Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 558

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 555

Archive 556

Archive 557

→

Please help improve Draft:SAP_Web_IDE

This article is about a software development tool from SAP. Therefore, I followed the guidelines on reliable sources and included non-SAP sources from "Enterprise IT World", "CIO", "insideSAP", "TechTarget", "Forbes" and more. I'd appreciate your guidance on what needs to be improved in order for it to get accepted by wikipedia? Raz.korn (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Raz.korn and welcome to the Teahouse.

The next thing I would do to improve your draft is improve your citation style. What you have right now comes out as opaque links that must be followed in order to do any evaluation of their quality. If I clicked on several of them and found they were all links to SAP's website, I'd probably reject the article as well, without checking them all. Most likely, you need more independent refs to establish notability of the topic.

Once you've done this, the proper place to ask for further advice would be your reviewers. They are the ones who have spent time looking at your article and are most invested in helping you to improve it to the point where it can be accepted. Reviewers are not "happy" to find reasons to decline your article. They are disappointed that it does not yet meet Wikipedia standards and will provide more guidance than the necessarily terse review comments if you ask them. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Vindictive deletion of valid content from a page

How can I stop User_talk:The_Banner deleting my content from Unicon (British science fiction convention). I responded to his first objection, but I'm incensed that he continues to delete my content for spurious reasons rather than improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicarage (talk • contribs) 09:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Vicarage and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've been on Wikipedia long enough to understand what it means to have reliable, independent sources. That seems to be User:The_Banner's complaint, along with your insufficient use of edit summaries, which you have not taken up on the talk page of the article. This is a situation where the guideline is "content disputes go on the article talk page, conduct disputes go on the user's talk page". You've had an exchange on The Banner's talk page but this seems primarily to be a content dispute.

In short, you can't stop other editors from removing content that does not meet Wikipedia standards.

{Also, calling the reverts "vindictive" is a failure to assume good faith.} —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please also note what it says at WP:BURDEN, Vicarage, namely that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (i.e. you), not with others (i.e. The Banner). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

So its a Wikipedian editorial view that no content is better than content with mild flaws? Surely the better approach is improvement, not deletion. Vicarage (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

See my comment above on the burden to demonstrate verifiability on this point. In an ideal world, another editor could improve on what you have contributed by adding references, but I for one wouldn't know where to find sources on this topic, so in order to ensure that incorrect material is not included on Wikipedia, I may well have also taken the most prudent approach of removing it until those sources can be provided. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I provided a reference, as requested, and then the content was deleted again, for different reasons. Surely Wikipedia:WIP applies. Vicarage (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference you provided was "Congenial programme book", Vicarage. That doesn't really help anyone, except perhaps a specialist in the topic, verify the article content. How would I go about locating a copy of that source using the minimal details provided, for example? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vicarage: In a way, that's true. Content without proper sources is "worthless" for Wikipedia, since it cannot be verified. That may be disappointing sometimes, but not adhering to this principle would damage the overall quality of Wikipedia as a way for users to find reliable information. Wikipedia itself is not reliable, so it's only value is to summarize what other sources have to say along with some editorial judgement about which sources are reliable enough to be cited.

After the first reversion, instead of adding exactly the same material to the article again, you could have taken it to the talk page. That's the essence of WP:BRD. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I will take my content elsewhere, to Fancyclopedia who say " Make your changes — don't wait for permission! (And we're going to be less anal than Wikipedia, so hopefully it will be less frustrating to contribute!)". Amen. Vicarage (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Vicarage. That's your prerogative and I'm pleased that you found somewhere that will accept your content. Personally, I prefer an encyclopedia that is verified by reliable sources, but I understand that that isn't for everyone. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an entirely appropriate approach. Material that can't be accepted at Wikipedia can be lodged at fan sites and still be available to the web. Sorry that you find Wikipedia to be frustrating. But Vicarage, your user history indicates you've been editing for more than 10 years! Surely you've learned things WP:NOT. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have learned that I only want to work in sympathetic groups. My vision for Wikipedia editing is not the obsessive one you have ended up with, so I have done fewer edits than otherwise, and will now do none. How's recruitment of new editors going? Vicarage (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you want to work with sympathetic fellow editors, Vicarage, but I hope that you understand in return that there have to be rules about what gets included. I happen to think that we have been far too lax about insisting on sources for Wikipedia content to date, and this is a reason why we don't get taken seriously as a reference source in many quarters. While editor recruitment is a problem for sure, I will always prefer quality over quantity of edits, and that is a more pressing issue as far as I am concerned. Personally, I think we should be covering a smaller range of topics in order to maintain quality, but I don't speak for all editors in that regard. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Help request: Gwen University

I have translated my article from Myanmar to English and I need assistance in the article i created titled: Gwen University . Can you help me check it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_University

Thanks

Kind regards, Yin Maung (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Yin Maung and welcome to the Teahouse.

I had to rescue your question because you posted it in the middle of the page and without a new section header.

In looking at the article in question, I see that editor David Biddulph has already looked at it and made some improvements or suggestions. I hope you are able to add some more references so there is some basis for thinking the subject of the article meets Wikipedia notability standards. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yin Maung's question was posted as a follow-up to their previous question at need assistance in the new article, jmcgnh. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yin Maung, Cordless Larry - my apologies for not looking at the entire context. It was difficult to see that they were related posts from what was visible here, I suppose I should have looked deeper. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No damage done, and the question will likely get more attention up top here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yin Maung, can I suggest that you consult Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to add citations to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that you try to find an appropriate infobox template, rather than the wikitable you currently have at the top of the article. But referencing is the most important point for you to address. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Getting Reviewed

Hello,

I was under the impression an AmaryllisGardener was going to be reviewing updates we've made to the Amica Mutual Insurance Wikipedia page. I have not heard back though. Not sure what kind of lag time there is on these things, but I just want to make sure I've done all this correctly. Thank you. Michael McCann6 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Michael McCann6. Some advice given previously is now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 551#Trying to remove flags from wiki page about a mutual insurance company, but I can't see where AmaryllisGardener committed to reviewing changes. Perhaps you're thinking of their username being on the Teahouse invite on your talk page? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Need Help w Rejection

My Submission below was rejected for "lack of notability" citing lacking independent sources. Are independent Newspaper Articles not credible? What could make this stronger?

Extended content

Leo J Smith (born June 6, 1964) as Leonardo J. Smith is an American political strategist and commentator. He is currently State Director for Minority Voter Engagement with the Georgia Republican Party.[1] [2] Smith serves as the Georgia Republican Party's first professional executive with the responsibility for growing the party across race and class.[3][4][5] During the 2013 mid-term elections he was credited with growing the percentage of African Americans voting for a Republican Governor from 4% to 10% to elect Governor Nathan Deal. [6] In an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Smith suggested that 2016 Presidential Candidate Donald Trump could garner 20% of the African American vote.[7] He is a frequent commentator on the Georgia Public Broadcasting shows Lawmakers and Political Rewind with Bill Nigut.[8][9] His brand of voter engagement often puts him on urban forums and panels.[10][11][12] Smith is listed as the Policy Chair of the Georgia Black Republican Council.[13] He is also a member of the Georgia Charter School Association's Advocacy Board. [14]

Leo Smith's history in social justice goes back into the late 1990s in Virginia where he served as President of the Montgomery-Floyd County President of the N.A.A.C.P. and the co-President of the Human Relations Council.[15] He led a protest against a nightclub called Impaxx for alledged discrimination against African Americans. [16] He founded the New River Valley Ecumenical Alliance and coordinated inter-faith work across race, religion and class. [17] He was also an EOAA administrator at Virginia Tech where he focused on campus climate and diversity issues. [18]

Gopengsgement (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:Leo J Smith. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Gopengsgement, it's better to provide a link to your draft, as Maproom has done, than to paste the content here, so I have collapsed that part of your question. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at the draft and sources in a bit more detail, Gopengsgement, I think you need to find sources that provide a bit more depth of coverage. Some of the newspaper sources are interviews with Smith, which are fine to use, but which aren't really independent of the subject (i.e. Smith) and so don't necessarily help to establish notability as that term is used on Wikipedia. Another problem with the draft is that seems to include original research. For example, it states that "Leo Smith's history in social justice goes back into the late 1990s in Virginia where he served as President of the Montgomery-Floyd County President of the N.A.A.C.P. and the co-President of the Human Relations Council". While the source cited supports the claim that he held those positions in 1998, it doesn't establish that that is when his social justice work started. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

need assistance in the new article

Hi Editors,

I need assistance in the new article i created titled: ဂွမ်း တက္ကသိုလ် . Can you help me check it out and possibly make it visible on search engines?

Thanks

Kind regards, Yin Maung (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Yin Maung. Your draft does not appear to be in English. As this is the English Wikipedia, all articles should be written in the English language. TimothyJosephWood 18:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, articles are not indexed by search engines until a new page reviewer marks it as patrolled. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Read the autobiography guideline. Writing an article about yourself, even if in English, is strongly discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the draft is an autobiography, Robert McClenon. It appears to be about an animated TV series. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought that it was an autobiography because it had the same name as the user, but then I noticed that it is in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Yin Maung - Your draft is in user space. It will never been indexed by search engines in user space. Are you sure that you want to contribute to the English Wikipedia? We have hundreds of Wikipedias, in different languages, and we greatly apppreciate contributions to the less heavily edited language Wikipedias. If you would rather edit in a language other than English, you may, in the Wikipedia in that language. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You'll see from the section #Help request:Gwen University above, or from Special:Contributions/Yin Maung, that the user is contributing here in English. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

New to wikipedia community, Not exactly sure where to post and talk

I posted this question in Wikimedia Forums, not sure if that was the right place. So I"m going to post it here, also:

Wiki homepage for formal education courses

Alright, so I am new to Wikimedia in general, and I'm not sure if I am posting this in the correct place, but here it is anyway:

I would love to see wikimedia used more frequently in the formal education environment. I notice that when students communicate with each other and share resources, everybody learns more easily.

Can a wiki be effectively used as "homepage" for an ongoing class?

Random class is in session at a random university/college/etc.
Somebody makes a wiki page and invites all students in the class.
Syllabus and related info for that class get posted there
Students can post relevant info or discussions
Other students can easily view page and find resources (especially helpful when they are lost or confused)
After class is over, the information can be merged into wikipedia

I think it's nice when a course has a website, and a place for students to have discussions. I've taken a look at wikiversity and it appears to be similar to what I am imagining.

Anybody have thoughts on this?

Popcrate (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Popcrate.

My initial response is that your suggestion to use an article as a "home page" does not sound like a proper use of Wikipedia. But something like what you want to do has been done many times, based on Teach with Wikipedia, and there are Wikipedia resources available to help, such as Wikiversity. I suggest following that path rather than trying to invent something that sounds technically feasible but runs counter to the usual way articles pages are used. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I literally just found that link you sent me a few minutes ago. This definitely appears to be a bit more about what I am talking about. I'm looking for more ways to get involved in Wikipedia, but it's a bit overwhelming to find everything =)

Popcrate (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Popcrate. The Wiki Education Foundation is a great resource as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

My first article

Hi Editors

I have created an article entitled 'All Time Highest Goalscorers in Europe's Top Five Leagues' and am unsure how I go about making this accessible online. Any advice would be welcome.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballFanMan (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, FootballFanMan and welcome to the teahouse. I'm sorry that, like many other people, that you have registered with Wikipedia and immediately attempted one of the most difficult tasks there is on Wikipedia: creating a new article. What you need to understand is that Wikipedia has no interest in what you know, or what I know: it is only interested in information which has been published in reliable, independent sources. Every single piece of information in an article must be available in a reliable source. It may well be that the numbers in your table can be found in reliable sources - though you haven't given any sources (note that Wikipedia, like all user-contributed sites, is not itself a reliable source). But the claim that, for example, Jimmy Greaves is the highest scoring player in European football is a different claim from the one that he scored 366 goals in 528 matches, and itself requires sourcing: as it stands, it is original research, which is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article. (I observe that this claim is made in the lead of Jimmy Greaves - with different numbers from your text - but as far as I can see, that is itself unreferenced)

I suggest that you read your first article, and referencing for beginners; and that you ask for All Time Highest Goalscorers in Europe's Top Five Leagues to be moved to Draft: space, so that you can work on bringing it up to an acceptable standard of referencing. As it stands, I would say it is very likely to get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Your link to All Time Highest Goalscorers in Europe's Top Five Leagues is a redlink because that isn't what FootballFanMan called it. The title he gave it was All Time Top Goalscorers in Europe's Top Five Leagues, but I have moved it to All time top goalscorers in Europe's top five leagues to comply with WP:Naming conventions (capitalization). The article may, of course, be deleted unless it's moved to Draft namespace because it is, as you say, unsourced and looks like original research. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Can anybody assign me work

Hey i want to make wikipedia vandalism free. Can anybody assign me work on bollywood related articles on wikipedia to make vandalism free.Dr Mashoor Gulati (talk)

Hi there @Dr Mashoor Gulati:. Wikipedia offers several tools to combat vandalism. You can turn on the Wikipedia:Twinkle tool in your preferences which allows for quick reverts and warnings to users who vandalize. If you wish to keep your oversight strictly to Bollywood articles, I'd suggest putting them on your "Watchlist." You can do this by clicking the little star on the top of each page. Then, when you click on the "Watchlist" link, you can see changes made to each page on your Watchlist. Also, feel free to read our articles on anti-vandalism work: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools. Also feel free to enroll in the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. If you need clarification on anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks! Justin15w (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

how to correct errors

Hi. I'm a new user. I've found a wikipedia article that shall remain nameless which is generally well written, but has an image in it that is, IMHO, pathetic. It is from my area of scientific expertise. I looked at it, both before and after reading the entire article, and my impression was, and still is, "that's pathetic". I try to put myself in the mind of a non-expert looking to learn and I can only imagine tnat the person would think "WTF?" after looking at the image. The image in the commons is attributed to a user who is no longer active. I suspect that the person who composed the image and posted it on the article (I don't know if they are one and the same) thinks the image is the best invention since the slicing of bread. Is there a method generally accepted by the wiki community that I can use to eliminate that garbage from the article? Thanks, DennisDrdfp (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Be bold and remove it with an explanation as to why. Alternatively you can raise the subject on the article's Talk page. It's a cycle that Wikipedia uses to cultivate both consensus and quality information: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Justin15w (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Drdfp and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, using just your own expertise is not sufficient, all by itself. We value contributions from experts: Wikipedia content needs to be referenced to reliable sources and experts know how to find references that back up their views. If that image is not properly sourced, you can just remove it. If it has sources and has been there for some considerable time, you can challenge it on the article's talk page, but that challenge will work better if you have some references in hand to back up your claims.

Perhaps you have some references and the time to create a better image and donate it to the Wikimedia Commons. I realize that could be a lot of work, but that would be the ideal solution. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, jmcgnh: most images on articles are not making claims and do not need references: while replacing a substandard image with a better one would obviously be preferable, removing an image with an edit summary like "This image is misleading" would be quite a reasonable thing to do, and sourcing doesn't enter into it. So while discussing it on the talk page first might well be a good idea, being bold and removing might be reasonable. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

composing articles in response to a request.

There is a request for an article about "Convergent evolution in humans". If I were to write the page, how would the person(s) who submitted the request know that it has been written? Is there something I should do to alert the person(s), or is it up to them to keep searching? I am a new user, and I am finding that getting approval for my first new article is about as enjoyable as poking my eye with a stick. There is an article "Convergent evolution" to which I could add a section about humans, which is currently lacking. Does the wiki community generally believe that adding new sections to existing articles is better than creating new articles? If I did that, the original concerns about how to notify the requestor(s) stand. My current thinking is to edit the existing "Convergent evolution" page and create a page entitled "Convergent evolution in humans" with the sole purpose of redirecting to the human section of the current article. I'd appreciate advice from the community. Thanks, DennisDrdfp (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Drdfp and welcome back the the TeaHouse. Your questions show that you are thinking along exactly the right lines. This is a matter of judgement rather than a strict rule: the guidleine, which you can read at WP:SIZESPLIT, says "articles should be neither too big nor too small", then goes on to discuss when to split an article into two, or when they should be combined. In your case, it sounds like the best approach might be to start with a section in the existing article Convergent evolution, then as it grows over time it may get to the point where it gets split into a separate article. And having redirect from "Convergent evolution in humans" is an option (Wikipedia has a way to do that redirection automatically). Content-specific questions should be discussed at Talk:Convergent evolution - there is already a brief mention there at Talk:Convergent evolution#Convergent evolution in humans. To your initial question about notifying the requester - I suppose that depends on how you heard about the request in the first place. Did they send it to you individually, or through some broader request? --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The request (and several others that I have expertise in) was asked on the "official" wikipedia:requested articles page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences/Biology Drdfp (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drdfp. As explained at the main Wikipedia:Requested articles page, "Fulfilled requests should be removed from the list"; "Many requests can be fulfilled by creating a redirect from the requested title." In this case, then, if a section is added to an existing article suitably covering the topic, create the redirect to the section of the article and remove from the list. If the article is created, remove from the list. If the section is created but you think it's likely to need a split as it grows, you might leave it the red link (not make a redirect, which sometimes chills separate creation) but then insert a note just below the red link entry explaining the issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, Drdfp, it seems there is no way to identify who requested a particular article so they could be notified. So if they want to track it, then I suppose it's up to them to add that page to their Watchlist.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

its about the Steppenwolf band wiki site...

nothing to see here

)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lazuruz. I have to tell you that it is a really bad idea to call another editor a "nut case", and I suggest that you avoid such personal attacks or it could be you that gets blocked. Please read Assume good faith. When you criticize another editor, it is advisable to let them know. I will do so instead. Steppenwolfman, do you have any comments? The article in question is List of Steppenwolf band members, which is entirely unreferenced and subject to being deleted unless references to reliable sources are provided that verify the content. Please see Referencing for beginners for instructions. Talk:List of Steppenwolf band members is the proper place to discuss this, and the discussion should focus on what reliable sources say, rather than insults or personal experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lazuruz. Welcome to the Teahouse. I really dug Steppenwolf, back in the day.....but to the matter at hand. If you believe another editor is violating Wikipedia behavioral policies, the place to report that is ANI, but you will be expected to provide specific evidence of the misbehaving in the form of DIFFs. If you are trying to say they are inserting false information into their biographies or the band's article (which since it's about people, would still be coveted by biography policies), the place to go is WP:BLPN. As this isn't a social media site, I'm a bit perplexed by your statement that this person is harassing them here, and what happens elsewhere on the Internet is really not Wikipedia's concern. It's also a bit perplexing as to why this all is your concern. John from Idegon (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are presumably referring to Special:Contributions/Steppenwolfman and the page List of Steppenwolf band members? Your edit to his user talk page was out of order as it changed another user's comment (& was malformatted too). Your first edit to Talk:List of Steppenwolf band members was unsigned , and your second edit to the same page removed the other user's comment, which is not permitted and which made your own comment there meaningless and misplaced. Your edit to Category:Steppenwolf (band) members was misplaced; if you had wanted to make a comment regarding the category the category talk page might have been an appropriate place, but there is no sign of the other editor having changed anything affecting that category.

As for your original question regarding List of Steppenwolf band members (where there seem to have been edits by IP editors some of whom may or may not be the same as the user to whom you refer), one of the problems is that the page has no references at all, so it isn't directly verifiable. I will leave people with a knowledge and interest in the subject to do the investigation, but the first place to discuss it is on the talk page of the page being edited. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Further background to this saga can be seen on Steppenwolf (band), in the section New Steppenwolf (1977–1980) (which itself has only one reference). --David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Lazuruz (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Slander is verbal. You obviously know nothing about legalities as you also misused the legal term stalking above. Please stop using them before you get yourself in trouble here. It takes some sort of standing to demand things on behalf of an entity such as the business (be it a corporation, or some sort of partnership) that is a band. What is your relationship with the group? And how are we to know that? On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. John from Idegon (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: Original poster removed question and follow-up post with this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

My name is Larry Green. I was the Lead Singer of the New Steppenwolf from 1977 to 1980. I was listed on the chart of past band members but as of late an individual I have been having a lot of problems wit, Glen Bui, (Lazuruz) have been deleting my information and adding his name as Lead Guitarist over my info. Mr. Bui NEVER played in any lineup of Steppenwolf. I have several valid references. I am not a very good editor I am afraid and need help. What do you suggest? Below is a copy of the reference to the Wiki on Steppenwolf where I am mentioned but now removed from the graph list. Larry Green

New Steppenwolf (1977–1980)

From 1977 until 1980, Steppenwolf had retired and did not exist. However, a variety of bands featuring some previous members of Steppenwolf were put on the road under the false name Steppenwolf by concert promoter Steve Green. Another promoter, David Pesnell, reportedly acted as manager for an incarnation featuring former members Nick St. Nicholas, Goldy McJohn, and Kent Henry, and new lead singer, Tom Pagan. Plans for a new album circulated. A new studio album, produced by Phil Spector, with Larry Green on lead vocals, was attempted in 1978, but abandoned due to Pesnell and Spector's hateful relationship. The relationship ended with a well-documented fist fight between the two at the Whisky a Go Go in which Pesnell sent Spector to the hospital, where he stayed for three nights. Assault charges were dropped against Pesnell after the Los Angeles Police Department determined Spector had instigated the fight.Steppenwolfman (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Index sought

Require an index such like this for all the Wikipedia articles currently existing... 27.147.226.140 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Try Special:AllPages. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to send the complete output to a file (instead of the paginated output of that list)? It would, of course, be a very large file, and would be out of date before it was closed. Dbfirs 20:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Question answered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Dbfirs 21:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Post 27.147.226.140 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

talking in my talk page

I don't know how to discuss in my own talk page!Wikiphoenix56 (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, @Wikiphoenix56:. Your User Talk page is User talk:Wikiphoenix56. It is edited much like any other page. The mechanics of how you do it depends on what editor and device you use (phone, tablet, PC etc). Generally, find the section you want to comment on, and click on the word "Edit" (on a PC) or the pencil icon (on a phone). Add your comments at the bottom of that section. Generally each successive comment is indented one more level by starting with multiple colons (each ":" indents one more level). And be sure to "sign" each post with four tildes "~~~~". I hope that addresses your question: there is a bit more detail at WP:OWNTALK --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Feeling overwhelmed

I recently started becoming involved on Wikipedia, and immediately felt overwhelmed. I have no idea what to do, and feel stuck and confused. Please help!Sporcler 10 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Sporcler 10: and welcome to the TeaHouse. I remember that feeling well; I think we all do. I have left some links on your Talk page that might help you. I recommend starting simple - first look for pages which need simeple, uncontroversial changes like spelling or grammar errors. Once you're comfortable with that, move on to more complex changes. Find some good references in independent, reliable sources that will contribute to an article and incorporate that information. Avoid the trap of trying to write a new article at first: that is a suprisingly difficult task which is better tackled after you have some experience. And if you have any questions, please feel free to come back here and ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sporcler 10. This is a massive project and I understand how you feel. I suggest that you take a look at the Community portal, specifically the "Help out" section. There, you can find several lists of tasks that new editors can help with. Please come back to the Teahouse at any time if you have specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Gronk Oz: and @Cullen:.Sporcler 10 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not wanting to overwhelm you further, Sporcler 10, but just to let you know that pings only trigger notifications for the users concerned if you sign your post in the same edit. Adding your signature in the following edit, as you did here, won't trigger them. I didn't realise this until someone pointed it out to me, so I thought I'd pass on the advice! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And a further comment on your ping attempts. The editor who replied to you was not User:Cullen but User:Cullen328; the formatting of his signature may have confused you. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. @Cordless Larry and David Biddulph:Sporcler 10 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

use of footnotes for explanatory information

I have skimmed over the help page footnote topic, and even though the page states that footnotes can be used for explanatory information, I didn't notice an example of that. Perhaps it is just my version of "operator error", but in any case, could somebody please give me a simple description of how to generate an explanatory footnote? Thanks. Dennis Drdfp (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drdfp. This first part of this sentence, just after the semi-colon, contains an explanatory footnote and the end of the sentence has a citation;^[a] see in edit mode for how it was done.^[1]--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

==Notes==

^ The Efn template stands for Explanatory FootNote. See also Help:Shortened footnotes#Explanatory notes.

==Reference==

References

^ Fake citation; note that normally, in an article, you would use the "reflist" template and not the "reflist-talk" template (and of course you would not nowiki the section headers).

Hello, Drdfp. The information provided above is correct. However, in my experience, this technique is used relatively rarely. Most articles of average length and complexity use bibliographic references only. Instead of explanatory footnotes, the majority of articles incorporate such "explanations" into the prose content of the article. That being said, the technique is legitimate and accepted, and when used, is most commonly used in very lengthy and complex articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I...have an unhealthy obsession with using explanatory footnotes. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I have an outside eye of the page I am working to edit for subjective view?

Hi everyone, I am working to update the Atradius Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atradius - and there is the "advertisement" warning on the page. I can't pinpoint which part would be considered advertisement. Some outside advice is very welcomed. Would the part from Products be considered as Advertisement: "Atradius products and services help manage the payment default risks - the risk that a buyer fails to pay for the products of services it buys on trade credit terms. These products include Trade Credit Insurance, Bonding, Instalment Credit Protection, Reinsurance Business and Collections"? Many thanks in advance for any help. Clau clau19 (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Clau clau19. Looking through the article,

echoing the group’s commitment to support
established a strong and long standing reputation in the credit insurance industry
the group was further enhanced

These strike me as non-encyclopedic at first glance. As an addition, Wikipedia articles should generally avoid phrases like "with more than" or "over". If the number is 9,321, Wikipedia shouldn't say over 9,000, we should say 9,321.

But other than that, the bigger problem with the article as it stands is that it's almost entirely lacking inline citations, meaning that much of the content could be removed by another editor as unverifiable. TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Timothyjosephwood: , thank you for your feedback, very helpful, I will amend the article accordingly. I am currently working on the draft to update all the information and will add more inline citations as well. Many thanks for your help! Clau clau19 (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Another problem is that the article appears to be about two companies, Atradius and Atradius N.V. Either the paragraphs on the latter should be deleted, or the connection between them should be explained. Maproom (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed Maproom the name Atradius N.V. needs to be taken out, it is already in my draft. Thank you for the information. Clau clau19 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Best place to ask questions on articles of a specific type

Where is the best place to ask very specific questions and get advice for articles of a specific type? Case in point, I am interested in getting advice for writing and editing articles on documentary films. Megastopheles (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Megastopheles You might find some useful guidance here Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Text Coloring Question

I'm Not Coloring the letters I Need Help to coloring them Help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Jhon Gaspar (talk • contribs) 11:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jhon Gaspar. Please see Template:Font color and Help:Using colours. Justin15w (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Jhon Gaspar: If you want blue text with a link to a Wikipedia page then the color comes automatically when you make a wikilink. See Help:Link#Wikilinks. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple articles in a Sandbox

I make extensive use of my Sandbox in creating new articles. I believe that there is a way of having several articles underway in the Sandbox simultaneously. Can anyone tell me how to do that? I like the feature of just being able to click the Move button when the individual article is ready for article space. So I'd like to be able to work on each article separately but have them in a Sandbox simultaneously. I hope my question isn't confusing. Thank you. Nolabob (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Nolabob. You can create new subpages for your sandbox by:

Clicking on your sandbox, so that your address bar at the top of your screen says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nolabob/sandbox.
Add a "/" and the article name on the end of the address, so that, it looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nolabob/sandbox/Article_Name_Here.
Hit Enter. You will be taken to screen that says: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name.
Click the option to: Start the User:Nolabob/sandbox/Article_Name_Here page.

Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 13:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for the help.Nolabob (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nolabob. Just to expand slightly on Timothyjosephwood's explanation, you don't need to use the word "sandbox" at all. "Sandbox" was the term that was generally used to refer to user space and/or user talk space drafts, where people develop articles (as opposed the the communal sand pit for experimenting at Wikipedia:Sandbox). At some point a few years ago, the developers decided to take the name for the general class, and make it part of the interface, so that each user had an automatic "sandbox" presented to them (i.e. the link presented at the top of the page that says "sandbox", which is named by that default title of the general class--User:Name/Sandox).

In a way this is good, because everyone sees they have this thing called a sandbox, and so they explore ("what's that for"?). In a way it's bad because most new users don't learn that their sandbox is just a default, untailored name for a userspace draft, which is far more intuitively named by the topic being written about; and they don't then learn that they can create a dedicated page for each draft. This results in reuse of the single, default named "sandbox", which often creates copyright problems (which I won't get into).

Anyway, I recommend not using "your" sandbox at all, but rather creating dedicated sandboxes for each userspace draft, named by the topic. So, for example, if you are going to write about widgets, create the sandbox at User:Nolabob/Widgets—there's no need to include "sandbox" in the title, and each time you want to create a userspace draft, use the title of the topic like that.

You'll note, in the preceding sentence: that's a red link; if clicked on you can create that page, so all you need to do to create a sandbox is to do likewise with whatever title it is: [[User:Nolabob/WHATEVER]] (or [[User talk:Nolabob/WHATEVER]]); there's no need for URLs; preview the red link and click on it to create it, or better yet, save the link on your userpage, so you have easy continuing access to it (the link will turn blue as soon as you create it). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's very informative! Thanks for the clarification.Nolabob (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

George S. Irving

On the page for December 26th I have put in the death for George S. Irving but although he has a Wikipedia page it's not working as a link, could anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattesmithe123 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mattesmithe123: hello and welcome to the Teahouse.

For the Irving entry, you had left out the space before his last name. Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) already fixed the problem. For better or worse, links are spacing-sensitive. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Space to learn from and comment on deleted Articles

Hi. I'm a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. Mostly I've limited myself to correcting clear formatting errors, grammatical errors, fixing wikilinks or creating disambiguation pages. Due to the vast history and policies of Wikipedia, and given my lack of free time to dedicate to improving Wikipedia, I've never ventured further than these small changes based on common sense.

I've recently run into a topic/article which I have feel some connection to and/or feel I have some knowledge about (specifically: WhatCulture Pro Wrestling), and I've though it might a great opportunity for me to learn more about the guidelines, policies and how-to's of creating, editing and improving on Wikipedia Articles. Since the specific Article topic has been subject to deletion multiple times (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatculture Pro Wrestling and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling, I thought it would provide a good opportunity for me to learn, based on the comments and reasons for deletion, on what was lacking/insufficient about that Article, and to discuss (and learn from others) about its potential (after inter alia revisions) for eventual inclusion.

Therefore, my questions are as follows:

Is there a place/space on Wikipedia where I (or an editor) can discuss deleted Articles as a learning process?
Is there a place/space on Wikipedia where I can create a draft Article, the topic of which has previously been deleted by the Wikipedia community, in order to receive comments and potentially lead to inclusion in Wikipedia?
Is the userpage (or any subpages therein) a good place for such a learning/drafing endeavour?

Thanks a million. --Talk2chun (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Talk2Chun. Regarding #2, create your article in Draft space or User Draft space to prevent it from being deleted while you work to get it up to snuff. See Wikipedia:Drafts. I'm sure some other users will be by to answer your other questions. Also, reviewing the AfD you posted, it looks like Crash_Underride has also taken an interest in the subject and saved most of the content in his sandbox. You may want to touch bases with him to see if you can collaborate. Good luck! Justin15w (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you can find your draft space by clicking on Sandbox at the top right of your screen. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Talk2chun. I understand you have a particular interest in this topic but unless the types of sources we require to exist to demonstrate notability of the topic (which are mostly the same types of sources we need for verification of the content) are found, then I don't think this would be a good launch pad for your first attempt at more substantive editing. Looking for sources to use is where you should start ... and possibly end your efforts.

The long and short of the reason for deletion was lack of notability, so the only threshold question to answer is whether the sources exist to demonstrate notability, but were not found in the prior write-ups. If they do exist, great, but only then is there are any reason to invest time in making the writing better—because no amount of editing, no amount of beautiful unbiased prose matters one wit without that question being answered in the affirmative first.

What you should be looking for are reliable, secondary sources, written or published by third parties entirely unconnected with the topic, who treat it in substantive detail (not mere mentions). If you don't find that, then there's no reason to go further.

If you find them though, then if I might suggest the way to write: Start summarizing what the sources verify. Only include information found in the sources (information, not the sentences; you must write in your own words, except for short quotations marked as such using quotation marks and cited using an inline citation). Cite the sources as you go for each fact you add. For how to cite, see Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Introduction to referencing/1 and Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Talk2Chun: those are all great questions. As you might detect from the answers above, discussions in Wikipedia tend to focus on a specific situation more than general principles. If you are looking for a broader conversation of issues, you could try the good folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. They may also be able to advise on where to find sources for your article, and discuss the pros and cons of it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions. I'll definitely take all your helpful advice on board. Fuhghettaboutit: The specific topic may not have been the best example, given the existing discussions around it. I chose it specifically because it was the topic that really triggered me to try to become a more active editor on Wikipedia, but I'm sure there are many other articles in my areas of interest which I could contribute to. It does not help that WP:N seems very vague and open to interpretations, and as such does not really provide sufficient guidelines for me to truly understand it (even given its context-specific application). Hopefully I'll better grasp the idea with time and experience. As for WP:V and refencing, I completely understand its importance as well, and the resources you referred to will definitely help. (Again here, I'm afraid that, given my own personal background, I may end up over-referencing, if that is even a thing).

Justin15w and Gronk Oz: Thanks for your comments as well. I'll definitely keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling in mind, as well as Crash_Underride's draft. Given the other suggestions and comments, however, perhaps the specific topic of WhatCulture Pro Wrestling may best be avoided at this time (given the issues with WP:N at the moment). --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 21:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Talk2chun: you are more than welcome to edit my draft of the WCPW article. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 05:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Shadowing Questions

<Background Color=blue>====Question #1==== I Don't Showdowing the letters I dont Testing Them Please help me! </Background Color=blue>

Question #2

I dont Showdowing the letters with Wikipedia link,Meta-Wiki link,and Wikimedia Commons links Please Help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Jhon Gaspar (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Alexis Jhon Gaspar. Can I first ask you to make sure that you sign your posts on discussion pages such as this? I left a message on your talk page explaining how to do this. You seem to be spending a lot of time designing your user page and asking questions that seem to be about that. Are you planning to contribute to any articles here on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a social networking site, and while it is nice to have a good user page, that should be in support of a goal to improve the encyclopedia above all. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding GA

I have nominated Mother Teresa for GA but I haven't received any review on it do help me for the same --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tiven2240. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, you'll see that there is a backlog of 378 nominations waiting to be reviewed. Mother Teresa has only been listed for a week or so, so I would urge patience. By the way, asking the same question in two places simultaneously only contributes to these sorts of backlogs, so I'd request that you don't do that in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You have also asked a bot account for help with this, Tiven2240. See Wikipedia:Bots if you haven't encountered a bot before. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume that you have also read BlueMoonset's comments at User talk:Tiven2240#Your GA nomination of Mother Teresa. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Yeah I have read the comments. Reg bot it had informed that it started review but I didn't find anything there so I contacted the bot --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Bots can't conduct reviews, Tiven2240. If you read User talk:Tiven2240#Your GA nomination of Mother Teresa again, you'll see that the bot delivered a message on behalf of a reviewer, saying that the review had been started. The problem was, as BlueMoonset explained, that that reviewer was you! Cordless Larry (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cordless LarryMy page of review was deleted and I think another reviewer will review it as I am nominator I can't review the article GA --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, Tiven2240. You'll probably need to wait a while longer though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Till when should I wait a month? I've seen the nomination of 27 Dec was accepted within 3 days that's y I seeked here to know the procedure --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewers often (quite naturally) pick topics that interest them the most, so sometimes nominations get reviewed quickly. Other times, it might be necessary to wait a month or more. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cordless LarryThanks for assisting me alot ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Create Userboxes

I dont create Userboxes the list of Userboxes is:

1.This User can Contribute Using Opera Over Google Chrome,
2.This User can Contribute Using Opera Over Google Chromium, and
3.This User can Contribute Using Opera Over Google Chrome Canary

Please help me to create them.. Alexis Jhon Gaspar (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Jhon Gaspar, I've moved your question to the top of the page for you. The Teahouse is unusual in that it is one of the few discussion pages where new posts are supposed to be placed at the top of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Alexis Jhon Gaspar. Unfortunately, there is no simple visual editor (that I am aware of) for making new userboxes, and the instructions on how to do so (which can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes) are lengthy and probably quite difficult for someone not familiar with CSS. But all the same, this could be a great time to learn, and I would encourage you to read the guide and experiment for yourself.

But as far as your question goes, I'm afraid there's probably not going to be a good answer possible that is going to be more helpful or more concise than the guide itself. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And again, please see the question which you were asked at #Shadowing Questions below, and which you haven't yet answered there. "Are you planning to contribute to any articles here on Wikipedia?" --David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] The Efn template stands for Explanatory FootNote. See also Help:Shortened footnotes#Explanatory notes.

[2] Fake citation; note that normally, in an article, you would use the "reflist" template and not the "reflist-talk" template (and of course you would not nowiki the section headers).

[a]

[1]