Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 636

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 630

←

Archive 634

→

Hindi language spoken by others?

Are there any cultures in existence that speak Hindi other than those from India? I have a sentence that goes like this: ...is an Indian Hindi language television drama that premiered.... Is the "Indian" redundant? — Myk Streja ^(what?) 02:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Myk_Streja. According to our article Hindi,

"Outside India, it is an official language which is known as Fiji Hindi in Fiji, and is a recognised regional language in Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Suriname. Hindi is the fourth most-spoken first language in the world, after Mandarin, Spanish and English."

Accordingly, I do not think that mentioning India is redundant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That helps. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For interest, an additional relevant consideration would be TV and/or radio broadcasts to India (and elsewhere) in Hindi made by non-Indian entities, for educational and/or propaganda purposes. For example, the BBC World Service broadcasts TV and radio programmes in over 20 different languages, including radio programmes in Hindi. Voice of America seemingly makes current TV and radio broadcast in Urdu though not Hindi, but that could change. "Radio Sputnik", formerly Radio Moscow, aims to broadcast in 30 languages, which may well include Hindi now or in the future. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.89.162 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In this particular instance, that is not the case. The program is Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai‎. Just as some shows are filmed in Hollywood and are totally English, this show is all Indian, likely dubbed for other languages. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't leaving something similar to saying "English English" (which is another way of saying "British English"). — Myk Streja ^(what?) 10:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I publish my draft? Do I need to change something?

Hi, I've created a draft for the artist Peter de Cupere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_de_Cupere I would like to publish the draft so others also have the ability to add more information about this olfactory artist. Can you give me a tip how to do this? Is my draft ok or should I change, add something more?

Thank you and kind regards, Peterdc2 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

First thing to improve: Do not use references, if you want to link something on Wikipedia, but Wikilinks instead.--93.227.111.31 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think 93.227.111.31 intended to recommend that you change the first two references (and other Wikipedia links) into Wikilinks. Wikipedia itself can never be used as a reference. Dbfirs 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Peterdc2. First, your draft is already published, in the sense that anybody in the world can see it and edit it. People tend not to edit other people's drafts unless invited to do so, but that's no more than politeness. If you make it clear that you would like contributions (eg by posting at WT:WikiProject Arts), then people may well do so.

I take it you are really asking about making the draft live - you can do this by moving it to article space, but I would recommend that instead you submit it for review. I have added a header to the draft, so that once you've edited it, there will be a button to submit it.

As the comments above say, you should not have references to Wikipedia articles: you are encouraged to use Wikilinks, but references should be to reliably published sources (which Wikipedia is not) and mostly to independent sources. Looking at the draft, I see that the section "About the olfactory works of Peter De Cupere" is entirely unreferenced, and furthermore reads like the artist talking about himself. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them.

In fact, judging from your username, it would appear that you are de Cupere. If this is the case, please read about why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Can a copyvio be perpetrated against a Wikipedia article?

Excepting the infobox, this article, Rex (Police dog) (2012), is nearly word-for-word the same as this section from Inspector Rex (2004). Quite obviously a cut-and-paste. Is the first article then a candidate for CSD? If so, what category? Would a redirect be called for instead?

Thank you. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it can Myk Streja. Most material from Wikipedia may be copied and reused for any purpose provided it is properly attributed. I looked in the history of Rex (Police dog), and there is no such attribution in the edit summary, so it is indeed a copyright violation. If the editor who copied it had said in the edit summary where they copied it from, it would not be (which doesn't mean that it might not be deleted for other reasons). See copying within Wikipedia.

I see that Maproom has now proposed it for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Rubric for COIs?

I note there are a lot of pages especially about women which have COIs on them. Looking at the editor history I see that these pages have a disproportionate number of male editors. Is this the reason for the COI - i.e. that 95% editors on pages about women is seen as a conflict of interest? While I understand the logic behind this I am also concerned that this might discourage men from editing women however. Also I read (on wikipedia!) that wikipedia is edited by 90-95% men anyway so it seems unfair to penalise women for this general statistic. Any suggestions gratefully received. Where there is no discussion of, or reason for, the COI, and no attempt to resolve or justify it, how long should the COI stand before it is removed? Many thanks Perry Bill (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Perry Bill. The {{COI}} notice should be put on only when an editor has a specific reason to think that an editor with a COI has been editing the article, and there should be an explanation somewhere of why they think that. (It may be in the edit summary, so you might have to trawl through the article's history to find it). I would find it strange if somebody put the tag on just because it was a man editing: I would call adding the tag disruptive in that case. While I can't categorically say this hasn't happened, I would be very surprised, and I would also be surprised if any men were discouraged from editing articles for that reason. I am also surprised that there should be a disproportionate number of COI tags on articles about women: where do you get that statistic from? --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Uploading pic if not original photographer

Hi Community. I just have a small question about uploading images of a person. In all my research, I’ve found that PERHAPS the only way to upload an image of a person, is to be the photographer that originally took the picture. Am I right there?

This tutorial video for example (at 0:59) makes reference to a message that says, “This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it”. Is uploading images only reserved for original photographers? What if someone had the photographer’s permission?

I’m learning. Thanks in advance! Consciencecreator (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Consciencecreator. You're mostly right: images must be licensed by the copyright holder, who is usually the person who took the photograph, but not always. For example, if the photographer is working under a contract that says that all the photos are the property of somebody else (might be the subject, or might be an agency), then they will own the copyright, not the photographer. Secondly, the copyright holder has to give permission, but it's not enough to give permission to use the image on Wikipedia, and it is not enough just to tell somebody that they may use the picture. They have to license it under a licence that meets Wikipedia's requirements that its material can be reused by anybody for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as it is properly attributed. And they either have to do this publicly (eg on a website) or they have to communicate the licence directly to Wikimedia foundation. See donating copyright materials for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk

The talk page of the main page is for improving the main page. Where is the talk page for improving Wikipedia in general, If any? The garmine ^(talk) 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Community portal and Wikipedia: Village pump are probably the best areas. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.250.149 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@The garmine: The best place depends on the type of improvement. Do you have something specific in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: No, I was just wondering. The garmine ^(talk) 12:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Article reviews problem.

Hello Wikipedia administrators,my first article I published,i received a notification article reviewed but recent ones I have not yet seen any notification. Pls I want to know why and how long does it take for each article to appear when Google the subject. Thank you. Abanda bride (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Greatings wikipedia administrator. I am glad to take part of this volunteer services. My first article i ever created, a notification alert message was sent to my account dashboard saying that"article review" I have created newly articles for some days now alert saying article review i did not see it.

I want to know why I stop receiving notification and also how long does it take for an article to rank top on search engine when a wikipedia subject or article is been search?

Thank you all, I am ready to learn from great guys like you.Abanda bride (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Abanda bride, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that you had to ask this twice before receiving a reply. I have combined your two questions into one section to prevent duplication. The review notification you received is the outcome of the new page patrol feature. There is quite a large backlog of new articles that need to be patrolled. Note that "review" is rather a misleading word here, as the articles are only subject to some basic checks. If you want your articles to be reviewed more thoroughly, then I suggest creating them as drafts via the article wizard. I believe that your question about Google was answered previously, archived here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Where is policy on whether WP articles are intended to …

present a global or more local perspective? E.g., are en.wikipedia.org articles intended to present a global or U.S. or some other perspective? Thx Humanengr (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Humanengr:. If I'm understanding your question correctly, I'd say that WP:Neutral would be the main guideline here -- keeping an article neutral ensures that it isn't unfairly balanced in one direction or another. What might be seen one way locally can be perceived completely different on a larger scale, etc. I hope this at least points you in the right direction. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Humanengr. I haven't found a policy, but see WP:NPOVFAQ#Anglo-American focus. Template:globalize exists for tagging articles that are insufficiently global. My suggestion would be that if the topic is not inherently relevant to a particular place (as many are), then it should either be an article called 'XXX in YYY' (eg Education in the United Kingdom) or should have a global perspective. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx, @NsTaGaTr and ColinFine: My concern is that NPOV and issues of 'Anglo-American perspective’ are directly contravened by RS news media policy in international disputes. Is the best place to address this NPOV-RS conflict on the RS talk page or is there a better forum to help make WP global? Humanengr (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I follow, Humanengr. There's no expectation that a RS be neutral: many RS's are overtly partisan. A Wikipedia article should present all mainstream or prominent views, without attempting to draw conclusions. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Media of U.S. opponents are considered non-'RS' (on various grounds such as controlled by state), hence WP is non-global. Humanengr (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see [[1]] and Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, sorry for coming here and soiling the tea party but I really felt it should be pointed out that this is more then it appears.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Correcting spelling errors in Wikipedia articles

How to shortlist all those Wikipedia articles having spelling errors? Aninda005 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There are "bots" (automated programs) that go through articles searching for Commonly misspelled English words, but human intervention is always required to ensure that the correction is valid. It is much more difficult to identify mis-spellings that are not on the above list. If there was a way to identify these, then we would have someone going through making the corrections. If you find a spelling mistake in an article, please make the correction, but be very careful not to change British to American or American to British spelling unless there is a good reason to do so (see WP:ENGVAR). Dbfirs 11:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're up for fixing more than the odd spelling error, Aninda005, and are capable of copy editing, do take a look at Category:All articles needing copy edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dbfirs and Cordless Larry Aninda005 (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What exactly does Copy Edit means @Cordless Larry ? Can you please tell me thing or two about it?Aninda005 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There's an article about it at Copy editing, Aninda005. It does require a high level of English-language ability, though, and without wanting to be disrespectful, you might be better off starting off just correcting obvious spelling errors. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Basic copyediting might be more useful, Aninda005 if you want to try such a task. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Article I created was tagged for deletion within a few hours. I found out only because I decided to randomly check it

Hello. Today morning, I looked at some deletion notices for transportation articles. There were many articles about bus terminals and each one was individually tagged for deletion. So I tried to combine and merge them and created List of bus stations in Singapore to save the content. In another discussion, someone had suggested to create an entire list of bus stops (instead of individual articles), so I applied the same advice here. I modeled the article after seeing List of former bus stations in Singapore along with List of bus stations in Wales, List of Greyhound Bus stations, List of Perth bus stations, List of bus and coach stations in London. I liked the table layouts but I don't know how to create a table, so I just pasted them in a list, intending to learn the table layout and edit the article later.

However, I just checked it right now and it is tagged with a deletion banner. I was given no alert or email. Is there a way so that I can receive an update when an article I created is tagged for deletion?

I am also a bit disappointed that my article will be deleted. I spent a lot of time trying to learn how to copy within Wikipedia and I also put proper attribution. There are similar articles about bus terminals and I tried very hard to follow all the merge and attribution rules. So I don't understand what I am doing wrong. I understand that the article doesn't have a lot of references, but many articles do not have references. There are lots of articles about New Delhi which still don't have references (even though the information is correct as per my personal knowledge). However, when I took one of them and searched a bit, I did mange to find some references as well. Perhaps all it requires is a bit of time.

I would be happy to receive some advice on how to proceed here. Is there any way I can improve the article so that it is not deleted? Thank you.DreamLinker (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I nominated the article as it seems to fail WP:GNG, Some articles here do get sent to WP:AFD for various reasons and some cannot be nominated because of various policies,

As for the notification - You should've been sent a notification via Twinkle however Twinkle does occasionally play up so that's probably why you hadn't got one, –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to include but I indeed to apologise for you not receiving a notification, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Hi DreamLinker There are basically two things you can (and should) do: First, continue improving the article, particularly by finding more sources that discuss Singaporean bus stations in significant depth. The second thing you should do is to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore. Deletion is far from a sure thing at this stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You should comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore, DreamLinker and provide your reasons, if any, why you think the article should be retained. An AfD nomination only means that one editor thinks the article should be deleted. Other editors will give their views. At the end of the discussion, usually after 7 days, an uninvolved admin or expereinced editor will close the discussion and announce what the consensus was, to delete, to keep, or any of several other possibilities. You might want to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before commenting. As the given reason is that this list does not meet the General notability guideline the best improvement would be to find and cite additional sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Davey2010, you are responsible for what you do with twinkle or any other tool, and should notify manually if automated notifications fail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel - I'm responsible for the edits I make with it - I take no responsibility if someone isn't notified, Sure I apologise if they're not notified however I take no responsibility if the notification doesn't work. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010, DESiegel and Dodger67. Thank you for your prompt replies. I just read the WP:GNG article and I will try to find references. I will also try to improve the article by copy editing, removing content which is too detailed and if possible I will also create a table to organise it like List of bus stations in Wales. I will read the guidelines you have posted and try to understand the process better before participating in the discussion. The 7 days is a relief for sure! :) Thank you so much for your help.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DreamLinker, No worries, ofcourse if you can find sources then I'd be more than happy to withdraw :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How to create a page on wikipedia

Hi,i want to ask that how to create a page on wikipedia if it doesn't show a red link.I know that if a article has a red link then it can be created but how to create a page if it doesn't show a red link.For example, a new batman film is in production in DCEU but when i open that page it redirects to batman in film.It doesn't have a particular page like The Dark Knight.So how to create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Md.Yahiya Kamal. Please have a look at WP:Your first article. I suggest you use the Article Wizartd (as mentioned there) for creating any articles, rather than create them by picking a red link; because if you create a draft from picking the red link, it will go directly into article space, and be immediately subject to all the rules on article quality. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir,thank you for your help.But i have an another question?what is the difference between visual editing and source editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir i opened article wizard.But still i got nothing.Its first page has introduction,then subject,notability,sources,content and end.By reading this apge i understood that there is draft page and real page.But i can't find either page.Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

question on rejected article

Hi! I'm a first-time article writer. My reviewer stated that my article "read more like an advertisement" and that the "tone really needs work."

I just wondered if there's any way for someone to be more specific? I was careful to go through the tutorial, used at least 10 independent sources for reference and tried to follow the format of two similar subjects that have pages on Wikipedia (Broadway performers, in this case).

feedback greatly appreciated! LynnieGodfrey (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse LynnieGodfrey, Writing an autobiography is probably the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia and is STRONGLY discouraged. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects and has essentially no interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves, on Wikipedia we need reliable sources independent of the subject. See also the general notability guide. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Resubmitting a draft

Dearies, I am so glad you exist. want to resubmit a draft I have (hopefully) fixed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Renate_Kordon, but cannot find a "resubmit" button...something I have seen come up in the FAQs you post. How to resubmit? Thank you!Divanova (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Divanova. I have added the Articles for Creation banner to the draft and you should now be able to submit it for review. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Divanova. I looked at the draft and did some format editing. i also divided it into sections. Theere are still several issues:

The lead section should summarize the entire article. It needs more content.
The Work section needs more detail about what kinds of work she produces, and how, and perhaps the titles of a few of her more notable works.
The career section reads like a timeline or resume. Expand to full sentences please.
Two of the currently cited sources are dead links. Please fix this.
Please provide for each cited source such bibliographic detail as: the exact title of the work being cited, and the title of the containing work if any; the author if known; the publication date if known, the page number if a printed source, and the publisher if not redundant with the containing work.

One source is currently listed as "German News Article on Controversy" please give the actual title, along with an english-language version of the title if possible.

The draft says that she completed a master class in experimental design at Maria Lassnig. But Maria Lassnig is a person. Did she study with or under Lassnig, or at a school named for Lassnig, or what?
Provide additional reliable sources, particularly ones that discuss Kordon in some detail.
Has there been critical comment on or analysis of Kordon's work? A "Critical response" section, with sourced quotes of or refernces to such critical comment would be a good idea, and also help with the sourcing and the demonstration of notability.

It looks to me as if Kordon is notable, but the article doesn't firmly establish it. more sources and content will help with this. This is a good start, but it still needs work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Article on Popejoy Hall

I cannot find in Wikipedia any article on Popejoy Hall. It's a performance hall built on the campus of The University of New Mexico. It's the only hall that can accommodate the major touring Broadway shows in New Mexico, such as Wicked, The Lion King, etc. As such, it serves as the performing arts center for Albuquerque and much of New Mexico.

The hall itself is now 52 years old. The idea to build such a hall in New Mexico began as early as the 1920s, but took another 40 or more years to realize. The story of getting it to fruition is an interesting story of mismatched priorities for such a hall, and how the man for whom it is named made it his personal mission to get it built. There are many references available on the construction of the hall, since it was built with public funds, as well as articles on what happened in the space in the intervening 52 years, mostly in local newspapers.

Would this make an interesting article for Wikipedia? If so, how do I go about getting it written? I work at Popejoy Hall, so I am not the most objective person to be its author. Suggestions?

97.123.7.111 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, IP Editor:

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh and I would add, obtain a free account and use it when editing. This is not required, but is a very good idea. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

???

Why are there like five pages of the main page? The garmine ^(talk) 19:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please make your question slightly clearer as I am unsure as to what you mean Edward1612 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Garmine: @Edward1612:

I believe the question being asked is about the existence of alternate main pages for dates plus or minus 2 days from now. The reason why is so errors on the main page can be seen before they actually show up on the actual main page, and I would presume the old ones are around to allow discussions to make sense the day after about content on the main page. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It may also be about Wikipedia:Main Page/1 to Wikipedia:Main Page/5. For that, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are there so many backups of the Main Page? @The garmine: Please inlcude a link when you ask something about a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ok, I will do so in the future. And you guessed right. Thanks! The garmine ^(talk) 21:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How do I know when an article has been reviewed

Hello,

I submitted an article for review on June 2, 2017 titled "Louis DeJoy". It has been over a month...How do I know when it has been reviewed? And then, how do I know when it actually becomes a "finished article" on Wikipedia?

Thank you very much for your help. 216.237.208.134 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse 216.237.208.134,Your contribution history shows only one edit namely this one on the Teahouse, I can find no article titled Louis DeJoy can you provide any more details? Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A search of all namespaces found User:Hrmrlf17/sandbox/Louis DeJoy. It was created June 2 but not submitted for review until today. It was declined as the page shows. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How to bring attention to article update requests

Hello,

I've recently suggested an update on an article that I have a conflict of interest with (Kona Grill). I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on editing articles that you have a COI with, so I have made a request for unaffiliated editors to make updates. My question is, now that I've made the request, how do I bring it to the attention of other editors? Any help or advice is appreciated. And feel free to look into my suggested update on the page and provide any suggestions regarding my request. Thanks in advance Deswans1 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Deswans1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that it has taken a while for someone to answer your question. Your request on the talk page has resulted in the page being added to Category:Requested edits, which brings it to wider attention. There is somewhat of a backlog though, so it might take a while for the request to be acted on. You could perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink to see if any of the participants in that WikiProject are interested in helping out. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:Thank you, I appreciate your help. Deswans1 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Please tell what should i have need to change on this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vikassharmasfd/sandbox vikas sharma (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The first really big problem here is that you're trying to publish a page about yourself. That is a Conflict of Interest issue and a Webhost issue. Your page will have some immunity in the sandbox, but not much. One thing is you can't place images in it yet.

Every one of your references are primary (you are the source) or they are unreliable. Facebook is content created with no editorial management at all. Anyone can say anything and claim it's true. The MTV cite was a video of someone else. Blogs are the same as Facebook without the dubious benefit of community control. You would need solid third party references for any of that information to stay. Trade magazines, Like Billboard. Newspapers like the New York Times or the Times of India. Major magazines or books. Websites that are affiliated with reliable sources.

Before you can have an article in anybody's encyclopedia, you need to be notable. Have you had an international #1 song? Have you performed for royalty or national leaders? Those are just obvious examples, but the world needs to know who you are already. Wikipedia is not a magazine or tradepaper, and we are not a webhost to promote you. And if are noteworthy, you would still need to enlist a disinterested editor to write the article. You can post the original article in draftspace, as you have done, but the final article would need to be gone over and approved of by our editors when you submit your draft for review.

I've placed a Welcome message on your sandbox's talk page. Read it over and check out the links provided. You also have some information on your personal talk page you should review. No doubt you know about the Rony page, but the notices do contain some useful information. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 04:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrator note I have blocked Vikassharmasfd (talk · contribs) indefinitely for sock puppetry: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajanthegame. Mz7 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

British versus American English

If a page mixes British and American (or other countries') spelling and punctuation, should one standardize it? If yes, how does one chose which country's spelling to use? Jackpaulryan (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Jackpaulryan. MOS:ARTCON says While Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. Just below that, MOS:TIES says An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. and just below that MOS:RETAIN says:

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DES! It is quite helpful! Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Passive voice

How much and when should a Wikipedia article use the Passive voice. I am working on the article "Proto-Indo-European language" and I realized that it used a lot of passive voice instead of repeatedly using the word "linguists" as the subject of the sentence; Is this okay? Jackpaulryan (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jackpaulryan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting says: Some style guides advise against grammatical constructions such as passive voice, split infinitives, restrictive which, beginning a sentence with a conjunction and ending clauses in a preposition. These are common in high-quality publications and should not be "fixed" without considering the consequences. Changing a passive to active may inappropriately change the topic of the paragraph, for example.. :Our manual of style advises the use of the passive voice to avoid first person speech in article text. It suggests correcting Throughout the proof of this theorem we assume that the function ƒ is uniformly continuous. to Throughout the proof of this theorem it is assumed that the function ƒ is uniformly continuous. for example. This doesn't seem like a problem to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DES! Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, I will ask a question, although I am reasonably sure that I know the answer. Did the Proto-Indo-European language have a passive voice? (I know. It isn't relevant. And I assume that the answer is yes, since the proto-Indo-European language is inferred to have been highly inflected and complex, like the classical Indo-European languages.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Hussain Manawer

I reviewed Draft:Hussain Manawer and declined it as not having a neutral tone, and commented that the draft appeared to be written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. User:Adzie asked me what parts I felt the page “failed on”. I said that the issue is the overall tone, not any one specific portion. Would other experienced editors please take a look and offer any comments to the author? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I do see Robert McClenon's point, Adzie. Such phrases as his Youtube channel Hussain’s House which featured stars... The mention of the underground street group while the subject was in high school, The tracks see Manawer using his unique world play to explore everything from school days, politics and life in East London, and Manawer's final speech which lasted three minutes was given a standing ovation from an audience of 1300 delegates all have a rather promotional tone. They include adjectives and terms of praise that are uncited, and in Wikipedia's editorial voice, not attributed to any named person or entity. They are not neutral. I think these can all be fixed with editing, although there might be a notability issue here also -- i haven't reviewed the sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Creating New Articles

Hi! I would like to create an article about a local business. I just wanna know if I am aloud to create one.

Thank you so much! WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WarriorsFan30112335, you are allowed to, But that is a hard task, and often ends with the new article deleted. Please consider the following steps:

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our specific guideline on the notability of businesses. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create your first article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Ion there words, Wikipedia does not consider as reliable sources like press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@WarriorsFan30112335: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

???

Is there a way I can change my name? If so, I would like it to be IQ_m. 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izaiah.morris (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Iloilo CODE-NGOs article looks like an advertisement

Need help reviewing our article. I already made some edits after I got the notice. Thanks.

Iloilocodengos (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Iloilocodengos. I tend to agree with the editor who reviewed the draft—it looks to me more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article—but I think the problem may go deeper than that. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); this is the guideline used to determine if an organization or company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and is therefore eligible to have an article. In looking over your draft, I do not see evidence of notability as the guideline defines it. (This shouldn't be seen in any way as a reflection on Iloilo CODE-NGOs. It simply may be that Wikipedia's scope isn't broad enough to include such organizations at this time.) If you're quite sure the subject is notable, you will have to prove it by citing a sufficient number of reliable, independent sources that together offer adequate coverage, per the guideline. Please also read the conflict-of-interest guideline and the policy on paid editing; both are important, the latter critically so. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

How detailed must edit summaries be? Should i thoroughly describe the change made or would a simple note suffice? Uhtregorn (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Uhtregorn. That depends on how complex and possibly controversial your changes are. If you go through and argiel and fix spelling, or do general copy-editing a summery of "spelling" or "c/e" will do. A summery such as "rm unsourced statement about ..." is common. If you are making a large and complex change a more detailed summery is helpful, or a a short summery ending in "see talk page", with a post on the article talk page explaining in more detail. The purpose of the summery is to help other editors, now and in future, to understand what you did and WHY. It should be detailed enough to serve that purpose. If a "simple note" will do that, it is enough. If your edits are challanged or revertred, please discuss the matter on the article talk page, sew Bold Revert, Discuss. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Very helpful! Thank you. I will take this opportunity to review BRD. Uhtregorn (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A request for some input from an experienced editor.

Greetings to the Teahouse, I have recently translated and expanded an article and I got the "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information" flag. Can I get an experienced editor to bracket out the offending passages so that I can expand with information? (Dump the copy on my talk page?) I need some experienced eyes on it to help me out please. I can guess where the problems lie and I am comfortable that they can be addressed with longer explanations, but in some cases it will expand a short biography into a short course on microscope optics- what I was trying to avoid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Oberhaeuser Thanks in advance. MikroSammler (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MikroSammler, and welcome to the teahouse. That tag was added manually in this edit by Alphalfalfa, who could best explain the reasons why it was placed. Any editor may remove it if s/he sincerely believes it is not currently appropriate, or a discussion can be started on the article talk page (Talk:Georges Oberhaeuser in this case). I do note that the first paragraph of the Microscope and optics workshop section is unsourced, and doesn't really explain why this student model was successful. Sill i don't see any obvious puffery on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, MikroSammler, for proper copyright attribution, the talk page statement should include a direct link to the source article. Technically it is a copyright infringement without such a link. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I added the tag because I think that some of the language seems a bit subjective, and maybe a little bit unconsciously promotional. I have fixed some of it, and the rest is nothing a little editing can't fix. Please, if you think you have thoroughly addressed those issues, feel free to remove the tag. alphalfalfa^(talk) 00:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies folks. I'll take a guess at the issue and see if I can support the statements without getting too far off track in the article. Just getting started and learning. MikroSammler (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

3RR and disruptive editors?

Hello again. I have been reviewing the Bold Delete & Discuss policy and saw the 3RR policy regarding edit reversions. I am curious if this applies when an editor is participating in "vandalizing" behavior, or if it is waved for such. Uhtregorn (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Uhtregorn Reverting clear unambiguous vandalism is indeed exempted from the 3RR rule. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Just wanted to be certain. Uhtregorn (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uhtregorn. See WP:NOT3RR for a list of the exemptions from the rule. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about referencing sources

This question has been copied from the Teahouse talk page DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Team, I have two queries about reliable sources. Please clarify and help me. I am new to writing article.

1. I have few articles published in leading regional language newspapers. Those are still available on Web. The regional language is "Kannada". This is the scheduled, administrative official language of a state in India. More than 50 million people talk this language. "Kannada" has a wiki page. You can read more if you want. Can I create references to these articles?

2. There are some articles those were published in leading English news papers but those are no more available on Web. Because they are archived/removed. We have preserved those and published on our site https://sanchaaritheatru.wordpress.com. Can I create references linking to these sources? Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nagaraj Kolara, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You may use citations to sources that are not in English, including to sources in Kannada, or Hindi, or any other reasonable language. It is helpful if you provide a translation of the title of the source, and an indication of the source language. if you are using the Cite XX templates, such as {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, {{Cite magazine}} (and others, see Wikipedia:Citation templates) the parameter |language= can be used to indicate the source language, and the parameter |trans-title= can be used for an English-language version of the title. It can also be helpful to translate a short excerpt from the source showing exactly how it supports the statement(s) in the article, The |quote= parameter can be used for this purpose.
Sources do not need to be available online, provided that they can be found in libraries or public archives. Give the title of the work, the date of publication, the author (if stated), and the page number of the print publication. This is true for sources in any language. If an archive version is available online, you can give the link. Use the |archive-url= parameter if using one of the Cite XX templates. If you know when the site or page was saved to the archive, use |archive-date= to provide the date.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to chime in on the second question. I would be a bit wary of a source that's reprinting news articles on a blog. Have you heard of the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine? That's an archiving service that may have archived copies of the original articles, which you can find by entering the URLs of those articles. Given the choice, I would put a lot more trust in an archived version of the original site rather than a copy of the article on a different site. I hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES. This helps. Following your instructions.Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Responsible and Knowledgable Editors and Monitoring

The article "Nader El-Bizri" has recently attracted the attention of some editors even though it exists since 2008 with many edits by diverse users over the years. The recent approach to the article by some users has not been done with patience and to properly look at sources.

For example since El-Bizri is an academic, the first official and reliable source would be his university formal website which is: https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Pages/El-Bizri.aspx This website contains his university formal summary CV that is downloadable as PDF: https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/Nader%20El-Bizri%20Summary%20CV%20(Spring%202017).pdf These give the formal details as vetted by the university

Then, as an example of the prestigious awards he received, check the following Ordered Universe Project under the patronage of the AHRC in the UK: https://ordered-universe.com/2015/12/04/kuwait-honours-professor-nader-el-bizri-arabic-science-and-philosophy/ Also see this as noted on the university website: https://www.aub.edu.lb/news/2015/Pages/kfas-3.aspx

He was also ranked 59 amongst all Thought Leaders in the Arab world (and this groups not only philosophers but scientists, journalists, activists, religious authorities, poets) [http://www.thoughtleaders.world/en/arabic-2016/ If you search within the rankings and designate the subfield of philosophy, he is 3rd in the Arab world (and the Arabs have very rarely living philosophers nowadays!).

This is the tip of what you can find about him, if time is taken properly, and all the editing decisions are not made with haste or by users who have no knowledge of academia

Can anyone look into the article "Nader El-Bizri" after having searched properly and taken the time to read the sources? This is serious and if not handled properly can result in damage to the living person concerned (AcademeEditorial (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)) (AcademeEditorial (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

This is apparently about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader El-Bizri. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AcademeEditorial - First, do you have a connection with the subject of the article? If so, you must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Second, has anyone made statements about the subject of the article that are libelous? You refer to harm to a living person, but the question only appears to be whether to delete the biography of a living person, and that doesn't seem to be an argument about harm. Please explain, because your statement above is strange and unsettling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon:

Thank you for your response. I am not connected with the subject of the article. I am a scholar myself and I have intellectual interests in some of his areas of expertise. i joined wikipedia to improve intellectual contents in my expertise, and in the process I got into exchanges with editors/users who seem to be knowledgable of wikipedia technicalities but have not expertise in intellectual issues. Judging academics is done by their peers, while wikipedia casual users make statements in the noticeboards or discussions that can be harmful. Nothing libelous was noted in the article itself, but the tone of the discussions around it has been aggressive and lacking in knowledge within the humanities; bordering on being judgmental of a complex sphere of academia. Some decisions made were done without proper research and in an arbitrary way. Including this call for deletion. This is why I traced some reliable websites to show the carelessness with which this article is being handled, and in a context that seems to be ill monitored and almost amateurish when dealing with philosophy, Islamic/Arabic studies, etc. I hope that you can have a look at this matter or flag it to other responsible editors, since this article that existed since 2008 with on average 35 visit per day and hundreds of edits can be soon deleted at the random decision of a couple of casual users. Thanks for your decent etiquette and proper protocol, which is very rare in wikipedia! (AcademeEditorial (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

User:AcademeEditorial – Maybe I don’t understand something yet, or maybe you don’t understand something. You still seem to be saying something about harm to a living person. Perhaps you think that some living persons have a right to Wikipedia articles, and that therefore, if the article is deleted, a wrong will be done to its subject. No one has a right to a Wikipedia article. At least, I haven’t seen either a Wikipedia policy or a law that grants anyone such a right (and if there were such a law, it would violate Wikipedia’s freedom of the press). Perhaps you simply overstated your case and are using divisive and inflammatory language to make your case for keeping the article. You say that decisions have been made without proper research and in an arbitrary way. What decisions? The deletion discussion is still in progress, and you have as much right as any other editor to state the case for keeping the article. Maybe I don’t understand something yet; it appears to me that ‘’you’’ are loosely alleging carelessness. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: I am not implying that people are entitled to have a wikipedia biography at all. This article existed since 2008 with numerous edits, visits, and references, and perhaps I am very new to how issues are handled via wikipedia when such discussions about deletion take place. I am just seeking fairness and anything that can result in careless or hasty decisions. If you from your experience you think that decisions cannot be arbitrary then at least this is reassuring in the sense that such practices are collectively monitored and not left for the whims of a small number of users. In any case thank you (AcademeEditorial (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Categories in Draft Articles

What is the poicy on placing categories on Draft: articles? Does it make a difference with indexing? — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, article categories are intended for full articles, not drafts. Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft recommends what's called "commenting out" categories, formatting them with an initial colon like so: [[:Category:Hats]]. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding gallery to a page

Good day everyone. I have been trying to organise the images and add a gallery to this page National Rail Museum, New Delhi. However, I don't think I have been able to do a very good job. The page looks a bit messed up at the moment. Could someone help me out and let me know what I am doing wrong? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamLinker (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be grateful if someone could let me how to correct the formatting mess at the bottom of the page.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DreamLinker, the gallery would probably be better off just above the "See Also" heading rather than the bottom of the page. To make sure everything fits, just fiddle around with the spacing between the list of exhibits and the Gallery on the top, and the Gallery and the "See also" section on the bottom. While constantly using the "Show Preview" button below the edit summary to make sure the edit looks the way you want.

Hopefully this helps, Toreightyone (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)