Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 642

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 635←Archive 640Archive 641Archive 642Archive 643Archive 644Archive 645

Would this be an appropriate addition?

I recently visited the Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site in California and took two photos that I think would be a fun addition to the page. They go with a story about Katherine Hepburn convincing a San Francisco department store to sell back the Chinese teak bed that O'Neill used to have in the house, so that the historic site would be more like it was when he and his wife lived there.

Two questions:

  • I've done minor editing of Wikipedia articles but don't want to attempt adding an inline photo (which would need to be linked from Wikimedia Commons, I presume) with wraparound text. If I were to provide the text and photos, would someone else be willing to upload them and format them on that page correctly?

Thanks! Bayguy42 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bayguy42 and welcome to the Teahouse. As you took the photos, you would need to upload them to Commons and release them under a proper free license. That should present no problems. As to including them in the article, can this story be supported by a relaible source? If so, it could probably go in the article, and the images or one of them along with it. If not, the story could not go in, and there would then be nothing for the images to illustrate. Ehre did you encounter the story, please?
The editing involved is quite simple, if the source is available. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. But if you still don't feel comfortable, I would be willing to insert the text and images, if the source is good. But I can't upload the images for you. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard to start the upload process. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, DESiegel. I've uploaded the photos to:

Part of the story is related in Ms. Hepburn's letter (which you can see lying on the bed); the rest was told to me by a National Park Service ranger. I could possibly get the story in writing if I send an email to NPS. How do you think we should proceed?

Bayguy42 (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bayguy42. Sources for Wikipedia articles need to be published, so information sent to you in an e-mail is unlikely to be acceptable. If the Park Service can point you to somewhere where the story has been published, in print or online, then you could use that. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Definition of published. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
CordlessLarry is correct, Bayguy42, an email would not do. If the letter is on permanent public display, then it might be considered published. But what would really help is if some secondary source has published the story. Then the letter could help confirm it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
A quick search reveals this, this and this as potential sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Those ought to do the trick. I had offered to edit the actual article, do you still want me to do so, Bayguy42? Or would you rather, Cordless Larry since you found the sources? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @Cordless Larry: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested, DESiegel, so am happy for either of you to do it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That's great research, Larry! The story isn't on the NPS website. Thank you for finding it.

DESiegel, I'm happy to let you edit the page and decide where the story and photos should go.

Bayguy42 (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

proposed deletion-by a moderator on the correct posting on wikipedia on Prabhat (Paul ) jain

We have posted a true and correct article on Prabhat Paul Jain with the appropriate references. Please advise what we have to do to ensure that this article is not deleted. Thank you. Techno-Trend (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC) @Techno-Trend: Hello. The first issue is that you use "we" above; a username cannot be that of a group or business, and cannot be shared between individuals per the username policy. Your username must indicate that you and only you are using it. To change your username, please visit this page for instructions. I would further add that if you represent the person you are writing about, you will need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid relationship)

Regarding your quesiton, you may wish to contribute to the deletion discussion, but from what I see the concern seems to be that no independent reliable sources that indicate how the person is notable are given. Wikipedia does not deal in what is true, but what can be independently verified. The sources given must not be associated with the person in any way. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves, but what independent sources say about them. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@331dot Thankyou a lot for you valuable inputs. This is my individual account and I am doing it voluntarily and free of cost. A lot of content has been changed and I have cited a lot of references in support to my article.There are so many unsung heroes of old times that everyone should know. The biggest revolution of PC world was the invention of color, sound and video. Mr. Jain invented these technologies and mass marketed them. Unfortunately, Internet news media was not that active those days therefore you would not see most of the information about such important contributions.Let me put it this way, can you tell who invented these technologies?Techno-Trend (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-independent sources are acceptable for basic details such as the person's date of birth, but independent sources are needed to demonstrate notability. The tone of the article is all wrong, too. Wikipedia's guidelines will never allow unsourced commentary (in Wikipedia's voice) such as The story about "never giving up" follows him today after his paternal grandfather who stood at the gates of a British officer for 8 hours in 45°C, till the officer met him and gave him an engineering job in the Eastern Railway system. Simply, the officer did not know of anyone who wanted the job that badly. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC) A minor point, but the article claims that he has at spoken at a select committee of the English parliament. This would be difficult since there is no English parliament. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry I am very thankful to you for helping me improve on the content. A lot of content has been changed and I have cited a lot of references in support to my article. Please go through it and let me know, the scope of improvements.Techno-Trend (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Techno-Trend: Please don't change what you wrote before; if you wish to correct the record, please make a new comment. You will also need to address the fact that you seem like you represent a group. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@331dot Thankyou dear help, as I am new to the world of wikipedia article submission, please let me know how can I add a comment? No, I am not representing any group.Techno-Trend (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Techno-Trend:, please, we are not stupid children here. If you do not represent a group, why in your initial posting here did you use the pronoun "we", which unambiguously represents a group of people? --John from Idegon (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon, Thank you for Joining this discussion. Well, I am sorry for using We, in my question up there..Well the reason, 'We' have been used that too unintentionally, was that I and my son were working together on this article. This question was asked by my son and he used the word 'We' instead. Let me reiterate, I am an individual and do not represent any company or group of people and I know you are not a stupid child.Techno-Trend (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Techno-Trend: You add a new comment every time you post to this or any discussion. You do need to explain your use of "we"; when I google Techno-Trend I get many results for various companies or other things. You don't represent one of them? 331dot (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@331dot, I too tried to google with your account name but it just gave me weird results, does that means anything? Well, as in my other reply, I am an individual and do not represent any company or group of people and I know you are trying to help.Techno-Trend (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, your advertorial has been deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Techno-Trend, An individual user is most likely to use a single account, each user should have his personal account. Two or more users, like you and your son are doing, should not use single account. Sinner (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

{{edit semi-protected}} Raman singh badshah 97 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you trying to edit the page for the Welcoming committee? If you explain what you are trying to do, we will try to help you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability Issues

I created a movie last year and had a premiere screening on New Years Eve in Akron, Ohio. I had a full house, SRO audience who loved the film. The film has gone on to be reviewed broadly and enjoy further screenings made. Saturday I created a wikipedia page for the film and have encountered numerous objections: puffery, self-aggrandizement, lack of notability, inappropriate advertising and conflict of interest. Please look at my page Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot and also the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot, and join the discussion. Salander44 (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Salander44. I'm glad you created something that has brought joy to the world. You say that sometimes it doesn't pay—but what does that have to do with Wikipedia? Your feeling of satisfaction about the movie you made shouldn't depend on its having a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't about social media or blogging or publicizing works of art, however worthy—it is an encyclopedia. If the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica declined to include an entry for your film, would you be upset by that? It's really very much the same thing. In looking over the article now, I'd have to say that the objections you mentioned above are apt. That's no reflection on you. The existence of a Wikipedia article won't validate your movie, and the absence of an article won't negate it. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Rivertorch. This was a silly post as a result of frustration. I intended to delete it in favor of something more sensible, but your reply precludes that now. I did try to post something more appropriate, but it disappeared as soon as I hit the "Ask My Question" button. Maybe I hit my limit on Questions, or perhaps it will appear later. I have no idea. But I can say this: wikipedia is not a forum to validate anyone or anything. To say it is equivalent to the Encyclopaedia Britannica of our digital age does say something to me about the attitude of some of the editors. I had thought that wikipedia sought to democratize knowledge, and make that knowledge available to a broader range of people. I personally use it a lot for background research, but not as a dispositive source of knowledge. For that, I still resort to the original sources. Salander44 (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Edits appear as soon as your submit them, Salander44, and there is no technical limit on the number of questions you ask, so I'm afraid something must have gone wrong with your second question. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Unless you were thinking about the question you asked at Wikipedia:Help desk#Adding Film Poster; Resolving Page Issues? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Salander44: if you want to retract what you wrote above, you could "strike" it: put a <s> tag at the beginning and </s> at the end. This would make it clear to readers that you've withdrawn what you wrote. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I closed down my computer and rebooted. I tried a third time. Still no result. If you see the same question three times tomorrow, it may be because of a glitch in the wikipedia servers tonight. Otherwise my Questions have been blocked. Salander44 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Salander44 there is no mechanism to intentionally block posts, so if it happens it's either a software glitch or an error by the poster. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Roger (Dodger67). I was able to post the substance of my comment relating to notability on the Deletion Page, so perhaps there's a server or software glitch on this page. The comment is available here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot Salander44 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Salander44: Just to clarify, I didn't mean to precisely equate Wikipedia and Britannica; each has its respective strengths and weaknesses. I simply meant that they both are encyclopedias. People forget that about Wikipedia all too often. Incidentally, I experienced a similar glitch while editing a few days ago. It happened only on one page, and it eventually resolved itself after some hours. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Salander44: As a producer, you would have been better served to have a friend publish the article. Better to wait until the article has been on WP awhile before you add it to categories. There are people watching those lists. You might have added a line to the Richmond, Ohio page describing it as a movie location. That would have been the link in. The cast is a complete list, eh? If someone else wrote the article, your cast members wouldn't feel left out. I mean, how come you didn't list the Best Boy? Next time, include only two reviews, one good, one bad. Just my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I would disagree with some of the above advice, Salander44. Waiting until someone else writes the article might be a good idea, but asking a friend is Meatpuppetry which is much worse than openly doing it yourself. In theory you could use requested articles but that is so backlogged I wouldn't bother. If you choose to create such articles yourself, please use the article wizard and create a draft under the Articles for creation project. Do not stop at two reviews, include 3-5, provided that they are all from solid, reliable, non-local sources. Put them in a "Critical response" section. Cast lists are neither here nor there, really, but if they are very long the unbalance an article. That is my advice, for what it is worth. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Rhadow (talk). I actually live and work in Richfield Township, Summit County, Ohio, but while I've had good coverage in the local newsmagazine, I'd really hesitate to add a line to the Richfield Township Wikipedia page, unless there was already a category for notable lawyers, authors, athletes, film directors, etc. I don't want to appear bashful, but think that *would be* over-the-top, self-promotion. I'm very much a loner, but I also like to be part of a group, so the thing to do, perhaps, would be to add a list to the Richfield Township article, captioned Notable Citizens, in which case (I suppose), I could be part of the group. I'm still a bit nervous about even that idea. I did add my film to the List of cult films, but it was reverted. As far as the cast goes, nobody gets paid, and I try to show appreciation any way I can -- but I didn't add crew. Salander44 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
If there is a list in a town article of notable people, then sources would need to be provided that demonstrate that all of the people do indeed meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, Salander44 - just as they would need to meet them to qualify for a standalone article. I don't say that as a judgement on your notability (I haven't checked), but just for information. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it, but I have a further question. Notability in general (as I understand it now) requires more than just local references. Since in this case we would be talking about notability in a small town, Richfield Township, Summit County, Ohio, would the references also need to be regional or national? Or would solid references from Akron and Cleveland (as well as the local Richfield Times), be sufficient? Eg. Akron Beacon Journal and The Plain Dealer. I don't have any question about my own notability (I've been around a long time), but no way will I try to set up a stand-alone article about myself. Salander44 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Those sorts of lists tend to be of the "Notable people from town X" variety, rather than "Notable within town X", so I think the usual notability criteria would apply, Salander44. Wikipedia:Notability doesn't give strict guidance on this, though, so the criteria for inclusion would probably need to be discussed on the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
DES (talk). I hope to get the film Userfied or Draftified, rather than get a straight Deletify (sorry for that, but I just have to laugh). If the film doesn't get more notable reviews, maybe it will die there. But in that case, it deserves to die. Salander44 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a deadline for correcting problems the editors have flagged?

Hello - For an article on James Lechay, several issues have been identified. We hope to address them as soon as time is available. Is there a deadline for meeting these various objections? Thank you.Daniel Lechay (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: James Lechay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No, Daniel Lechay there is no specific deadline to address any of these issues. For some kinds of issues, an editor might nominate the article for deletion if they were not fixed in a timely way, although there is no fixed standard for "timely". But the issues currently identified for James Lechay do not seem to me likely to lead to a nomination for deletion.
Perhaps more importantly, who is "we" that "hope to address" the issues? Wikipedia accounts should be for individual people, and should never be shared.
Your name is the same as the name of the subject. Are you a family member, perhaps? If so you have a conflict of interest, and should read the linked page and follow its advice in editign the article only with care. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The article cited no references at all. I have moved it to Draft:James Lechay. When the referencing has been addressed (and any other issues) you can submit it for acceptance as an article. This way, there's no danger of it being nominated for deletion – though it will vanish automatically if no edits are made to it for six months. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to DESiegel and to Pink Ampersand for your responses. Now I am wondering how I can get the notice "Promotes the subject in a subjective manner" deleted as speedily as possible. I believe it is no longer true (if it ever was?) and it could discourage readers. Thanks again.Daniel Lechay (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Lechay, those maintenance tags are inserted manually, by specific editotrs. Any editor may remove them if s/he thinks that the the problem has been fixed. In this case, I think there there may still be a bit of promotional tone. Specifically, the lead section. This currently consists of a series of stitched together quotations, followed by a parenthetical citation, but without any in-text attribution. This might belong in a "Critical response" section, it does not belong in the lead sectuon, which should summerize the article as a whole.
There are other problems with quotes in the draft. All quotes should have three things: an in-text atribution ({xt|According to Marcus Jones...}}; the actual quote, clearly marked with quotation marks or formatted as a block quote; and an inline citation that allows a reader to find and verify the source of the quotation. (Please see Wikipedia:Quotations, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations, and When and why to cite sources.) Some of the quotes in the draft are missing the attribution, some the citation. And consider a citaton such as Barbara Lloyd, Provincetown Arts, 1990. Is "Provincetown Arts" the name of a book, an article, a publication containing an article, or what? Where was it published? Who published it? Is it Provincetown Arts Magazine? If so, what page did the quote appear on? How is the reader to find and verify this quotation?
Text such as The Iowa art department was a highly unusual place - an outpost of modernism in the conservative heartland. It was not surprising, then, that a commissioned portrait of J.W. Maucker, president of the University of Northern Iowa (UNI), catapulted Lechay to brief statewide fame in March 1966. (from the Iowa City years section) presents several opinions/judgements in Wikipedia's voice. This is not acceptable. Who says the art department was unusual? Who thinks that the fame was unsurprising? Such opinions and judgements must be directly attributed to a named person or entity, in an indirect or direct quote, and supported by a direct inline citation. Text such as These are discussed in the book Cape Cod Modern by Peter McMahon. is not a sufficient citation, page or at least chapter info is needed for the reader to have any chance to use the info. As it is it does feel somewhat promotional to me.
I understand that this is still a draft, and under development. I also understand that you are new to Wikipedia editing. Part of the point of putting this into draft mode was to relax such standards while this is under development. But the aim must be to bring nit up to mainspace standards and then move it back to mainspace. Citations do not have to be formatted as footnotes with <ref>...</ref> tags, although that is the most common system on Wikipedia. Parenthetical cies are fine. But one way or anther, ther must be enough info for a reader to verify the facts, and particularly to verify any and all quotes.
I will be happy to help on specific point if my assistance is wanted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That was helpful - changes are coming. Thanks.2620:0:E50:1016:784A:D411:B68B:C1A5 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Why was my page removed??Daniel Lechay (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Lechay: It was moved, not removed. It's currently in draft space at Draft:James Lechay while it's being worked on. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Lechay, it is not your page. Having a sense of ownership of your work here is not a good idea. Read the legend right by the "save changes" button. "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." It will make your life much simpler. John from Idegon (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Regesta

I was just looking through the articles created by User:Regesta. It seems like almost all of the articles are X Ambassador to Y ,here is the list. A few of these have already been deleted. They all seem to be a WP:DIRECTORY of red-linked names, probably something that should be deleted. I was wondering if anyone feels the same way as me, and if any action should be taken? NikolaiHo☎️ 03:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

An additional complication is that many of the titles refer ambiguously to "China", but in some cases they apply to Taipei, and in others to the Peoples Republic of China. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Creating a company page

I am new to Wikipedia and intend to create a company profile page. I tried using the sandbox but somehow was unable to hyperlink certain texts to pages within Wikipedia, only a single word was getting hyperlinked instead of the selected two or three words. Please guide.124.153.81.170 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. First, Wikipedia does not have "profiles", but articles about subjects. This is not social media, but an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guidelines, in this case those for businesses. Please review those guidelines before attempting to create an article. Please understand that not every business merits an article here; as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is more selective about its content.
Second, while you don't say one way or the other, if you are associated with the company, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy and possibly the paid editing policy(which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid by the company).

:I'm not certain but I believe you must be logged into a username before being permitted to link to other pages. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I would add that Wikipedia is not interested in what a business says about itself, but what independent sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood your question; to link to other Wikipedia articles, simply place the target page's title in double brackets like this: [[Page name here]]. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Even to add external links, links to pages outside Wikipedia, one does not have to be logged in. However in that case one does have to respond to a CAPTCHA to avoid bulk scripted addition of spam links. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You may well find it helpful to register for a free account, and log in when editing. This has several benefits, although it is not required. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to be more thorough in my checking of policy before making editorial decisions as I've come to realize just how much policy there is, and something that's been bugging me is the usage is of Template:Interlanguage link vs Template:Interlanguage Link [en] (pardon if formatting is messy I can't preview bc the teahouse is weird). The Interlanguage links help page says that "It is sometimes possible to combine the two approaches" of leaving the English redlink with the parenthetical ILL after it, but I can't imagine a reason why this approach would ever be impossible. I mostly just want to know what the preferred option is, because up till now I've been trying to avoid redlinks and hence linking to people like Pierpaolo Vargiu in such a way that the redlink isn't visible but now that I'm seeing ILL templates left and right I'm not sure if this is right. Should I be using Pierpaolo Vargiu [it] in such situations? Mehmuffin (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I was able to answer this on Mehmuffin's talk page but thought I should also note it here for the archive record. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Non-English-language sites recommends that readers be informed if a link goes to a non-English target. This can be written-out in the prose, or by using a "language icon" template immediately after the link. In the above example to the sister-project article :it:Pierpaolo Vargiu, use the two-letter code to the Italian wikipedia as either {{link language|it}} or {{it icon}}. This will produce: it:Pierpaolo Vargiu(in Italian). (Note that interwiki links are a slightly lighter blue.) This can be used in the lead, body, and the Exernal links section. For foreign-language references in a citation template, the parameter |language= should be used (in this example, using "it"). The language codes match those of the foreign-language wikipedias, or can be found on the list of ISO 639 codes. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

How to Rename Page for St. Paul's Episcopal Church (Augusta, Georgia)

Hi, my name is Susan Yarborough, but my login is Lady Serif. I am editing the above referenced page and am a definite newbie.

The original charter of St. Paul's Episcopal Church (Augusta, Georgia) states that its name is Saint Paul's Church. That is the name that has been used for the church historically in the city of Augusta since its founding in 1750. The name "St. Paul's" in the National Register Information Database is unhistorical and steps are being taken to change it there. How can I change the name in the page heading and if necessary have the page moved to reflect the church's historic name?

Many thanks.

Susan Yarborough, Lady Serif Lady Serif (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lady Serif,  Done Seems to check out with the church's website. I have moved the article to Saint Paul's Church (Augusta, Georgia). TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, Many thanks for the quick response. Lady SerifLady Serif (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit my Article

Hi there, would please be able to walk me through why my article does not conform to wikipedia guidelines? It would be greatly appreciated.

Leslie16 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Article is Global_RESP_Corporation - at a quick glance, it sounds like an advertisement for a company (*in fact, this is taken from the company's own website*) and has no sources linked. It also doesn't list anything that would lend itself to WP:Notability. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Leslie16: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome. The first thing I immediately noticed about your article is that it does not have independent reliable sources to support its content(no sources at all, for that matter). Those independent sources must indicate how the company meets the company notability guidelines. Being independent means that the sources must not be related to this company in any way. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, but what others say about it.
I also noticed that the article reads as if it was from the company's website or is an advertisement. It uses very promotional language("With nearly 20 years of experience, GRESP has become one of the fastest-growing companies in the Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) industry") and even attempts to persuade potential customers("Both of the plans allow you to save for your child’s post-secondary education") both of which are promotional purposes and not permitted. The article needs to have a neutral point of view.
Lastly, if you work for this company, it is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest. If that is the case, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy; and you will also need to read and comply with the paid editing policy, which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid relationship with an article subject. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft vs Sandbox

Hey guys! A newbie here. I would like to start creating articles but I am a little confused about the difference between Sandbox and a Draft. Which one should I start using when creating an article? Thank you!

Saravazq (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Saravazq! Welcome to Teahouse. Using draft is optional but recommended. If you are unsure about layout or anything, you can experiment/or draft your article on sandbox first. Either way is fine. Let us know how it goes! Alex ShihTalk 17:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A sandbox is generally a page for experimenting, testing and trying different things. Meanwhile, a draft is intended to be a work-in-progress of a proposed article. That being said, it really doesn't matter that much which namespace you use. You can start an article in draft namespace and experiment with it (the "Preview" button next to the save button when editing can spare you an edit history full of test edits, while letting you see the results of your attempts), or you can create an article draft in your sandbox. Few editors are going to hold it against you if you pick what they perceive to be the "wrong" namespace for your editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Good question. I take the view that a sandbox is private and a draft is public. I will rarely interfere with a sandbox without explicit permission from its owner, but I may correct what I see as errors in a draft. I am not aware that this behavior is supported by any official guidelines, but I'm sure I'm not the only editor who makes this distinction. Maproom (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:Maproom. A sandbox is for experimentation, and is a type of user page. Like any user page, it belongs primarily to the user. There are some rules, but it belongs primarily to the user. A page in draft space, on the other hand, belongs to the community, not to any one user. You can submit either a sandbox draft or a page in draft space for AFC review. If you submit a page in user space, such as a sandbox, for AFC review, the reviewer is likely to move it to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree to some extent. A draft invites anyone to edit in a cooperative way. A user sandbox, not so much. But a sandbox that is functioning as a draft, with what is obviously indented to be the start of an article, i will feel free to edit to help out, particularly when the user has asked (say here at the Teahouse) how to do something, i may edit to give an example. I might, for instance, format one or two cites properly. If the {{userspace draft}} template is in place, and the user clicks submit, the ACH volunteer who reviews it will normally move the page to draft space unless it is approved and moved to he main article space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you guys. I started an article using my sandbox since I am still learning and experimenting and it sounds like it is better to keep working on it there. I really appreciate your guidance. I'll probably be back here soon with more questions :)

Saravazq (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:Dates in Wikipedia

I saw Dates in Wikipedia by User:Jroehl on New Page Patrol. It didn’t have references, which I know are always required in article space, and it appeared to be of more interest to Wikipedia editors than to general readers. I moved it to Wikipedia space as WP:Dates in Wikipedia. Will other editors please look at it and see if they think that was a reasonable quick decision? I thought it was likely to be deleted, and ought to be deleted, in article space, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting (although not surprising) piece of work by Jroehl in my opinion, although I would like to know better how he identifies a date as such in running text. Had this been reliably published elsewhere, it could make a valid article here. As it is, it would be WP:OR in article space, but seems perfectly valid to me in project space, Robert McClenon. Thanks for moving it.
Just to be pedantic, if an article is not a BLP, does not use any quotations, nor make any statements that are contentious or likely to be challenged, it need not have any sources, or can rely solely on general sources with no inline cites. Some of the mathematics articles fit that description, for example. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
User:DESiegel - Well, about sources, if a new article on a technical topic has no sources, I will tag it as having no sources. A general source may be fine, but any article should have at least one source. If a BLP has no sources, then I will normally propose it for deletion, with a few exceptions. If a BLP says that someone plays in a first-tier soccer league or is an African senator, I will tag it as having no sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the only time that I can recall on New Page Patrol that I have seen something that seemed out of place in article space and appropriate in Wikipedia space. I have from time to time seen pages that were obviously meant to be in user space, and, in those cases, I have moved them to user space. Since this is the first time I made a judgment call to move something to Wikipedia space, I thought that I would ask for another opinion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel,

We collect all dates with the following formats. Substitute MONTH with a month name and the number sign (#) with numbers. It takes a fast computer about 3 weeks to collect 38 million dates from 5 million articles. This is serious data processing. We know there must be historians out there that will be interested in our data, we just don't know how to let them know we have this comprehensive and gigantic resource.

List of expressions to match
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. and # MONTH ####
  1. and ## MONTH ####
  1. MONTH
  1. MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### - # MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### - ## MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### and # MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### and ## MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### until # MONTH
  1. MONTH #### until ## MONTH
    1. and # MONTH ####
    1. and ## MONTH ####
    1. MONTH
    1. MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### - # MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### - ## MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### and # MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### and ## MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### until # MONTH
    1. MONTH #### until ## MONTH
        1. - # MONTH ####
        1. - ## MONTH ####
        1. - ####
        1. - MONTH ####
        1. - MONTH ##, ####
        1. - MONTH #, ####
        1. account
        1. and ####
        1. decision
        1. or ####
        1. plan
        1. saw
        1. through ####
        1. to ####
        1. -# MONTH
        1. -# MONTH ####
        1. -##
        1. -## MONTH
        1. -####
        1. -MONTH #
        1. -MONTH ##
        1. -MONTH ####
        1. -MONTH #, ####
    1. -# MONTH ####
    1. -## MONTH ####
  1. -# MONTH ####
  1. -## MONTH ####

's ####

's #### - ####

's ####-####

(#### - ####)

(####)

(####-####)

(####-##)

(b. ####)

(c. ####)

(d. ####)

(r. #### - ####)

(r. ####-####)

A ####

a ####

About ####

about ####

About #### - ####

about #### - ####

About ####-####

about ####-####

Act ####

After ####

after ####

After MONTH

after MONTH

An ####

an ####

any MONTH

Approaching ####

approaching ####

Around ####

around ####

Around MONTH

around MONTH

As ####

as ####

As early as MONTH

as early as MONTH

As MONTH

as MONTH progressed

As Of ####

As of ####

as of ####

As of MONTH

as of MONTH

At ####

at ####

At Least ####

at least ####

Autumn ####

autumn ####

Before ####

before ####

Before MONTH

before MONTH

Between #### and ####

between #### and ####

Born ####

born ####

By ####

by ####

By MONTH

by MONTH

C. ####

c. ####

c. #### - ####

ca. #### - # MONTH ####

ca. #### - ## MONTH ####

Celebrated ####

celebrated ####

Day ####

day ####

days of MONTH

Died ####

died ####

During ####

during ####

During MONTH

during MONTH

During MONTH and MONTH

during MONTH and MONTH

Early ####

early ####

early MONTH

early MONTH ####

election, ####

end of MONTH

Fall ####

fall ####

following ####

For ####

for ####

for a MONTH

for MONTH

From ####

from ####

From MONTH

from MONTH

From MONTH #### to MONTH ####

from MONTH #### to MONTH ####

From MONTH #### until MONTH ####

from MONTH #### until MONTH ####

From MONTH through MONTH ####

from MONTH through MONTH ####

From MONTH to MONTH

from MONTH to MONTH

From MONTH until MONTH

from MONTH until MONTH

From MONTH until MONTH ####

from MONTH until MONTH ####

Her ####

her ####

Her MONTH

her MONTH

His ####

his ####

His MONTH

his MONTH

In ####

in ####

In #### and ####

in #### and ####

In a MONTH

in a MONTH

In MONTH

in MONTH

in MONTH or MONTH

Into MONTH

into MONTH

Its ####

its ####

Late ####

late ####

late as MONTH

Late MONTH

late MONTH

Late-####

late-####

Late-MONTH

late-MONTH

Later ####

later ####

Mid ####

mid ####

mid MONTH

Mid-####

mid-####

mid-MONTH

MONTH #

MONTH # #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH # #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH # - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH # - MONTH #, ####

MONTH # and #

MONTH # and ##

MONTH ##

MONTH ## #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ## #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH ## - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ## - MONTH #, ####

MONTH ## and #

MONTH ####

MONTH #### - MONTH ####

MONTH #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH #### and MONTH ####

MONTH #### to ####

MONTH ##, #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ##, #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ##, #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ##, #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH ##-##, ####

MONTH ##-#, ####

MONTH #, #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH #, #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH #, ####

MONTH #, #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH #, #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH #-##, ####

MONTH #-#, ####

MONTH and MONTH

MONTH and MONTH ####

MONTH day

MONTH or MONTH

MONTH or MONTH ####

MONTH to MONTH

MONTH visit

MONTH, ####

MONTH-MONTH ####

months of MONTH-MONTH

Of ####

of ####

of #### - ####

of ####-####

of MONTH

On ####

on ####

Pre ####

pre ####

Pre-####

pre-####

Preceding ####

preceding ####

previous MONTH

Since ####

since ####

Since MONTH

since MONTH

Spent ####

spent ####

Spring ####

spring ####

start of MONTH

subsequent ####

Successful ####

successful ####

Summer ####

summer ####

That MONTH

that MONTH

The ####

the ####

The #### - ####

the #### - ####

The ####-####

the ####-####

The following MONTH

the following MONTH

The MONTH

the MONTH

Their ####

their ####

Through ####

through ####

through MONTH

Throughout ####

throughout ####

Throughout MONTH

throughout MONTH

Throughout MONTH and MONTH

throughout MONTH and MONTH

Till ####

till ####

To ####

to ####

Until ####

until ####

Until MONTH

until MONTH

Until MONTH #

until MONTH #

upcoming MONTH

Winter ####

winter ####

With ####

with ####

Year ####

year ####

year, ####

Jroehl (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jroehl a link to another page might have been better. But no major problem.
I think this is interesting and original research, in a quite positive sense. It should really be published somewhere, is some appropriate academic journal. I have no idea which one, however. But it is not approapriate for a wikipedia article while it is new and unpublished, as per WP:OR. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
As you said, it isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article in article space. That is why I moved it to Wikipedia project space. The Notability policy only applies in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, before we can get published we need to get noticed. It really is a catch 22. Nobody will notice we have this, because nobody knows we have this. It is pretty frustrating, actually.

Jroehl (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether a journal would publish this, Jroehl, but the way to get it noticed by a journal would be to submit it to that journal. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Jroehl: Another consideration might be writing up a short article for the Signpost, specifically pointing out that this data set would be available for anyone who wishes to use it in research. The Signpost does cover this kind of wiki-analysis stuff (best check with the people there, naturally :), and it is part of the public face of Wikipedia, so you might get a good amount of dissemination that way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal Doctors Forum

Why my page is not published?? ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim1464 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In the future, it would help us answer your questions if you 1.) signed your posts with four tilde's (~~~~) and 2.) posted a link to the article in question. Thanks in advance. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Karim1464: the article you started, West Bengal Doctors Forum, is still there and despite what you have (mis)posted elsewhere there has been no proposal to delete it as yet. Nthep (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Karim1464: I suspect Karim1464 is wondering why a search on Google (or another such engine) is not finding the article. This is because the article was only created 2 days ago (17 july 2017). New articles are not exposed to Google's (etc) indexing web crawlers until either 90 days after creation, or after the New pages patrol process has reviewed them as acceptable, whichever is sooner.
As the article currently stands, it is unlikely to be passed, and likely to be proposed for deletion, because apart from other considerations it only has 2 attempted references, and neither has been entered correctly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.81.64 (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sports Team Page

Hello,

I've been requested to increase publicity for a British American Football team. Unfortunately the first page I did was tagged for speedy deletion. Many other similar teams have pages and justbwondering how to have a page stay rather than deleted.

Any help would be great.

Thanks in advance, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingm74 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wingm74: I'm not sure what you mean by "been requested"; but if you are associated with this team, it is likely a conflict of interest. If you are employed by the team or otherwise paid by them to edit here, you would be required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare such status.
Please note that Wikipedia is not social media or to be used for promotional purposes like publicity. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable, typically with in depth coverage of the subject(not things like press releases or brief mentions). Not every organization merits a page here, even within the same field or sport; each page is judged on its own merits. I cannot see your page as it has been deleted, but if it did not have independent sources, or was promotional in nature, it was correct to not be accepted.
If you have independent sources, I would suggest drafting a page at Articles for Creation(especially if you have a conflict of interest) which you can then submit for review before formally being placed in the encyclopedia. You may also wish to read your first article to learn more about the process first. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You ought to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination) to see why an earlier version of the article was deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Could we get an editor to look at a draft page please?

My teen students have been working hard on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Girls_Inc._of_the_Island_City and would love if an editor could give us some feedback on whether it is real to go live.

We have been using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Incorporated_of_Southwestern_Connecticut as a template of a local Girls Inc. group and trying to go beyond that.

Thanks!ChrisBennett (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChrisBennett: Thank you for requesting feedback. My concern is that this local group has not met the hurdle of being notable per WP:ORG. As a rule, most local affiliates of a national organization aren't. While Island City is sourced more extensively than SWCT, it looks like a lot of the sources discuss individual people and the national organization rather than the local group. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you that is great feedback. We will continue working on this.ChrisBennett (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ChrisBennett. I suggest you review the link C.Fred gave before working further on the draft, because if the subject does not in fact meet the criteria for notability, any work you put into the draft will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
ChrisBennett, I would add that some of the content in Draft:Girls Inc. of the Island City appears to have been copied and pasted from another website (http://www.girlsinc.org/about/president-and-ceo.html), the text of which is protected by copyright. (Scroll down to the bottom of that website and you will see the copyright notice.) As such, that means that we cannot include the text wholesale in Wikipedia, and so I've gone ahead and removed that text. The correct thing to do is to paraphrase the text, retaining the essential ideas but rewriting them in one's own words. You can learn more about Wikipedia's policy on copyright here. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 15:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

De-orphaning my article

I do understand the meaning of an article being an orphan. But can anyone here help me to de-orphan my article Whiteplains British School since there are some lists of articles or links link to it? I have tried to de-orphan the same article but not sure I succeeded. Meanwhile, it is difficult for the article to be located on Wikipedia for readership? Thanks--Nwachinazo (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The orphan tag has already been removed. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of Latin term suo jure or English translation in one's own right

In your opinion, should I use the term suo jure or the English translation "in his/her own right", with a link to the article Suo jure, to describe female rulers and their husbands who held titles of their own? Векочел (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that you should use "in his/her own right", with a link. I'm fonder than most of using obscure Latin phrases, but I think that one is too obscure for a general-interest article. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Векочел. This seems to fall under MOS:JARGON. You have a choice between wording that most readers are going to understand immediately, and click the wikilink to read more if they're interested, and wording where most readers are going to be forced to follow the wikilink to understand at all. In these kinds of cases, unless you are losing substantial meaning, it's usually best to go with the option that is more beneficial for the most reader. TimothyJosephWood 12:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

COI Question

I would like to edit an article for which I have a COI. I work for one of the companies the biography article person owns. My intent is to update and add facts in as neutral a way as possible. I would source every fact. My question is, can I do the edits or do I just suggest them?Portlandholdings (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Portlandholdings: First, you need to review and comply with the paid editing policy before further edits, which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Is your username that of a company? If so you will need to change it as usernames cannot be that of a company. You can visit this page to do so. To create a page if you have a COI, you can visit Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft for review.331dot (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Our guest is asking about editing an existing article, 331dot. The best way to proceed is to request edits on the article's talk page, Portlandholdings. This is explained at WP:COIREQ. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Could I know

Hi I am from India and I want to create a wiki page and I want to add photo in a person's info box Help me !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Immanuel Saviour Lavy (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Joshua Immanuel Saviour Lavy. Before you get right down to writing, it will probably save you some time and frustration if you review our tutorial on writing your first article, or take our interaction tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure.
As to an image, images of living people on Wikipedia have to be licensed in a way that they are usable by anyone for any reason, and they have to be released by the person who owns the copyright, which is usually the person who took the picture. If you have a picture you have taken yourself, then you can go to Wikimedia Commons and upload it there. Otherwise you'll probably have to wait until someone else does, because images that are already available on the internet are usually not usable here. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Citing Email Source

Greetings! I am creating my first page, this about an artist who is dead. I am in contact with his son and receiving information for the page from him. I don't see how to cite information from an email (is this even allowed?). Very little information about this artist has been published, so I am sure I'm going to get a lot of information from his son. Many thanks in advance. Christopher Cgm95 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cgm95. All article content needs to be based on reliable, published sources; emails are not acceptable, and neither are personal interviews you conduct using any other means. See the policy on original research for more details. If you're creating a new article, you should also be aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines: this is the general one and this one provides specific guidance on artists. It's important that you understand what notability means, in Wikipedia parlance, if you want your article to be accepted. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck! RivertorchFIREWATER 14:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Cgm95. It seems like the first thing to consider is, if very little has been published about the individual, whether they meet our notability guidelines to begin with. If they do not, then writing the article is probably a waste of time since it is likely to eventually get deleted for being non-notable.
Second, personal correspondence with the family can be helpful if they are doing things like pointing you to secondary publications that you might not otherwise be aware of, but if they are giving you unique unpublished information, then that is probably getting into the realm of original research, which is fine for writing on pretty much literally any other site on the internet, but is expressly prohibited on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 14:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Where did all the blackbirds go?

Really though, where did they go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aritra.g (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Are any of these what you're looking for? Blackbird - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how to edit an article with references on it

Hi, I want to be able to edit a paragraph of text that contains some references (6 to be exact). I need to add some more text and also another 5 references. I have tried clicking the edit button against the paragraph I need to amend and that works OK. However, when I need to do the same in the references the edit window opens and is blank; the existing 6 references are not there... I was hoping they would be showing and I could just add my 5 additional references to them. Help please... :( 2A00:23C4:565E:D800:2045:814C:BFCD:4732 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. Most of the time references on Wikipedia are added "inline", meaning that they're actually in the paragraph along with the text, and they are then "transported" to the reference section using {{reflist}}. So when you type something like this:
Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref>

 ==References==
 {{reflist}}
What you get is something like this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."[1]

References

  1. ^ The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. Epic Records.
Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

How to reference a game site

Hi I wrote an article about my game RheAbi, but the only reference I could come up with was my game website rheabi.com. According to the editor that was the only thing that got my article refused. I got referred back to Wikipedia's instruction pages, and I intend to read them again, but I didn't find anything clear on how to get references for games. I thought I'd ask you people here to see if any of you may have some suggestions for me. Thanks. Checkseal (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Checkseal, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is probably not going to be one you like (I say probably, because I haven't done the research myself - you're better placed to do so). The key question is, who is there that has no connection with you, and that has published in-depth material about your game, in a reliable source? Not you or your friends or publishers; not anything based on an interview or press release from you; and not a blog, wiki or social media, but something published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial care and fact-checking. The most likely sources for a game would be reviews in respected magazines or (edited) websites. If there are such sources, great - an article can be written. If they don't exist, then don't waste your time, because no article on the game will be accepted however it is written, as in that case it will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If the sources do exist, then the article needs to be based almost 100% on what these sources say: Wikipedia is not interested in what you (or I!) know as editors, only in what the published sources say; and it is especially not interested in what the subject or those closely connected with the subject say or want to say about it. And that points to a further difficulty: if it is your game, then you have a conflict of interest, and you are discouraged from writing about it directly. Not forbidden: if the sources exists, and you can write a neutral article based on those independent sources, then that is fine; but expect to have your draft closely inspected.
My suggestion would be that you don't try at all: if your game is or becomes notable (in the Wikipedia sense linked to above) then somebody will probably write an article about it. But I suggest you find a topic that you do not have a close connection with and try thata - have a look at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, for starters you should read WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your game, nor should anyone involved in an article subject edit those articles. Second, primary sources are not sufficient to base an article on. If your game has not gotten significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should not have an article. I'm sorry to disappoint. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_642&oldid=1138689922"