Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 639

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 635←Archive 637Archive 638Archive 639Archive 640Archive 641→Archive 645

why am i having trouble uploading an artlce?

I seem to be missing something and/or not understanding something as i try to upload an article to Wikipedia. would someone be able to help me please.

Thank you. The Title is called Project Map Damiensp (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Damiensp: you have created the article Project Map. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standards in several respects, and is likely to be deleted soon. Maproom (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Damiensp, please have a good look at your first article, which advises you the best way to go about creating an article. But particular things to note are that you may not usually copy text from somewhere else into Wikipedia, and that promotion of any kind is forbidden. In an articly about a company or organisation, Wikipedia has little interest in what that company or organisation has said about itself, and absolutely no interest in how that company or organisation wishes to be portrayed: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company or organisation have published about it. If you are in some way connected with Project Map, you also need to read about conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I help?

My interests include: politics, motoring, history etc. How may I be of assistance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyCurt (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see that you already made a few edits, but you can always take the Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of how to edit, if you so desire. Also, since you forgot to sign your post, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Signatures. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear: the edits I could see you make at Scottish National Party, Theresa Villiers etc. are absolutely fine and not even close to "controversial". Do continue if that is what you want to do here; just remember to stop and discuss if others disagree with your edits (a general principle, but especially applicable to debate-prone subjects). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

table guru needed

Comparison_of_photogrammetry_software table had extra info after price (last) field. wasn't sure why and didn't want to accidentally F it up so added to talk page and thought i'd bring to attention here. had planned on cleaning up the price fields that didnt have a function but found info not expected ... hard enough to read when fields align correctly i'm too scared to remove even though i'm 99.9% sure it don't belong --Qazwiz (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Qazwiz: (in regard to your question at Talk:Comparison of photogrammetry software#Table has problems) I don't think adding a link to the store and current price to the table is appropriate. Wikipedia is not for advertising this or that software, nor for advertising this or that seller. Please see WP:What Wikipedia is not, especially WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTYELLOW sections.) And the price is quite a volatile type of data, nobody will manage to update it (and how long – for a next year? two years? ten...?) --CiaPan (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Techno-Trend

Thank you, for inviting me to Teahouse. Indeed, I would love to be a part of this exciting engagement. I am trying to learn how things work at wikipedia and am keeping myself busy to get used to it at the earliest. But I hope, with all of you around I would be sailing safe.Techno-Trend (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome! Hope you enjoy editing. If you have a question later, feel free to ask it here. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Arain Family

hello, Why Wikipedia is going to delete my Article? All the information written is authentic and could be verified from history books. The information written about the Bhutto family verified from different authentic resources. I do have interviews of Benazir Bhutto in which she was claiming that she belongs to Arab invader Muhammad Bin Qasim. Similarly I have interviews of other Bhutto family leaders in which the claim that they are Arain not Rajput. So, please allow my page to publish and please also make correction in Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttos Article. How an Arab invader could be a Rajput? 119.153.192.128 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aliratta (by context, I am assuming the message above is you writing while logged out). The title has been redirected to Arain, not deleted. It was initially proposed for deletion as containing unverified and potentially unverifiable material; then tagged for speedy deletion under section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created article that duplicates an existing topic (i.e., Arain); but then the same user switched to redirecting it.

This was entirely unsourced. Verifying topics and content through reliable sources is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Throwing out some text from somewhere, or that you know off the top of your head is how some articles start, but it is not a reliable way to gain an entry that will "stick", nor is it a god way to interface with our policies and guidelines.

If this is a notable topic, as shown through the existence of published, reliable, secondary, independent sources, writing about this topic in substantive detail, and if it is not duplicative of the article Arain (and if not in that article, should not be added to it, rather than be fodder for a stand-alone entry), then, if at all, it needs to be:

  1. written by gathering those types of sources first;
  2. summarizing what they say (without copying their words, and using neutral facts and language);
  3. while citing those sources to demonstrate notability and verifiablity.
Please also read Wikipedia:Your first article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Allowed to put anything?

I know that you're not allowed to put vulgar or inappropriate language but if there's a spelling mistake or some information that's wrong, are you allowed to change it. Also, are you allowed to change full paragraphs?DavGxyz (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Spelling corrections are always welcome, just make sure that you're not dealing with a regionalized spelling situation - organized vs organised. Fixing incorrect information is good, as long as you can give proper sourcing (*reliable, independent, etc*) for the change. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi DavGxyz There's nothing wrong with "vulgar language" in context. For example, we appropriately have an article on the word Fuck. See WP:NOTCENSORED. The problem is people adding that and others to articles for no purpose than to vandalize (curses, naughty bits, scatology ... all titillating to 14-year-olds; no adult is actually shocked or gives a flying fuck, except insofar as the content doesn't belong; I'd much rather deal with a sophomoric twit adding "fart" and progeny to articles than sneaky, wrong content intended to look like it fits). Yes, you can fix spelling mistakes. Yes, you can fix whole paragraphs (but with well written, reliably-sourced, relevant content). See WP:BOLD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help by review and update me the correction?

Please check the article i have update on today on famous revivalist "Apostle Ernest Thathapudi "and please let me know if there is any changes need to be made. thank you.

18:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)18:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)18:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)18:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)18:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Richardindia2017 (talk)

Richardindia2017: the article appears to include some references. But they are like this <ref>Apostle Ernest Thathapudi</ref> and don't actually cite anything. With no real citations of published sources, the article will not be accepted. Maproom (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Richardindia2017. Please read Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners. These will help you understand when and why sources fre needed in Wikipedia articles, and how to cite them. I advise the use of Citation templates, but that is an option, not a requirement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

How does one revert? I want to be able to get rid of vandalism without losing whatever the vandalism replaced. WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WikiSquirrel42, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia:Reverting and Help:Reverting for a through explanation of both how to revert, and when to revert, and most important, when not to revert. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How to create a biography article about a person who has the same name as someone who already (sort of) has a biography article

There's a Melissa Gregg (the academic). I went to add a link to her name in the Affect article, but got a redirect to a fictional character with her same name. Can you direct me to the place to go to de-link automatic redirects like this and possibly to set up an article with her name? Let's assume that I've got the references that establish she's a Wikipedia notable living person. Many thanks. Monikasj (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Monikasj, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you found out, Melissa Gregg is currently a redirect. If you were to create, say Melissa Gregg (philosopher) (or whatever page name you choose), the page Melissa Gregg might be converted to a disambiguation page that linked to all places where we have an article about a Melissa Gregg. Or it might be decided by consensus that the person you want to write about is the "primary" meaning of the name, and the article moved to just Melissa Gregg.
In the meantime, add the mention in Affect, but don't link it for now. Come back and link it when an article has been constructed nd has a stable name.
In the meantime, I urge you to use the Article wizard to create a [[WP:DRAFT|draft] under the articles for Creation project. In that way, an experienced editor will reveiw the draft, including the sufficiency of its sources, before it is moved to the main article space.
By the way, that was not an "automatic" redirect -- a very human editor intentionally created it, in this case JuneGloom07 on 14 April 2012‎. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello DES and many thanks for the quick reply and recommendations about my question. I especially appreciate that you pointed out that the redirect was not a machine, but a "very human editor intentionally created it." Always a good reminder! I kind of want to remind people of that anytime there's a suggestions that automations are agential. while at the same time, it's good to remember how hard it can be to see the real humans when you're looking at a prefill. Sigh. In any case, back to the case at hand, I have one follow up question. When you wrote "the page Melissa Gregg might be converted to a disambiguation page that linked to all places where we have an article about a Melissa Gregg" does that mean someone (maybe me, maybe JuneGloom07...etc) would have to purposefully do that, and since I believe the answer is yes, where would I find information on how to create such pages? Would the Article Wizard cover that, too, or is there a step-by-step tutorial on that process? Monikasj (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Monikasj, someone, some human editor, would have to do that. It isn't really urgent, because it wouldn't be done until after a draft was written and approved, and that tends to take a while. (There is often several weeks delay before a draft submission is reviewed, and it often takes several reviews before a draft is approved, if it is.) The approving reviewer would probably take care of that detail as part of the process of moving the approved draft to the main article space. (The wizard merely lays out the basic structure of a draft, and places it on a suitable page.) But you might want to review Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The latter is a bit complex. But if it gets to that point and the reveiwer does not help, ask for help here and it is likely to be provided fairly promptly.
I am going to place some advice on creating an article on your user talk page, that might be a bit long for this thread. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good DES.Monikasj (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How do we properly use our own photo?

I am working with some students who want to create a page for their local girls organization, and they want to take some photos of their own to add.

What are the proper conventions for doing this? Do they need to add themselves as the owner of the photograph? Do they need to choose a CC for the photo?

Any help is appreciated. ChrisChrisBennett (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoever actually takes the photo, that is, the person who clicks the shutter, would be the photographer and would own the photo. That person should release it under a CC license {most likely CC-BY-SA 3.0) and upload it to Wikimedia Commons, starting at this page.
However, a local girls organization is rather unlikely to be notable, see our guideline on the notability of organizations. Trying to create a Wikipedia article about a non-notable topic becomes very frustrating for all concerned, with no useful result at the end. And do note that it would be a Wikipedia article. That difference in terminology might seem trivial, but it implies certain standards that a social media page does not have to conform to. See What Wikipedia is Not. I hope this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC) @ChrisBennett: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
In short, don't worry about the photo until you have good reason to think that you have a valid article in progress at least, ChrisBennett. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi ChrisBennett. First, let's test the shocks on your cart, before talking about the horse. Is the organization notable, as we use that word here to refer to the subject of a proposed article being substantively covered (not just merely mentioned—think at least two dedicated paragraphs of material) in multiple (generally), published, reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of that subject? If so, an article will be possible, which can then contain suitable photographs. If not, no article will be possible (i.e., one that will not be deleted) and so the photographs will have no place to be used. Okay, say we're past that [significant] hurdle. What are the photos going to be of? That may be important. I'll say without that specificity:
  1. Each student who wants to upload a photograph they personally took, must create an account. Accounts cannot be shared, nor should the passwords. Please read Wikipedia:Username policy so you can give proper advice on what type of name to choose, or tell them to read this themselves (this might depend on the age we're talking about). In that regard, you might wish to peruse Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors as well.
  2. The photographs must not capture already copyrighted material. To give a classic example, if you are wearing a t-shirt with Mickey Mouse on it and I snap your photograph (from waist to head), I have created a derivative work. I may own part of the copyright, but I do not own the copyright to Mickey Mouse so I cannot release that part of the image, which would then have to be blurred. (But see De minimis#Copyright.)
  3. The photos should not include non-public figures who might object to being splashed on the Internet. (It's probably not a good idea for the pictures to be of these young people themselves, even with their permission).
  4. Once a student takes a photo, transfer it to a computer, have them log in and go to the Commons upload wizard. It should walk them through the upload.
  5. Yes, a free copyright license will be required. I suggest choosing CC-BY-SA-4.0.
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi, I created this page and it started showing up on Google while searching for Palash Baran Pal. But it stopped showing on a search either in Google or in Yahoo for last 5-6 hours. Can someone please tell me what happened? Suratnadas (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Suratnadas, welcome to the Teahouse. I can get the page to show up fine on Google and Yahoo searches. I don't see anything on the page itself that would cause a problem with search engines. Perhaps this was a temporary issue with the search engines? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Suratnadas, and welcome to the Teahouse. New articles are not indexed for a certain amount of time (either 30 or 90 days) or until they have been reviewed by an experienced editor, whichever comes first. If after that Google and other search engines fail to link to a page, that is their issue -- Wikipedia has no control over how and when search engines index our content beyond asking them not to index certain pages. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The page was reviewed days ago and allows indexing. It also shows up in Google and Yahoo for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi, sorry to bother you all. there were some issues with unambiguous alert from some other users. I have fixed it yesterday and now it is showing up in google and yahoo again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suratnadas (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A special thanks

Thanks sir for inviting me to tea house. I want to learn a lot as a member of Wikipedia.

Again a special thanks to all for considering me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhushan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome! The other one (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how to proceed.

Today I submitted my final draft for review, and, fortunately, it was accepted.

There is banner on the top and bottom of the entry, I am not sure how to proceed with this, since, I think that it can performed only by an admin and, to be honest, I don't even know what does it mean.


This article, Jasmine Directory, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." "WARNING: Draft:Jasmine Directory is 10,800 bytes. If it is not a redirect with only 1 edit in its edit history, this may be a "copy and paste" move. To avoid losing the edit history, administrators should consider merging the history of the AfC draft into this article."

Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This has all been sorted now, and the full edit history is shown. Dbfirs 05:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


CREATING AN ARTICLE

I WANT TO CREATE AN ARTICLE ON "SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL" .AS ALL OTHER MEDALS HAVE THEIR SEPARATE ARTICLE BUT THIS DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN...SO PLEASE HELP MEWasimansari2778 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wasimansari2778, using all-caps is widely perceived as shouting on the Internet, so please don't. As far as the article goes, you've substantially copied it from another website. You must write in your own words. Further, you must cite the sources you use to find the information (which you must write in your own words - do not copy!) John from Idegon (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with Protein complete articles

I have noticed that Complete protein and Protein combining articles seem complimentary, yet are providing opposing propositions. Further, I am concerned about potential inaccuracies in the [Complete protein]. The reference to the Food and Nutrition Board from 2005 about what consists a complete protein may be out of date. Yet, the reference about complete and incomplete being misleading in the Protein Combining article comes from 1971. I find the information confusing. What do you do in these instances? Should we combine the articles? Murmullo (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Murmullo. I agree that these two articles cover the same topic, so either one should be deleted, or the articles should be merged. These articles make medical claims, so the sources should fully comply with WP:MEDRS, which sets strict standards for the type of reliable sources we use in medical articles. I have no expertise on this topic, but I feel confident in saying that Vogue magazine, and popular authors from the 1970s like Francis Moore Lappe and Adele Davis do not meet the standard for the type of sources we require. I am pinging Doc James, one of our best medical editors, for his opinion on this matter. I commend you for bringing this to the attention of other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for responding. Murmullo (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Good effort

I have just created an article Sky Pool, Houston. I want to ask have I made a good effort? Sinner (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

you may want to address the architecture group about it. they will be more qualified to comment on noteworthiness and offer editing suggestions. bad news, it feels wrong (imo admittedly) but GOOD NEWS i don't think it will get speedy delete so good going -- Qazwiz (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to ask two things from above answer:

  1. Where to find this architectural group?
  2. How does this article feels wrong? Please!

Sinner (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Nazim Hussain Pak, I assume by the architecture group, Qazwiz meant WikiProject Architecture. As far as what "feels" wrong about it, I've delineated what in my view feels wrong about it in my deletion nomination. It appears you are not clear on what notability means. John from Idegon (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't fix the company info box

I was able to incorporate the company logo in the Chinese page (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%87%89%E7%94%A8%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E9%99%A2) but couldn't do the same on its English page. Can someone help me to use the same logo from the Chinese page in the English page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Applied_Science_and_Technology_Research_Institute)? I represent the corp comms department of this organisation so I have the right to use this logo.

Hasan.iftekhar (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hasan.iftekhar. First of all, you must comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure requirement, since you are editing as part of your job duties. As for the logo, you cannot use any image hosted on a Wikipedia in another language here on the the English Wikipedia. You must upload the logo here, in compliance with our policy on use of non free images. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I see you have now uploaded File:ASTRI Logo.png as a non-free logo and added it to Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute so it seems resolved. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hasan.iftekhar still needs to make the paid editing disclosure, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the best way to create an article when I have a COI?

Misplaced COI declaration removed Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am working on the third draft of an article, Draft:Shinesty as the first two drafts were cited as sounding too much like an advertisement, and I am still learning the etiquette/protocol for editing Wikipedia articles. I do have a COI in editing this page as I am an employee of the company, and I understand the importance of keeping Wikipedia impartial. Because of this, I was curious if is there a different route that should be taken to make sure that this article doesn't simply fizzle out? The obvious end goal is to utilize all of the external sources from the web with content published about the company to create an impartial encyclopedic article. I believe that based on the approved Wikipedia pages I have read from similar companies, I am not far off of this goal. Many if not all of these companies have similar sections and provide very similar information about the companies. I used the agglomerated list of those companies as a template for how to write the draft for this article. I was hoping that you could provide a bit more information about what should be removed or altered in this draft in order to make it appear less like an advertisement. The first paragraph along with the "history" and "business ventures" sections have all been edited to match the style of other pages and I imagine a few tweaks should set this page up for success. Thanks for any suggestions. Austin at Shinesty (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Austin at Shinesty: Thanks for asking! You should read the information at WP:AFC, including the required disclosures for COI and paid editing. Then, follow the link to the article wizard to put your article together and submit it for review. RudolfRed (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Austin at Shinesty:, did you really mean to claim that File:Shinesty-Logo-Red.png is your own personal work, and that you own the copyright to it? Even if you did, did you really mean to license it so that anyone in the world may use it, including for commercial purposes, or create and publish modified versions of it, again including for commercial purposes, provided only that they attribute the original to you? If the answer to either of these is "No" the image should be deleted from commons, and later, when/if the draft is approved as an article, it can (probably) be uploaded to the en-wikipedia under a claim of fair use, if it complies with the conditions. Logos are most often treated in this way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: I found the page on COI disclosure, I wasn't sure if it applied to this page, but I went ahead and added it to the top of this post. I've also read how to put an article together and created a sandbox draft that I have submitted for review, my issue is that as a newbie I quickly realized that I made a cardinal mistake of writing about a topic of which I have a COI. I have surmised that because of this, other members in the community will essentially refuse to publish it on those grounds alone. At this point, I am mostly interested in learning how I could undo my booboo and hopefully not end up with the article being completely deleted. @DESiegel: I made this account specifically because I thought that it was the best way to file for the ownership of that image. I searched and searched and struggled to discover a better way to upload it to the creative commons, which I found many other similar brands had done with their logos. It sounds like a messed up when I did this, and I appreciate you catching it because I probably would have missed it and it appears like that could have been very bad. Thanks for your help. Austin at Shinesty (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Austin at Shinesty. One way to act upon DES' advice is click edit at the file page, add this code to the top: {{SD|G7}} and then save the page. For that Commons speedy deletion basis to apply, the file needs to be unused, so I am removing it from the draft.

Remember, the logo can only be uploaded under a claim of fair use after the article has been accepted and is in the article mainspace, so do not re-upload it (here, to Wikipedia, not to the Commons) unless and until that occurs. Having an image or not in a draft is not even on the radar of consideration for acceptance, btw, so don't think not having a logo in the draft matters one wit.

Regarding the paid editing disclosure above, thank you. However, that goes on your userpage. Please create your userpage with that disclosure. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shinesty you have some confusions, it seems. creative commons is the organization that publishes the "copyleft" licenses used by Wikipedia and many other entities, see Creative Commons. Wikimedia Commons is the project where many freely licensed images and othe media fiels are stored, see Wikimedia Commons. You uploaded your logo to Wikimedia Commons, thereby placing it under a Creative Commons (CC) license. If you, personally, own the logo, and want to make it freely available to the world, that is fine. If either of those is not true, then the logo image file should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons and from the draft, with no logo in the draft's infobox for now. When and if the draft is approved and moved to mainspace, the logo could be uploaded under fair use (not a free license) to the English-language Wikipedia (NOT to Wikimedia Commons), a proper fair use rationale filled out, and the resulting file then used on the article that has been created from the draft. (The rules do not permit the use of fair-use content in draft space.)
If the draft is properly and carefully constructed, and is well-supported by independent reliable sources, so that its notability is clearly established, it should not be deleted because it was contributed by an editor with a COI. You should place {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on Draft talk:Shinesty. You do not need to include it on every discussion page where you discuss the matter, such as here. You should also place {{paid}} on User:Austin at Shinesty (which is empty at the moment). However, you should be aware that many Wikipedia editors will apply the rules more strictly in a case of COI, and if there is anything borderline about the sourcing or notability of the draft/article or any hint of promotionalism in its text, such editors may be more inclined to reject the draft, or nominate the article for deletion. You must be "above suspicion", particularly meticulous to follow the guidelines, because having a COI is already suspicious in some eyes.
If any of this is unclear or confusing, please post back here and I or another poster will try to explain better. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing "advertisement" flag

I work for Bullfrog Power and have been updating our wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfrog_Power) in response to it being flagged as having content that is written like an advertisement. As I work for the company, I have declared on the talk section of the page that I am a COI contributor. I understand it isn't considered appropriate for me to remove this advert flag, so how do I go about having it removed or getting feedback as to whether further changes are required? Jmckaybullfrog (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Jmckaybullfrog: This article has far bigger issues than an 'advertisement' flag. To merit inclusion in Wikipedia, an article has to contain references which illustrate the subject's notability. This article is woefully lacking in this respect. The references are largely the company's own publications or those of bodies which are not independent of the company. What you need are sources which are independent of the company and discuss it in some detail, not just as passing mentions. Take a look at WP:CORP to get an idea of the kind of thing that is required. At the moment the article is in danger of deletion over these notability issues, so they need to be addressed. Neiltonks (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Neiltonks. All changes I had made have since been reverted by another editor (including seemingly basic facts like correcting the industry and adding the CEO to "key people"). I was attempting to work within the structure of what was already on this page, which I did not create. I'm happy to provide exclusively external references and remove all those not independent of the company to attempt to establish notability as per the criteria on the page you link to. Jmckaybullfrog (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jmckaybullfrog: Hello and welcome. Thank you for coming forward with your COI and working within the rules. Pay attention that if you were instructed by your boss to edit the Wikipedia page or are compensated to do so, you fall under the stronger paid edition guideline. If so, please read WP:PAID carefully and make the disclosure in appropriate fashion; if not, what you already did is enough.
As Neiltonks wrote above, "notability" (a specific Wikipedia term, read the links provided above) is proved by independent sources, but it does not mean non-independent sources should be removed. It just means that by themselves the latter will not be enough to support the existence of the article or any non-trivial claims it contains; but they can still stay in the article. The only reason to remove such a reference (that I can see) would be if a controversial or promotional statement is supported only by the company - then the whole statement and the reference should go. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tigraan: Thanks - I'll check out the WP:PAID to see if I first need to update disclosure as per the requirements. Next I'll remove out of date information that is just factually incorrect. Then I'll see how I can update the page to improve notability and remove any concerning language that has been flagged as being similar to an advertisement. Jmckaybullfrog (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Jmckaybullfrog do keep in mind that quite often "out of date information" is actually history which should be kept. On Wikipedia the history of a company is actually valued far more than the latest "news". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dodger67: - will do. By out of date, I meant no longer factually correct (For example, indicating that a company is a customer when they are not) as opposed to facts that are from news that is no longer current. Though I'll keep your point about preserving historical lineage under advisement. Jmckaybullfrog (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

infobox editing and other formatting

Hi, I have created a new page on Polish wikipedia https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europejski_Program_Le%C5%9Bnych_Zasob%C3%B3w_Genowych which is a translation of the english one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Forest_Genetic_Resources_Programme

I'm having issues editing the infobox - some info that I had not added appears with missing links/data. I don't seem to have access to edit that info through either of the editors. Secondly, the numbered list is not putting correct numbering automatically in the second column - how to fix it?

thanks

Ewa hermanowicz (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Ewa hermanowiczEwa hermanowicz (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ewa hermanowicz. Unfortunately, you're probably going to have to find someone on the Polish Wikipedia to help with that. Most (all?) templates are language specific, and the one you are using there is related to the one here in name only, and not in any technical way. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Ewa hermanowicz And you might be able to get an answer at the Polish language wiki help desk. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi TimothyJosephWood and Joseph thank you so much for the tips, I'll know where to look in the future Ewa hermanowicz (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ewa hermanowicz: Hi, I have fixed some problems in pl:Europejski Program Leśnych Zasobów Genowych. If you have any other requests regarding the article, please put appropriate note in pl-wiki, either at the article's talk page pl:Talk:Europejski Program Leśnych Zasobów Genowych or at my talk page pl:User talk:CiaPan.
CiaPan (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thank you very much pl:User:CiaPan the page looks good now! Ewa hermanowicz (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

When does a page stop being a stub?

Hello, I was wondering if there is a certain word count or rule that makes a page stop being a stub. Thanks very much. Millergeorge253 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Millergeorge253, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Stub says A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion. ... There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written. Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. As such, it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length, and any decision on the article has to come down to an editor's best judgement (the user essay on the Croughton-London rule may be of use when trying to judge whether an article is a stub). Similarly, stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub. So no, there is no simple word count or automatic rule. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Millergeorge253 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

update info

I am the resident of Satan"s choice MC I'm trying to do updates to the site and it keep asking me to talk to someone called wikidan61 (65.95.191.96 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what article are you trying to update, please, IP editor? wikidan6, can you help? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this relates to Satan's Choice MC. Nthep (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi person editing from 65.95.191.96. Are you User:Satan's Choice, editing while logged out? I don't know what messages you might be taking about (maybe notifications you are receiving when your edits have been reverted, though those would not ask you to speak with anyone AFAIK) but WikiDan61 is a human being, who has discussed this article and the recent entirely unsourced edits on the talk page (with you?), and on his user talk page.

He has partially reverted your edits, and partially questioned them through tags, looking for the person/you to provide reliable and independent sources that verify the additions, with the burden being on the proponent of any challenged additions, to come forward and cite suitable, published sources using inline citations that directly corroborates edits.

I emphasized the word "published", because the person who responded on the talk page is talking about unpublished documents to prove their additions. That will not work. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and so additions must be corroborated by published sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry the info for Satan's Choice being closed we are up and running and ready to give any info you nee to do this please feel free to email and will send all the doc to show we are running again as a club!

This matter is being discussed at Talk:Satan's Choice MC. Please keep the discussion there. Discussing the matter in many different forums only confuses issues. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is this reference insufficient?

I have been trying to submit an article on Blessed John Haile, the first secular priest to be martyred under Henry VIII and keep getting rejected for lack of notability. A whole chapter in a work on the subject of the Henrician martyrs (available on an internet archive) is dedicated to him, but I have been told the reference is inadequate. What further reference material do I need to find? Westminsterboy2 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Blessed John Haile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Westminsterboy2, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be best to ask the specific reviewers who made that judgement, SwisterTwister and Shadowowl. Generally, we prefer multiple sources, and we prefer inline citations. However you seem to have listed at least two book-length sources, which would usually be sufficient, if the sources were judged to be reliable. The instructions at WP:AFCSTANDARDS say, in part: Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons. I have notified the reviewers of this thread, aand i hope that they will comment. Still if you can provide specific inline cites, that might help. See Referencing for Beginners. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Westminsterboy2 I have reviewed and accepted it. Please see the maintenance tags on the page and try to address the issues they point out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Page name issue

The First Methodist Episcopal Church of Glendale had its name changed in the 1960s to The First United Methodist Church of Glendale. This can be verified in the same reference used to support the name First Methodist Episcopal Church of Glendale. I added the information to the Wikipedia Page (a simple statement that it is known by the other name). However, the list of Methodist Churches in North America also had the wrong name, but in attempting to correct it, the link no longer works.

What is the best way to link the original page to the correct name? Or should I be working on making a new page? Jonessensei (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

good question. (Signal boost!!!)

Jonessensei, you will have to move the page to the current name. See Wikipedia:Moving articles. This will create a redirect from the old name to the new and will keep the article content. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will give it a try. Jonessensei (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
(@White Arabian Filly:) Hi Jonessensei. You will not be able to move the page yet (and may not even see a move tab at all, where the help pages tell you to look for one depending on your skin) because your account is not yet autoconfirmed. You will become autoconfirmed when you make at least three more edits (so you have more than ten edits total) and then wait until after 20:19 (UTC) on July 16, 2017 (four days after your account was created). If you don't want to wait, you can make a request at the technical section of requested moves, if you're sure the move would be uncontroversial. However, I'm going to look into it now and either move the page for you, or report back why I did not, so don't bother yet. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I should have looked to see if Jonessensei was autoconfirmed but forgot. However, if any other pages need an uncontroversial move I'll be glad to help. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. I checked whether the move would be in keeping with WP:UCN and WP:NAMECHANGES, and finding it was supported, I have moved the page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Wow. You guys are fast and great. Thank you for the help. Jonessensei (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Anytime Jonessensei.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

When is it better to use a gallery rather than a media file, I was wondering for upcoming pages I will make. - Thanks for reading, George Millergeorge253 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Helo again Millergeorge253. See WP:Gallery, where it says Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. About 2% of articles at the English Wikipedia use galleries. It goes on to say The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). and A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. In short, it is rare that a gallery is preferred, and there should be a good reason for using one in a particular case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Rejection

Hello,

The page that was just created was rejected. Could you please help me on how to create a Wikipedia for a Public Figure?

Mjworld (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Article in question is Monisha Jaising, yet another advertorial cited only to the company and written in a language only PR people speak. I'm sure that of course not telling us what the article in question is was simply an oversight, as of course the most important thing in all the 5.3 million articles on English Wikipedia is this. John from Idegon (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Mjworld. Please read the links that Hayman30 has put on your talk page. It will probably help you if you change your idea from "a Wikipedia for" someone to "a Wikipedia article about" someone. Please understand that the following are all of little or no interest to Wikipedia: 1) what you (or I!) know or think about a subject; 2) what a subject (or their associates) have said about themselves; 3) how a subject wishes to be presented. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have chosen to publish about it, in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Permanently Deleting Talk

Wondering if there is a procedure to permanently delete talk related to an article. The talk I think contains fairly accusations that have not been accepted in the article and are unsubstantiated. XcommR (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, XcommR, and welcome to the teahouse. If there are violations of the WP:BLP policy on the talk page (or other content that violates policy), they can be revision-deleted or even oversighted. I am an admin and can do revision deletion, as are several other regular watchers of this page. But you will need to tell us what talk page you refer to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Probably the talkpage of the article linked on their userpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
User XcommR has been deleting negative information from an article and its talkpage about a company they have a COI with. If you check the history of the talkpage then you'll see what has been removed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@XcommR: I have reverted your edits on that talkpage. If you do stuff like this again you may get blocked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) XcommR I presume that you are referring to Talk:Redbubble. Content on that page was "hatted" as violating WP:HAR. by you, although you state on your talk page that you have a COI with regard to Redbubble. The statements made on that talk page do not seem to harass anyone, and most of them seem to have been incorporated into the article. They seem well sourced. What policy do they violate? It is not usual for someone involved in a discussion, or with a COI for the topic, to close such a discussion or hide its content. What policies does it violate that it should be deleted, or even hidden? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
::@DESiegel: Thanks for looking at it. I appreciate your time Best XcommR (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@XcommR: I noticed you have removed COI notices on your userpage. Please re-read WP:COI. If you are who you've claimed to be then you have a COI with regards to the LookSmart article, and it is a bit weird that you've accused others of violating WP:OUTING when that page says: "unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information" like you did on the talkpage of that deleted article. Stop falsely accusing people, stop deleting information you dislike, and declare your conflicts of interests on your userpage. In your edit dated 04:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC) you wrote: "He talks in general about the issue", as if you are talking about someone who is not you... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: pls note my COI is declared. Pls keep it civil WP:CIV as I have been quite upfront in all my interactions and attempted to abide by all WP Guidelines.XcommR (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
You have not been honest, and you have falsely accused people. I have posted proof of that. If you continue acting like this you will get blocked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
While I am not super familiar with Wikipedia guidelines perhaps you could also have a look at some basics. I asked a civil question and got a very helpful response. Which was all I was seeking. Your points are not really related to the question I asked. Perhaps have a look at WP:GF and WP:UNCIVIL Happy editing. XcommR (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I am super familiar with Wikipedia, and you have been very impolite and you deserve to be blocked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
XcommR, you should be careful when accusing of or implying violations of guidelines such as WP:CIV. The only thing TQP has written that could come close to a violation of WP:CIV is that you "deserve" to be blocked (which IMO is wrong, but nowhere close uncivil, and it was posted after your "perhaps have a look at WP:GF"). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for your feedback it is genuinely appreciated.XcommR (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

History and other details of Nepal is incorrect!

People living in Nepal consist of Madheshi, Marwari, Kirati, but nowhere it is written! Nepal was formed in 18 century by a Hindu king called shah dynasty! Before that, it was all separate princely country like tharu rajya, mithila rajya, kritipur rajya, bhaktapur rajya, like wise. Almost 200 kindom were defeated by shah king Prithivi Narayan Shah, many time they exploit People and culture! Now one community is ruling Nepal. Nepali is community not a country! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhiraj 1995 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dhiraj 1995. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, not a place to express personal opinions. Please read Demographics of Nepal, where these various ethnic groups are discussed, and we have articles on most of them. If you want to make changes regarding the history of Nepal, you will have to cite reliable sources. That is a basic principle of editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

how to publish my post on wiki?

I have created an article in my sandbox. I have no idea how to get that post live on the wiki. So kindly guide me with step by step process of getting that post live and running on the Wikipedia page so that it can be visible to other people on the internet.

Thank you Maakakhaana (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Maakakhaana I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources say about a topic, your draft User:Maakakhaana/sandbox/Maa Ka Khaana is just advertising your own business, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Theroadislong (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Writing your own business article

Good day,

I would like to write an article in Wiki for my business. I run a marketing company called Kaomi Marketing, Kaomi in hawaiian means click and we ofter digital services. The main reason for my article is that when our customers search for our brand they often see articles regarding an asian lady or a hawaiian God. I would like to write an informative article laying out what our business does, how it started and why we selected the name.

The reason I am asking is that I have read the guidelines for articles and have seen that an article about your own business is not allowed and would get disapproved. Is there any way for me to be able to write this article or get someone else to do it? as I feel like it would be worthy of a wiki post.

Thank you for your time and help in advance.

Regards, Dewan

DewanChapman (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@DewanChapman: Hello and welcome. It is highly advised that you not write about your own business directly. You have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, which means you are likely too close to the subject(your business) to write about it objectively and in an encyclopedic style. Wikipedia is not interested in what a business says about itself, but what independent reliable sources say about it, that indicate how it meets notability guidelines, in this case those for businesses. It isn't enough for an article to merely provide information; that is a promotional purpose. Those sources must give in depth coverage of the business and not be just press releases or routine announcements. If you have independent reliable sources, you may be allowed to create a page by visiting Articles for Creation. Before you do anything I would highly suggest that you review the conflict of interest policy; since it is your business you are also required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to review and comply with the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey 331dot, thanks for your response.

I will not write the article.

DewanChapman (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Duration of article deletion discussion

How long deletion discussion about an article lasts?

Sinner (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Typically they are left open for a week, but in clear cases of deletion being warranted, can be shorter, or longer if a reviewing administrator feels more time is needed. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Improvement of article

Recently I wrote an article of an organisation named Addatimes which is in Kolkata, India. This is a web portal which features original bengali shortfilms and programs. I tried to bring out the information to all the users but somehow it was promotional. Please suggest me to solve this. Tell me what should not be given which can be subject to promotion. Divya123321 (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Divya123321: Hello and welcome. In order for this website to have an article, it must be shown to meet the notability guidelines for web content with independent reliable sources. Merely telling of this website's existence and what it does is not sufficient. Wikipedia is interested in what independent sources say about it. These would be things like news stories and independent reviews. Things like the portal itself, press releases, or routine announcements are not acceptable to establish notability.
If you are associated with this web portal, it is a conflict of interest to edit about it(please review if that's the case). If you work for them, you are required to comply with the paid editing policy by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Need help with Udesh_Shrestha

An individual wrote into OTRS ticket:2017071110005411 asking for help improving an article. I urge them to post specific questions here.

The article name is Udesh_Shrestha

There is no need to do anything until the individual post a comment here indicating that they are interested in help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

...Thanks? TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_639&oldid=1065747724"