52% market share !

CPBearfoot (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Need Help in Editing A Wikipedia Page

We're a digital media agency based out of Kolkata, India. Looking for help in editing a Wikipedia page about one of our client's product. The Wikipedia page already exists. it needs to be updated with relevant content. We'll provide you with the base content, which needs to be modified and integrated with the existing Wikipedia content, per Wikipedia's guidelines. We're looking for only those who are based out of India for this project. Please respond on the following lines by August 18, Thursday: 1. Examples of Wikipedia articles that you've edited - links to the articles are needed, and also highlight what you've done on that page 2. The link to your Wikipedia profile 3. How much would you charge for this activity 4. Your agreement to signing an NDA with us for this activity 220.224.234.218 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Before commenting further, can I ask which article this refers to? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally we prefer to work openly, and not charge for our work. You could put the additional information on the talk page of the article in question with a covering note stating who you are and who you represent. If you have trouble finding anyone to help integrate the information appropriate for the enclclopedia, please feel free to mention it here, or add the {{Help me}} template to the talk page. Please also review WP:COI. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC).

They need to read not just WP:COI but also WP:Paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A non-disclosure agreement between yourself and a paid editor would violate Wikimedia's Terms of use so it is absolutely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The assumptions that are made about Wikipedia, such as that an existing editor with a reputation for quality edits is willing not only to accept pay for editing but to sign a secrecy agreement about that editing, are sometimes remarkable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost as remarkable as posting such a request, without any contact details - the editor obviously needs to be telepathic as well,
I also note that the IP geolocates to Mumbai, despite the initial claim that they are "based out of Kolkata" - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that seems remarkable is soliciting for it in an on-wiki public forum. TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also technologically impossible to do, as every single edit we do is visible to everyone (Special:Contributions), aside from edits to pages that eventually got deleted. And all those deleted edits are still visible to administrators. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

how i can add reference ?

how to i add reference in my article which is about myself Sagargopang1 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at referencing for beginners for a guide. However, I'm afraid your article will probably soon be deleted because you don't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Moreover, please do not write articles about yourself – it is against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Joe Roe (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

where to see list of 'comments' like ^{[citation needed]}

Hi, is there a page which lists the comments that i can make to articles - like ^{[citation needed]} for [Citation Needed] ? wildT (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You could start with Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing

I searched how to edit a page but the page I want to edit doesn't have the edit tab that's supposed to be on the page.

Danni603 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Perhaps the page you are looking at has been protected because of vandalism; is there a padlock symbol at the top right? If it has been semi-protected, you won't be able to edit it until your account has been autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Need to add references, article up for deletion

My article on Peter Davison (composer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Davison_(composer) is up for deletion: not enough sources. This is the only Wikipedia article I have written (I don't know much about Wikipedia coding). It has been up for years with no problems. In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources there is a template for newspaper and pdf. My idea is to link newspaper articles “dropbox/pdf” using the “newspaper template” and adding something from the articles to the bio with a link to the reference list. Davison has received many awards, which are all listed online. Can pdfs of these be listed, using the “pdf template” Do you think this will work? Or will it generate the COPYVIO text? Do I have to get permission for each item? PdmusPdmus (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pdmus Sources do not need to be online (and yes, uploading them here would be a copyright violation, and links to uploads you placed somewhere else would not be allowed as that would be a link to a copyright violation). See WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Just cite them, without using a url if they are not. For example, using a {{cite news}} template. A use might look like this:

<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|page=B13|title=Blinders Make A Spectacle For Chicken-hearted Collectors|date=July 18, 1986|last=Gold|first=Anita}}</ref>

which would format in the references section (containing a {{reflist}} template), like this:

Gold, Anita (July 18, 1986). "Blinders Make A Spectacle For Chicken-hearted Collectors". Chicago Tribune. p. B13.

But the issue for notability is not proving he's won awards, but rather that he has received significant coverage (not mere mentions) in reliable, secondary sources written by third parties to the topic – demonstrating that the world has taken note of the subject by detailed treatment of him in such sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing a commons image

Hi, I'd like to use an existing Commons image (File:Sofortiger-Verbund.png) for an article, but it needs to be edited to change some German text into English. Is this something I need the original submitter to do? The submitter is a current Wiki member, but their Talk page is all in German & I expect they may not understand my request.

I am able to make the image edits myself, but am I then allowed to resubmit it when I don't own the copyright? Alternatively, is there someone who can help me contact the original submitter in German? Thanks Geekstreet (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geekstreet. I have displayed the wikicode for the image. When you use an image from Commons, the filename automatically becomes the caption, but you can edit that caption. So, you can change that final "Sofortiger-Verbund" after "thumb" to whatever English caption you prefer. There is no need to edit the image file at Commons or to contact the German editor who uploaded the image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks LDI. My bad, what I really should have said is that I am wanting to change the text on the actual image & not just the caption. As you can see, the image shows an industrial process, but the image text above each stage is in German. I'd like Wiki-EN readers to understand the process by editing the actual image & re-submitting it into Commons. Geekstreet (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Still hoping for a further response to this (clarified) query. Thanks Geekstreet (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Geekstreet: c:Commons:Requests for translation – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Finnusertop, I've fixed your link so it leads to the correct page. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Geekstreet. That particular image has been released into the public domain, with no restrictions whatsoever. You can use it or download and modify it as you see fit, without asking anyone for permission. I suggest that you credit the original author when you upload another version, but this is a moral standard, not a legal one. Do whatever you want with it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have converted a wikicode into a clickable link to the image. --CiaPan (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Geekstreet: Most Germans and most Commons contributors know English. commons:Special:Contributions/Kopiersperre shows the editor is active and commons:User talk:Kopiersperre shows many posts in English. If you say you like the image and would like an English version for use in the English Wikipedia (I suggest linking the article) then Kopiersperre will probably be happy to make it. If you make it yourself then please use Commons:Template:Derived from. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter and Cullen. I will see if the original source is happy to assist, otherwise will try it myself & resubmit with attribution. Cheers Geekstreet (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Geekstreet, you can also ask the WP:Graphics Lab for help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Great tip Roger - gee I've only been here a few weeks but every day I'm more impressed with just what a wonderful world Wiki is :)) Geekstreet (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

How to rewrite submission for approval for Traffic School by Improv

Regarding Traffic School by Improv.

Hello. I used 13 independent, reliable, published sources, plus information coming from the business's website. I also thought I was writing with a neutral view. Can you please let me know what you think I can do to have the article accepted?

Thank you! DeborahDeborah Lockhart (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Deborah. I'm sorry but the draft reads like a pure promotion puff piece written by a PR agency to hawk the company. Encyclopedia articles don't contain trademark symbols every time they mention the subject. They don't say things like "The overall notion of the company’s signature perspective..." and "[it is] certified by numerous government and regulatory agencies to offer its unique courses." (I've made changes to tone down some of the promotional language). By the way, of the ten sources that were actually cited, though I did not look at them all, the Businesswire and Education Location sources are press releases, and not independent sources. Though it wasn't declined on notability grounds, the secondary, independent, reliable sources that one cites to verify the content must treat the topic in substantive detail (not just merely mention it). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The repeated use of the TM or (r) symbols is sufficiently blatantly promotional that I would have tagged it for speedy deletion. However, I see that it has been edited and is being worked on. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Cracked.com an acceptable source?

Hi. The article for one of my favorite songs, which happens to have a very strange music video, is a stub. I am new to this, and need help, especially when adding substantial amounts of information. I want to add a section to this about the music video. But the only place I can find an article with much of a description of the music video at all, is within a Cracked.com article. Is this considered an acceptable source when it's all there is(besides the video itself)? Thanks. Yojunemeow (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, are music videos themselves allowed as sources? Yojunemeow (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yojunemeow. Cracked.com is a humor website and may combine something factual but amusing with other things fictional but amusing to create their style of satirical article that many people enjoy reading. I do not consider it a reliable source. As for music videos, it is hard for me to see how you could extract encyclopedic content from one. If you are thinking of referencing lyrics to a video, it is very common for people to get lyrics wrong when they listen to a song. If the music video has some sort of plot or narrative, you could summarize it neutrally, without any evaluative terminology. If no reliable sources discuss this video in detail, then a description of it probably does not belong in the encyclopedia at this time. If a music video has extensive coverage in reliable sources, then an article about that video could include a link to an official site hosting that video, but not an unofficial site. That does not seem to be the case here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. A lot of this stuff is really confusing though. But it explains why some information just isn't on here, including descriptions of music videos and stuff that are easy to check.Yojunemeow (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Transfering files to Wikipedia Commons and OAuth uploader

Hi I was trying to transfer some files from Indonesian Wikipedia to Wikipedia commons using tools.wmfkabs or the Move-to-commons assistant. The tool said that it would not let me finalize the transfer unless I am an authorize OAuth uploader. However when I clicked on OAuth uploader it said that the tool needed my permission to preform several things, such as high-volume editing and interacting with other commons users in my name. Should I accept or let it go. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

What happens to 1st "Draft" revisions?

When a 1st draft is submitted and approved for publication in Wikipedia, what happens to the 'wordsmithing' and other minor revisions accumulated in the drafting process? 2605:E000:630E:600:48F0:16E1:6539:3B37 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! When a draft is approved, the page is moved to a new title. Moving a page retains the page's history, so all previous revisions and authorship can still be seen by clicking the 'History' tab at the top. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to delete it, so that revision history starts with the published article? Seems like a useless waste of space; what is the editorial value, pre-publication?

Thanks. 2605:E000:630E:600:48F0:16E1:6539:3B37 (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Wikipedia keeps a history of every single edit going back 15 years. Some edits from the earliest months of the project have been lost. The vast majority of these edits are visible to public view except for a small minority involving copyright violations, threats, defamation, child endangerment and the like. It is the principle of openness and transparency. The history of articles back to the very first edit can be studied by anyone interested. Speaking as an experienced editor, this is sometimes useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This is also required by copyright. At Wikipedia our (mine and your) contributions, by default under our copyright notices (and other than edits too minor to qualify as protectable expression) bear dual free copyright license that allow others to use our content, so long as they comply with the licenses. I personally own the copyright to my Wikipedia contributors. You do too. Without going into too much detail, among other requirements, the licenses mandate that appropriate credit be given to the authors of the content upon any reuse. The authors of the content are the contributors of the content, shown in the page history of revisions, listing every edit made, the names of each contributor, and allow anyone to view the additions and changes made by each of them. Appropriate credit, thus, requires that any reuser hyperlink directly to the page history or to the page where the history is available from the history tab (in the case of pages with very few contributors, you can provide credit without linking by listing the usernames of each author from the page history, but you can see that that would be highly unwieldy for any page with more than a few contributors). You might still think that it's a useless waste of space, but that is why we must retain page histories; are legally required to. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Why References?

I just wanted to know why is it important to cite references in an article? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell walker guy (talk • contribs) 09:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To show where the information comes from. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Because WP:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, (nearly) anything in it might be wrong, Hell walker guy: it might have been altered by mistake, by a well-meaning person who has something wrong, or by a vandal. On balance, most of the information is correct most of the time, but nobody should rely on anything in Wikipedia. But if information is supported by a citation to a reliable source, the reader can in principle check its validity. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a page of Dj Rink . I am not getting approval of the page. Djravass (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

i have given the notability of dj rink news paper article but still its not getting approved . Djravass (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Djravass. The article has been deleted, and since I am not an administrator, I cannot look at it and see what you added to it. But I would advise you to read your first article carefully, and use the article wizard to create a draft in Draft space where you can work on it at leisure. But most of all, I would advise you to spend a few weeks improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before you embark on the difficult task of creating a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear about what constitutes notability

I'm trying to create an article and the first draft was rejected for lack of references. I did post references from news sources. I was hoping to get some specific feedback. Adam Rotenberg (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adam Rotenberg. Notability, as Wikipedia defines that term, means that the topic of an article has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The article should be built by summarizing what those independent sources say. When I look at your draft article, I see no references, although I do see some external links in the body of the draft. We do not allow external links in the body of an article, although a small number may be acceptable in a dedicated section at the end of the article. Please read and study Your first article and also Referencing for beginners. Please take a look at Featured articles and Good articles about similar topics, and strive to write an article even half that good. Do not model your article on mediocre articles. We have too many of those on Wikipedia and should try to improve them instead of emulating them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Adam Rotenberg - The first version of your draft that I can see had no formatted references. Formatting your references correctly is the hardest aspect of writing a Wikipedia article, but it is one of the most important. I can't see the exact version of the draft as I declined it because much of your original draft was redacted due to copyright violation. In addition to reading about references and notability, please read the copyright policy. You ask me on my talk page what my specific reason was for declining your draft. The lack of properly formatted references was the reason. Many new editors don't understand how important references are, or don't understand how demanding our copyright policy is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion

NAC:OP blocked as promotional account. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

new to wiki editing, usage and terms etc...just put a page up "Nessacary" and while I am learning how to navigate and use, the page came up for "Speedy Deletion" of a bona fide page.

As such, I asking who it may concern ot those that are able to provide some advice or direction.

Thank you ACMPR (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ACMPR. Somebody has already put some useful links on your User talk page. The one I would point you to particularly is Your first article; I would also add that it is unfortunate that so many people come new to Wikipedia and immediately try to do one of the hardest tasks there is, which is to create a new page. I would advise you to spend a few weeks working on existing articles to understand how Wikipedia works before you embark on that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 19 August 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.

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

Hello, I'm trying to editing the above page and when I save my changes return as if nothing edited.

Can you help? Mohamed Helmi (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mohamed Helmi:, your edits to the article were undone by another user. There are two reasons I can see.

You changed the ranking from 88th to 87th without quoting a source for this, and
Most of your changes changed existing text to capital letters. This is contrary to the manual of style MOS:HEADCAPS which says sentence case should be used. Nthep (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

How to write wiki page for an organisation that does not get marked for speedy deletion

I am trying to author a page for a support group of pregnancy and infant loss. However, the page has been marked for speedy deletion. Apparently what I wrote is seen as advertising. But This is really just the beginning of describing a support group that has existed for almost 6 years. I don't understand why it is seen as promotional when all I have written is why the organisation was started and what they do. Am I missing something? I thought this page would be exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia was for? The page in question is on "Daddys With Angels". Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzyonstage (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Izzyonstage, and welcome to the Teahouse. Daddys With Angels is indeed written in a rather promotional tone (e.g. "The fears of retribution for something that was said to be taken out of context is now a thing of the past"), but my main concern is that it doesn't cite any sources. Articles need to be verifiable, meaning that a reader can check whether everything is correct by consulting the sources that have been used to base the article on. Most of these sources should be independent of the subject (i.e. written about the organisation, rather than by it). A better approach than creating an article directly is to create a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That way, you will get feedback and the article, once accepted, will be much less likely to ever be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems that someone has already started a draft, at Draft:Daddys With Angels. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Izzyonstage as someone has requested the article for deletion as promotional I have moved it for you to User:Izzyonstage/Daddys With Angels where you can work on it at your leisure. I would echo Cordless Larry's concerns and add that among other things you need to remember that Wikipedia has a global readership and the article doesn't, at the moment, say which country the organisation is based in. Nthep (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A relative minor stylistic point, but there are several incomplete sentences in the article, such as:

"Safe in the knowledge that what members say in their respective groups will always be kept confidential";
"All of whom share their stories and precious memories of their angels (A term used to describe a child who is no longer living) and also help to support each other through their daily struggles with grief"; and
"From stories, pictures and poems through to peoples hobbies and interests and general conversations on various topics of surviving the grief of child loss". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi CordlessLarry, thanks.

I agree some aspects should probably be written in a different way. That Draft link may have been my original attempt. However I managed to loose where it was. Is there a way I can make the existing version private to me while I am still editing? Would be handy not to loose anything that I have already written. I have loads of other site links to add which may fulfill the citation requirement. Thanks for the info so far 82.43.204.22 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not possible to make drafts private. Nothing will be lost now that the article is in your user space, Izzyonstage. Also, please don't make threats such as you did here, otherwise you will find that other editors' willingness to help you is quickly diminished. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Izzyonstage. I wrote an article about a similar group, Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep (organization). I was inspired to do so after my grandson died at birth last year. I hope that reading my article will be helpful to you in writing yours. Please feel free to ask me for advice if you wish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Izzyonstage, it might possibly help you to realise that there is no such thing as "a page for" an organisation (or a band, or a person) in Wikipedia. What Wikipedia has is articles about subjects. This might seem like a picky distinction, but I think it is important. If you come thinking of creating a "page for" something, that suggests either that you mean a page supporting that subject (which would be Promotion, and so forbidden: Wikipedia is neutral) or a page belonging to the subject - and no page in Wikipedia belongs to anybody. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

what do I do if I think the editorial standard of a wikiproject page is non-neutral

Is there a way I can talk about it with someone in semi-private as to why and which project?

Shanac (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shanac: Welcome to the Teahouse.

For the most part, all discussion about viewpoint on Wikipedia takes place in the open. There are some subjects that may require private handling, but viewpoint is not one of them.

If you think an editor has a Conflict of Interest, there's a WP:COI page that can guide you about how to deal with it.

Some editors have enabled email from other users in their preferences. You can do this by choosing "Email this user" from the Tools selection in the sidebar. Look for an experienced editor, not too closely involved with the project in question, who has this enabled and they, more than likely, will be willing to advise you privately. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I should mention the page WP:Emailing users which you probably want to read before engaging in off-wiki communications.

And I don't think I said clearly enough that you can access the "Email this user" tool while looking at the the other user's User: page or their Talk: page. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

new title page

Hello dear editors,

I'd like to propose a new page title for Phramongkolthepmuni, but have not received any response on the talk page. I would like to receive some feedback and know what others think about what could be a good name for this page. Phramongkolthepmuni is known under different names, and it is hard to establish all by myself which name is most commonly used. I appreciate the help.S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, S Khemadhammo. Have you considered listing the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply, Cordless Larry. I'll try! S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, S Khemadhammo. I see that you manually edited Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. That page is automatically populated and your entry has been removed by the bot. You instead need to follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM, using the code listed there on the talk page of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done so now.S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Jack Armstrong and User:Apersonofinterest20/sandbox

I reviewed User:Apersonofinterest20/sandbox and declined it as duplicating Draft:Jack Armstrong. I stated that, like the other draft, it has an informal tone and contains speculation. I advised the author to coordinate a single article on this person that would be properly sourced and would be fully complaint with the biographies of living persons policy. I then got a reply from User:Apersonofinterest20 on my talk page:

Hi I am sorry, I opened an account under Jackarmstrongartist initially to try to get this person listed within the encyclopedia as I believe he deserves a place in history.
The article is not about myself, I am not Jack Armstrong so I realized I needed a more neutral user name, I couldnt seem to delete the other account. I would love to contribute to wikipedia and have this published and would be grateful if you could use this account and this article as it has been updated taking into consideration all previous comments and advise received from other members.
None of this material is speculation, it is all based upon facts and I would be very grateful for any help or advise you can provide to assist me in getting this published.
This article is not for monetary gain by means of selling anything or promoting this individual it is just purely factual information I believe needs to heard.

I see that considerable confusion was caused by what seems to be a common newbie error, and that is in thinking that a username should be the same as “the” article name for which the user is creating their account. While the user could have changed their username, they didn’t know how, and simply created a new account. I would suggest that the old account be blocked (without the implication that they did anything wrong other than making a mistake).

The subject of the draft does appear to be notable, among other things for having apparently mysteriously disappeared, but I think that great care needs to be taken in writing a compliant biography of a probably living person, and this is a particularly sensitive case. (I never intended to suggest that there was any promotional intent.)

Does anyone have any advice for the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on what is present in the draft at this time, I do not believe that this person comes anywhere near close to meeting our notability guideline for artists. The sources for his claimed success as an artist are press releases and blogs. He claims a relationship with Andy Warhol, but I see no evidence that scholarly sources about Warhol (which are massive) discuss his opinion of Armstrong. What I see is that he is a self-promotional motorcycle painter. Then, we have his arrest for a tawdry offense, which is described in a British gossip tabloid. Per WP:BLP, an arrest without a conviction should be handled carefully, and in itself, this arrest does not confer notability. Maybe he has disappeared, but the sources for that also seem weak. What I see at this point (and the very common name makes searching for sources difficult) is a non-notable Hollywood publicity seeker. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Would the author care to comment? I think that User:Cullen328 and I are in agreement that there are BLP issues that need to be touched on very carefully if at all (and one way to avoid BLP violations is to avoid coverage of the person). Also, notability is not inherited; unlike his uncle, he was never on the Moon. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

How to tag an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell walker guy (talk • contribs) 11:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you mean what most Wikipedia editors mean by "tagging", it's a kind of edit. As part of your edit, you place a template {{template name goes in curly braces}} at the appropriate place in the article. Some templates, such as Wikiproject notices, go on the Talk page of the article rather than on the article itself. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Something about user rights

Will I attend the CVU automatically?

Eddie123e (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Eddie123e. I'm afraid that I have no idea what you are talking about. The only CVU's I can find are nothing to do with Wikipedia; but this is a page for asking for help in editing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe Eddie123e is speaking of WP:CVU (Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit). The thing about the CVU is that it is not really an 'official' organization per se, but it has little to nothing to do with user-rights. Anyone can fight vandalism, both with and without an account, with and without rollback (although it does help). You should visit WP:CVUA, and read through on how to get started if you are interested. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming conventions for countries

Hi. Someone has recently changed the location country of a film that was shot in England from England to the United Kingdom. I see the UK as three separate countries as is the official designation (by HM UK government) and each country is individual in their own right whilst remaining part of the United Kingdom.

I couldn't find a WP policy on the naming convention, but surely saying it was filmed in the United Kingdom against the Country parameter in the infobox is wrong because the United Kingdom is not a country. NB - I believe it should say England, but I haven't reverted it because it may be the policy to say UK. Any help? The film is Over the Moon.The joy of all things (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PS - Happy to be proved wrong if saying UK is the case, it just flies in the face of nomenclature. It's like saying that the EU is a country when it isn't. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The joy of all things. The UK government has described the UK as a country made up of four countries. Whether you regard it as a country or not, it is clearly a sovereign state, unlike the EU. What do other, comparable articles use? One option would be to go for "England, in the United Kingdom", or similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry (interesting username BTW). I will leave well alone and I am suitably educated. Cheers! (Although, the Scots and Welsh might not consider themselves as being part of a country called UK! But seriously; is there a policy on WP? Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't find an essay/guideline for it, but generally when talking about the location, United Kingdom seems to be used on Wikipedia. Techinically both England and UK are correct. Joseph2302 12:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Scotland recently voted to remain part of the UK (granted, the result might not be the same today), but I wasn't trying to tell you that you must use United Kingdom rather than England, The joy of all things - just offering my view. Does anyone else know of a relevant policy? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Best I can find is this, but it's about people & nationalities. Very rarely seen England as a location on here. Joseph2302 12:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. It's good to get some viewpoints and balance. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PS I think you will find the UK is four countries, not three. - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Yes, you are quite right; I was confusing United Kingdom with Great Britain as so often it is written as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)