Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 654

Archive 650

←

Archive 652

Archive 653

Archive 654

Archive 655

Archive 656

→

Archive 660

Notability: "independent of subject" for large collaborative journalistic projects

I'm constructing a userspace draft for the Documenting Hate project of ProPublica, and I have a question about the application of the notability criteria. Documenting Hate is a very large collaborative project among a number of journalistic and academic organizations (currently almost 100, including many prominent names). There is no problem with finding news stories from reliable sources that describe it. The problem is that most journalistic organizations that write about the Documenting Hate collaboration immediately join it! Indeed, most of the news stories about it, while including ample descriptive material about the project in general, double as announcements that the news organization publishing the story has joined Documenting Hate. There are a few substantive stories about Documenting Hate from organizations that have not (yet) joined it, such as the Nieman Lab story cited in my current draft, but not nearly as many as from organizations that have joined.

So my question is: would all of those news organizations be disqualified as "not independent of the subject" for having joined it? Note that most joined after was created; they were not involved in its creation as ProPublica was. Syrenka V (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Syrenka V, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Since your question is more about notability than the reliability of the sources, you might consider asking for advice at the Articles for Creation help desk, even if you don't plan to go through the AfC process. I would think that there must be some negative coverage of the project from right-leaning media such as the Washington Times which could help establish notability as well as giving the article balance. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist! I'll take my question to AfC. Thanks also for the tip about right-wing sources with critical coverage. I did indeed find several, but I didn't recognize any of them as being in the same class as the Washington Times for reliability. I'll take a closer look. —Syrenka V (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I've reposted my main query on AfC. On the topic of reliable right-wing sources: I didn't find anything relevant from the Washington Times, but I did find this from the Daily Caller. I had actually seen this on my first search, and dismissed the Daily Caller as a right-wing counterpart to BuzzFeed rather than a serious journalistic source. If I'm wrong about that, though, this story would be a tremendous help. The Wikipedia article on the Daily Caller mentions some controversies over factual reliability; it's not clear to me whether the situation is really any worse than for typical mainstream media. How is the Daily Caller generally regarded as a source on Wikipedia? —Syrenka V (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Be careful Syrenka V. A great deal of "right wing sources" are unreliable sources, because very unfortunately, the current playing field is that much of what is smeared as "liberal media" are sources that report facts, and much of what is termed right wing media is yellow journalism that is attempting to report "alternative facts" a/k/a demonstrative bullshit (there is no such thing as alternative facts, there are only facts). Even more unfortunately, many people do not digest a dialectic of sources or read source material and have no basis to come to their own conclusions and so swallow and regurgitate that terrible skewing of reality, thinking of it as just two sides of an "issue" for matters that are empirically either 0 or 1.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I totally agree with you about right-wing "alternative facts", but the reliability of the Daily Caller is a separate question. I'll say more on your talk page. —Syrenka V (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit and Syrenka V, is there confusion between whether a source is reliable for factual claims and whether we can cite it for its opinions here? Many sources are unreliable, but we still report opinions that they advance. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Update on my inquiry at AfC. The response I got: one sentence saying hello, one sentence tersely answering my question, with no explanation of why — and four sentences trying to convince me that I should consider waiting several years to try to write a page on the "Documenting Hate" collaboration, since it might take that long for scholarly sources on the topic to appear. Impressive. This is why I didn't take my inquiry to AfC in the first place; this kind of answer is about what I would expect from reading responses to other inquiries there. The very name "Articles for Creation" strikes me as Orwellian; it seems to be more about talking people out of creating articles than actually helping to create them. Your suggestion to look for right-wing sources was far more constructive and helpful. I do have several other questions about creation of the article, which (like this one) have more to do with the fundamental policies and procedures involved than with the specifics of this particular topic. They might be a bit lengthy for the Teahouse. Would you be willing to have a discussion in depth on your talk page — or, if you prefer, my talk page? —Syrenka V (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, @Syrenka V:. I'm sorry you didn't have better luck at AfC; in their defense, they have an enormous backlog and are very busy tackling submitted articles. (I only recently returned to Wikipedia after a long hiatus and hadn't realized how bad the backlog was when I suggested you ask there.) You're welcome to take this discussion to either your talk page or mine and I will be happy to respond in either place. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist! Much appreciated. I've opened the discussion on my own talk page. —Syrenka V (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

How can one chat with other users?

I simply want to know the way(s) someone can communicate with the other users on Wikipedia. Thank you!

P. S. Thank you to Hostbot for inviting me to the Teahouse! I will probably use this a lot. Thanks! puml Puml (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Puml: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you are looking for something beside talk pages or E-mail user, you may be interested in checking out IRC. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 06:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The basic way to communicate with other users is the talk page. Every article has its own talk page: for instance, the article Human has a talk page called Talk:Human. If you want to discuss improving an article, you'd use that article's talk page. If you want to contact another user to discuss something not directly related to improving an article, you should use their user talk page. For instance, my username is User:Rivertorch and my user talk page is User talk:Rivertorch. Check out Help:Using talk pages for advice on how to use talk pages and user talk pages. (Like many aspects of Wikipedia, it's not always intuitive for new users.) As Alex Shih said, there are other options, such as email and IRC. Email is preferable if you and another user both want to have extended chats on topics that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Paraphasing and Earwig

Hello. I've written my first draft article and Earwig results are showing numbers as high as 38%. I believe the high numbers are due to the subject of the article – a crime – and many of the sources are paraphrasing police news releases which I have not been able to find online. There are only so many ways to phrase the material, and it picks up many strings like "two counts of second-degree murder, one count of attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one charge of reckless discharging of a firearm." Should I be concerned about that? (BTW, I want to go through the regular process for draft submission, the draft is too long for a casual review.) – Reidgreg (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg 38% is actually quite low, as you've seen it's picking up several standard jargon phrases, nothing to worry about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, good! It had actually been at 48% and I was running out of ways to rephrase. Thanks for the quick reply. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to have a percentage that high on that kind of article. (Lists are sometimes given almost 100% copyvio potential by Earwig because you are simply listing a few facts, often in table format, like sports results.) That's acceptable because there are only so many ways to say somebody was murdered, and any good reviewer will check. I've been through a similar situation at DYK. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I also patrolled your draft and gave it a quick skim. I think it's in great shape and probably ready for mainspace. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been doing a year of cleanup and copyedit, so it's probably more polished than the average first article. After a couple months in the mainspace I'll probably put it up for GAN. I want to go through all the processes, though, in case I ever want to be a reviewer, patroller, or maybe even a Teahouse Host! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Reidgreg, Remember that there is no copyright on a fact, and if there are only a few natural ways to express it, none of them is original enough to be copyrighted either. Also "obvious" arrangements of facts, such as in alphabetical or chronological order, have no copyright under US law, as a consequence of the Feist vs Rural decision. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I have reviewed and accepted the article, per the AFC process. You're obviously a competent article creator so please do not use AFC in future. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

guidance for a beginner

Hello, I am a beginner and have been reading lots of the pages on how to get started. As a visual learner i find it easier to watch others doing something than trying to to follow written instructions. I am wondering how did others learn to be more confident when they first started out? Also, I am sorry this is probably a silly question but is the sandbox a draft place for me to practice before I do anything and can only i see in my sandbox or is it open to everyone? Thanks DebraCerasa DebraCerasa (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Sandbox is a draft for you to practice everything, however you cannot put libelous, defamatory, or slander in the sandbox and you are the only one who can see in your sandbox. And this isn't a silly question, you're more than welcome to ask and help. Sp4ce p0t4t0 (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@DebraCerasa: Welcome to the Teahouse. Sp4ce p0t4t0 (talk · contribs)'s answer is wrong; all users can see the content of your sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

thank you and I appreciate the welcome and the response. I totally understand the libelous, defamatory or slander comment - I would not do that any where - my social media, my email or definitely not wikipedia. Thanks David for your information. DebraCerasa DebraCerasa (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

sorry, I thought only yourself could see the contents of the sandbox. My bad @User:David Biddulph Sp4ce p0t4t0 (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's true that only you are likely to see your sandbox, because no-one else knows that it exists unless they look at your edit history. Dbfirs 08:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

DebraCerasa if you are a visual learner, you might want to take a look at instructions in video form: Wikipedia:Research help/Videos. As for your question, many of us - including me - started with very tentative edits. Confidence does build over time. When you interact with editors you begin to form a clearer picture of what Wikipedia is about and how it works behind the scenes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

When a sandbox page is created, it shows up on the new pages feed, and may well be looked at by a member of the new page patrol. Changes to a sandbox shoe up on the Recent Changes special page. Edit Filters may apply, and may alert other editors. Such changes will show up in the contributions list of the user, which anyone may look at. And a sandbox page may show up in internal searches of Wikipedia. It is not safe to assume that no one will look at sandbox content, although it is less likely to be reviewed than many other pages, unless it is submitted for AfC review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@DebraCerasa, if you create your sandbox, then everyone can see it by searching User:DebraCerasa/sandbox, the link is red because you have not created your sandbox, you can see sandbox of any user by searching User:Username/sandbox (change 'Username' by name of user whose sandbox you want to see). For example you can read my sandbox by searching User:Nazim Hussain Pak/sandbox. But it is clear, everyone can read every article. Sinner (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear everyone thank you so much for the help and assistance - this has been great. Very grateful for all the advice. Cheers DebraCerasa DebraCerasa (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Contining this discussion: How do I do a readability test within Wikipedia?

I'm copying below a question by User:PlanetCare and answer from the archive (from 22 March) as I don't think it was discussed sufficiently yet (I will put a new answer at the end):

++++ I've been using "copy and paste" to put text into an MSW doc, and then doing the readability test from there. This can't go on!......there must be a way to do a check inside Wikipedia. Help. and Thank You.PlanetCare (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PlanetCare. Are you referring to this sort of readability test? I'm afraid I can't find any evidence of on-Wikipedia readability tests. There was a proposal in 2008 where a bunch of editors said it was a good idea but apparently no one ever did anything about it. Sorry, but it looks like there is no way to do such a check in Wikipedia right now. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there is a tool I found here, not on Wikipedia but Wikipedia-related, which gives the readability of all pages in a given category (up to 50). There's a similar tool here. But that's maybe less convenient still since you can't just copy-paste the article text. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The tool for assessing 50 pages all at once is worth something. but it's not the kind of specific tool that will "drive action." I want to be able to show my co-writers that if they pay attention to readability they can actually influence the score, and increase the chances that people will understand what they have to say.

Any chance of restarting the conversation, to see if we can get a better tool inside of wikipedia? I'm very new to wikipedia and have been working on sanitation related pages in the lead up to World Water Day. PlanetCare (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC) ++++

I have found this tool which calculates automated Flesch scores for readability: http://www.readabilityofwikipedia.com/ Any good?

Secondly I came across an old project page from 2012 which provided metrics to assess readability and other quality parameters of Wikipedia articles manually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article_quality#Metric (I also wrote on the talk page there).

However this doesn't solve your desire to have an automated readability assessment tool. - Does anyone else know anything in that respect, other than the replies given so far? From our experience with WikiProject Sanitation, the readability score of many Wikipedia articles is quite low (meaning the articles are difficult to read and understand). This means we are potentially not reaching a huge number of people who are less educated and unwilling to read through a cumbersome, complicated Wikipedia article (or those who are not native English speakers). User:Doc James, has WikiProject Medicine looked at assessment tools to quickly assess readability scores of its articles? EMsmile (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

how upload own created page on english wikipedia?

I have created a wikipedia page of goverment ayurvedic college balangir but can't upload this file so how can i upload this page on engliah wikipedia Dhalpale (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to a file upload, such as for an image, your request appeared to be empty. If you are wanting not to upload an image but to create a Wikipedia article, you will find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

How can i write an article

good morning, my question is that: How can i write an articleIbrahimu098 (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ibrahimu098, and welcome to the Teahouse! Creating your first article is really interesting, and you would find the details on creating your first article on Wikipedia:Your first article. Feel free to ask again when in doubt. Cheers! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Hi Ibrahimu098. Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is about edit conflict

Gouhar! After saving an edit after preview, if I find something wrong in my text, I go to previous editing box in my browsing cache, edit it again and when I am saving, it is often saved but sometimes it gives me edit conflict with my previously saved text. Can someone explain the mechanism. Have read Help:Edit conflict, but I get edit conflict with my own text. Sinner (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what the answer is here, Nazim Hussain Pak, but can I remind you to communicate in English on the English-language Wikipedia (unless your query is about something that requires use of another language)? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Nazim Hussain Pak has now removed the text my comment referred to. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, Gouhar! It was just urdu translation of English text in title of this thread. My question is two users get edit conflict while editing on same time but I get edit conflict with me. What is mechanism for this? Sinner (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sinner, I believe the problem is that you are using your browser's back button while editing the page. It is not necessary to back-button from an edit preview page, as there is an editing box below the preview area which you can use to make any corrections you like before either previewing the page again or submitting it as-is. I hope this resolves your issue. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 07:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist, Your answer is best but sorry I could not ask the question properly what I wanted to ask. I want to ask when I save an edit, then press back button, edit again and when I save again, at 50% instances it is saved and at 50% instances it becomes edit conflict. I want to ask What is reason for difference in result of same procedure? Sinner (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Suppose an article is in state A. You edit it, to state B, and save it. Now you press the back button, and get to where you were editing a version still in state A. You make some edits, to state C, and try to save. Now the system has been instructed to replace version A by version B and to replace version A by version C: it can't do both, and you get an edit clash.

I don't know of any good reason to use the back button while making a series of edits. I am aware, from my own experience, that using it anyway often causes confusion. Maproom (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

May I know?

Hello everybody! I hope you are doing great. I came across this on the common loon. On clicking log in, it redirects to the common loon article. I am so confused what the link is all about (there are minor changes, like the l's being replaced by w's). Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Prior to logging in, it isn't a redirect, but a copy of the Wikipedia article, with changes as you describe. The deceptive use of the Wikipedia logo on that copy page is pretty certain to be illegal, and the WMF may wish to pursue that aspect. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This "Elmer Fudd Wikipedia" joke site is listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Wikien4 (though in my view the compliance details there are incorrect or at least wanting) as well as at m:Live mirrors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

When is a Wikipedia page a "definition page" and not a "Wikipedia page?"

I added a page recently Auto Play, and it was flagged as being a definition page rather than a wiki page. I thought this reasonable, and so updated the page to provide more content which I hope makes it more Wikipedia-stic (Wikipedic? Wikipedial? Wikipedish?), but I'm not confident that I succeeded. For one thing, it currently lacks references apart from a few in the Critism and Support section, and is a very biased spectrum of references. I know there's some way to flag a page for it's lack of references, but I'm not sure what that is.

What I'm wondering is both the high level question, "When is a page a definition page and not a Wikipedia page?" and specifically how well (or poorly) I accomplished that goal with my updates today (ignoring the references issue for the sake of this question; that is to say, pretend, for the sake of this question, that sufficient references were provided to support the current content---how well does it serve as a Wikipedia page)? SlurperAlmighty (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi SlurperAlmighty, welcome to the Teahouse! I think I see why your page was tagged as a dictionary definition. The main criteria I would use is length. When that tag was added your page was quite short, pretty much only defining the term. Since then, you've expanded the page, going more in depth about autoplaying, so I don't think that tag would apply now. I'm afraid the reference issue isn't something I can ignore totally, as the text of the article should be a summary of the references. As is I'm left wondering where you got all the information that you added. Please try to add more references to support that content. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy

Hello friendly Teahouse helpers. Recently I've written an article for the German Wikipedia about Archäologisches Museum Dion. An article about this subject already exists in the English Wikipedia. The original article is of a good quality but I have some details to add if you don't mind. What is to do? (The article isn't translated yet but you can easily see what I'm writing about). Thank you in advance.--Juergen-Olymp (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Juergen-Olymp, and welcome to the Teahouse. As a general rule, you can paraphrase content (although the source must still be cited) from elsewhere to add the information to a Wikipedia article. You should read Wikipedia:Translation for more detailed instructions as to how this process works when citing from another language Wikipedia. Good luck! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly help--Juergen-Olymp (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

page deletion

i have made page of new actress who has done recent movie i have attached her reference but still page is for deletion Pratham47 (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pratham47, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you've already noticed, anyone can remove the "Proposed for deletion" template, as you did at Pooja K. Doshi. If editors are still not convinced that the article should stay, they can take it to Articles for Discussion. Note that in order for a topic to be notable, it isn't enough that it's properly referenced. Topics are notable only if there exists a significant body of reliable secondary literature (in other words: lots of good references that you may or may not cite already). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Article milestones

How is article milestones in a template currently being consolidated. Is it being done by a bot or by editors? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: By editors, as in this edit. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

how do you cite a website in an article submission?

Hi I am trying to submit an article to Wikipedia and it was recently not approved because of copyright. The copy is a biography of the person I am trying to create the page for. It's used on his website and has also been used to describe him for different panels that he has served on. Please let me know if there is a way to site this so that I can resubmit?

Thank you! Chloesnyder (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If it text used elsewhere you cannot use it on wikipedia, because it is copyrighted. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Chloesnyder, you must rewrite the information in your own words. Do not copy sentences from the source, and do not copy the detailed structure either. Facts may (and should) be copied, and chronological order may be maintained, but the wording and any organization beyond strict chronology must be your own. Then see Referenceing for Beginners on how to cite the source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It is also better, Chloesnyder, if you combine information from two or more sources, and not depend on a single source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chloesnyder. There are ways to use the text directly, but they require that you demonstrate that the content is already in the public domain, or bears a suitable-free copyright license, or, if not yet done by the copyright owner, to explicitly obtain such an irrevocable release of the content under either form I've listed. Such releases must be provided in a verifiable manner – that evidences the person or entity providing the release is, in fact, the copyright owner and thus has the authority to do so. Only if that was done could you copy and paste the content here and not infringe on the copyright. You would still be required to transparently cite (not "site") the source upon your reuse here unless you are the sole author, but it would be okay from a copyright standpoint. (Not citing the source in the case of a public domain release would not be copyright infringement, but would still constitute plagiarism.)

To see how a suitable release is done, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Often copyright holders would not wish to release their content in this manner, and often presenting the requisite proof to do effectively is impossible or a very heavy lift.

Another important issue in this area is that much preexisting content copied to here, even when there is no copyright issue, is not suitable for use here anyway for other reasons, such as tone, style, content, promotional tinge, etc. I believe this is true for a substantial portion of the highly promotional content that was in your deleted sandbox. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

More generally, Chloesnyder, Wikipedia has very little interest in anything which the subject of an article, or their associates, say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them, in reliable places. Very little from what a venue says about its speaker is likely to be usable. --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I use my personal copy of a book as reference for that books article.

I recently read a book and I decided I would have an attempt at making my first wikipedia page so I thought I would do it on that book since it is a semi-recently released so it doesn't have a wikipedia page yet. My actual question is can I use the book as reference for information on the book such as author, publisher, pages, language or will I need to find sources before I submit it for creation. Matz44 (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Matz44, and welcome to the Teahouse. The book itself can be a source for its publication information, such as the author, publisher and date. Moreover, the book itself can be a source for the plot outline. However, that is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Lots of books are published, and most of them are not Notable. To demonstrate the notability of this book, you will need to show that it has been discussed by independent reliable sources. The most common method of ding that is to cite several reviews (preferably at least three) published by mainstream reviewers or publications, or to cite news stories about the book. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You will need to find several independent sources for this information. these sources should be from a reliable source, like a news outlet, not a blog or minor book review site. a reliable source will normally have its own wikipedia page. This requirement is known as notability and you can read more about it here. otherwise your article will just be deleted for not adhering to wikipedia's guidelines. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Also you can create the page at Wikipedia:Sandbox if you want to start it but dont have the whole thing yet. it can be moved to the main wikipedia once finished. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: - There is no point in creating it at Wikipedia:Sandbox, as that page is frequently cleared. Perhaps you intended to suggest to the user that he should create in in his own user sandbox, or in a differently titled user subpage, or in Draft namespace? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Matz44. See also Wikipedia:Notability (books) – the subject-specific notability guideline for books. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:David Biddulph I was referring to that users sandbox, Wikipedia:sandbox just has some useful instructions on what a sandbox is an links to help set up your own. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:Sandbox is the (shared) sandbox, Aguyintobooks. It is true that there is some information in the header about using a personal sandbox, but it is in the middle of other information. Help:Sandbox is a better place to direct people. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

yes. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Will my published userspace draft be patrolled?

Today I created the article Fish pepper, which was only the second article I've ever created on Wikipedia (the first being Chimayo pepper). When I created my first article, I created it in the mainspace after working on it in my sandbox, and it was patrolled shortly after it was created. However, for Fish pepper, I initially created it as a userspace draft, and then moved it into mainspace today (note that I moved the article manually; I did not use AfC). My question is this: is there anything I have to do now in order for my new article to be patrolled? Does it matter that it was published from a draft rather than directly into mainspace, or will it have no effect on patrolling? Name goes here (talk | contribs) 01:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The new page patrol process is now limited to users with a specific user right. There are over 16 thousand pages in the queue at Special:NewPagesFeed, including yours, and a backlog of over 8 months. Some pages may be patrolled sooner if you happen to be lucky, as your previous page was. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I was worried that, because my article was not created in mainspace (rather, it was moved there), it would not appear in Special:NewPagesFeed, and that reviewers wouldn't be able to find my article (fortunately, I was wrong). It so happens that, since I asked my original question here, my article has been patrolled! Name goes here (talk | contribs) 13:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Name goes here. Like David Biddulph told you, it often takes a while for new pages to be patrolled because of the backlog. However, it's possible to select the feed of unpatrolled pages you are patrolling by namespace. In other words, you can select a feed of only mainspace pages, userpages (which is where your draft would be), usertalk, or article talk pages. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Oh, I see. So I guess new page reviewers will see my draft eventually, even if I moved it into mainspace days after I created it in my userspace. Thank you for the information! Name goes here (talk | contribs) 21:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

how come my edit on Eddie Lacy's page was changed?

I made and edit telling people that read about Eddie Lacy how he gained weight and why his numbers dropped Tmillich (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tmillich, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit to Eddie Lacy was reverted by Yankees10, an experienced editor. The edit summery for the revert did not give a reason, but I rather suspect it was because your edit did not cite any source. On Wikipedia we may not edit based on personal beliefs or even personal knowledge, statements should be supported by citations to reliable sources. Read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to cite sources here on Wikipedia -- there are several acceptable ways. My advice at this point is for you to post to Talk:Eddie Lacy, which is the page for discussing how to improve the Eddie Lacy article. Explain why you want to include this information, and how you know it is accurate. List any sources you know of to demonstrate that it is accurate and significant. Then you and any other interested editors can discuss the matter, and perhaps come to a consensus on the subject. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How to get hide selected pages

How to get hide selected pages05:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:F284:292:AB65:4:E0BA:CE7B (talk)  

What you intend by your question is not clear. I am going to assume you are asking about hiding pages you might find offensive/don't want to see for your own reasons, though if your question is about something else, please advise. As to my assumption, there's not much else to do but simply don't visit those pages. Or if you want to make sure you see no images that are offensive to you, you can register for an account, install the user script User:Anomie/hide-images and then always browse while logged in. See further information at Help:Options to hide an image, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, Wikipedia:Offensive material and WP:NOTCENSORED. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! 2405:204:F284:292:AB65:4:E0

BA:CE7B, read Blocking page view, that discussion is about this matter. Sinner (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Need help making the final touches on a draft page before I submit it

It's a basic new page, but I need help with a table and picture thumbnail, please. It's out of my ability.

TheControlled (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

TheControlled: I've made the picture smaller. When using a reference template in English Wikipedia, you need to use English parameter names, e.g. "title" not "titre". Maproom (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

real names

I do wish editors would use their real names. that is allJanemcclure (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As Cordless Larry explained above, Janemcclure, there are good reasons why Wikipedia does not require, and indeed discourages, the use of real names as usernames. I am also a person with disabilities, and as I have been the target of a stalker in the past, I don't wish to make the job of doxxing me any easier on miscreants than necessary. I hope that you have never attracted the attention of such a person, but let me assure you that it is unpleasant to be so targeted.

Another issue to consider is that many people have the same name. I have a cousin named Michael Jackson — no relation to Michael Jackson, of course, but how would Wikipedia handle multiple people who share the same real name? I recently read an article about a woman from New York City who discovered (because they were being held liable for each other's traffic and parking tickets) that there was another woman in NYC who shared not only her name but her exact birthdate... so just adding birth years to the username wouldn't help, and any more detail would open users up to the possibility of identity theft. Also remember that Wikipedia is edited by people from all over the world, not just the United States, so the same-name problem is even larger than Americans typically face with one another.

Finally, authors go by pen names all the time. I don't see how Wikipedia usernames are substantially different. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

well, I work in a wolrd where we are upfront about who we are. that is allJanemcclure (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

WP and many places on the internet are not necessarily like that, and there can be good reasons, see for example Rémi Mathis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Twice in the past 24 hours I have been threatened with legal action by another editor. While they would be laughed out of court if they tried, I would nonetheless prefer not to reveal my real name to editors such as that. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The removal of statements consisting only of originalo research

My article on literary space has the adnotation: 'Statements consisting only of original research should be removed' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_space) - which statements from my article may be considered as those mentioned above? Morie Artch (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Morie Artch, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't know, ask the person who added the tag, Northamerica1000, on their or the article's talk page (though in this case, I've notified them of the discussion we are having here). That person should be able to pinpoint the problematic bits, and maybe even tag them individually with {{Original research inline}}. You are right in thinking that sometimes the extent of the problem is not evident if the whole article is tagged for it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your reply:)

Morie Artch (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure compatibility

There's some sort of compatibility problem with The Wikipedia Adventure. I'm on a mobile device and I can't get any of the missions to work. Is The Wikipedia Adventure not compatible with mobile devices? I need an answer when somebody is available. Cheers. When life gives you lemons... 17:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Axcii and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry it has taken so long for you to get a response.

If you look at the bottom of the Wikipedia Adventure talk page, you'll see the line

* Unfortunately, this game is not supported on tablets and smaller mobile devices.

which is indeed unfortunate, as more and more users are using Wikipedia from these sorts of devices. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well that's a shame. Guess I'll have to resort to reading a few articles instead. Cheers. When life gives you lemons.... 11:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Help

How to Put New Category like ""Personal Life"" on Biography Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premisthebest (talk • contribs) 11:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Premisthebest, welcome to the Teahouse. "Personal Life" doesn't sound like what we call a category so I guess you want a section header. I see you do mobile editing. It looks like == Personal life == in source mode and can be inserted at the top if you edit the following section, or at the bottom if you edit the previous section. See more at Help:Section. In the desktop version it is possible to edit the whole page at once by clicking an edit tab at top. Then you can insert section headers anywhere. At the bottom of mobile pages you may have a "Desktop" link. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, original category name is Category:Personal life. Sinner (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a Category:Personal life but it's not something I would expect on a biography page. It's a common section header. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You. Yes I was talking about section Header. Thank You Very Much Premisthebest (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Replacing a photograph in an entry

There is an article on Wikipedia about my Grandfather. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Williams_(politician)

I have been sent a better photograph by a cousin. It is from a portrait my grandfather had taken in 1944 and is being sent to anyone in the family who wants it.

What is the protocol for replacing it. I don't own the copyright, and I don't even know if it would be subject to copyright. Is is sufficient for me to seek permission from the current owner of the original to post the photo? Olwenw (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Olwenw, and welcome to the Teahouse. The photo is almost certainly still under copyright, and the copyright for a photo in most cases belongs to the person who took the photo, not the person depicted (this is especially the case with professional portraits). Unfortunately this means that the photo in question most likely is not suitable for use on Wikipedia. If there is a studio stamp on the back of the physical photo your cousin has, it might be possible to contact the copyright holder, but even if that happened, the copyright holder would have to grant anyone, anywhere, the right to use the photo for any reason — simply granting permission for it to be used on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Thank you for trying to help Wikipedia by providing a better image; I'm sorry that that probably won't be possible. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that the studio would still exist over 70 years later. How long does copyright persist for? I might have to research NZ copyright law.

Olwenw (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Olwenw: Hello! I checked at Wikimedia Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#New_Zealand (warning, that is a very long page) which says for New Zealand: Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works are protected for life plus 50 years under the Copyright Act of 1994. Sound recordings and films, broadcasts and cable programmes are protected for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were made or broadcast to the public, whichever is later. Works of artistic craftsmanship industrially applied are protected for 25 years after being industrially applied. So it would be public domain if the photographer died before 1967, if I'm reading that right. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I read the copyright act. Under section 21.3 copyright on a commissioned work is owned by the person commissioning it (i.e, my grandfather) and lasts 50 years after his death. So out of copyright in 2020 given that he died in 1970. The cousin who owns the original is the heir (only child of oldest son) and is happy for the picture to be released. Is that going to be okay?

I have a high quality scan and a smaller version. I was intending to use the smaller one. Olwenw (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your cousin would need to go through the steps at Donating Copyrighted Materials. Once those are completed and accepted, the image could be uploaded. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The page is blanked!

Situational Note: this diff shows the edit that blanked the page--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad time is going! I am facing a problem with preview function. See User talk:Nazim Hussain Pak#Blanking the page. Once I was editing a thread from teahouse. When I was done, I saw preview and saved it, all the Teahouse was blanked except my thread. My comment was reverted and it has happened multiple times. Can someone explain why it happens? Should we go back after seeing preview to save our comment? Sinner (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nazim Hussain Pak, Normally, after viewing a preview, one simply clicks "save" if the edit is corect, or edits further if it is not. Using the back button is not a good idea, unless one wants to cancel the edit totally. I have no idea what you have been doing, it appears as if you had edited further unintendedly. Perhaps your edit was highlighted and so pressing some key completely replaced the section. That is only a guess. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, the guess is not right. I started editing that thread, and clicked on preview, it was shown, then I clicked save and whole Teahouse was blanked, except that thread. Sinner (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

By any chance, were you copying and pasting text that you had composed off-wiki? I do this occasionally, and I seem to recall that I once inadvertently clicked the edit tab at the top instead of the edit section tab. Then, when I highlighted what I thought was the section's text and pasted in my replacement, I replaced the entire page contents instead of just the one thread. There are other innocent ways that things like this can happen. If it was something like that, don't worry about it; such edits can always be undone. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, it was not about copy-paste as this was a simple discussion where I maintained neutrality is difficult at sometimes. I was editing single section, not whole teahouse, and my thread was intact after saving, but whole teahouse except only my thread was completely blanked. Sinner (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's weird. If it keeps happening, you may want to drop a note at the Village Pump technical page. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please review my draft

I need feedback to refine this draft so it could pass the review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jane_Chun

If it pass the criteria of review then do I have to move it in the Main (article) namespace? Thank you in advance!

Yuritan0308 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Yuritan0308, and welcome to the Teahouse. In its present form your draft does not seem to cite sufficient sources to establish Jane Chun's notability. Establishing notability is the first hurdle for any new article. Because almost her entire career was in the now-disbanded The Ark group, it is likely that all coverage of her will be passing mentions, not articles or even parts of articles devoted predominantly to her. It looks possible that The Ark might pass the notability test; perhaps you should work on an article on them first (but note that the draft title should be Draft:The Ark (Korean band) since there is already an article about The Ark (Swedish band) and The Ark is a disambiguation page). You are welcome to let the Jane Chun draft languish unsubmitted for some time, so that you can edit it to include sources establishing her notability should they become available, but note that the time limit for drafts is generally considered to be six months from when the draft was last edited to when it can be deleted as abandoned. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I looked at the sources, and they seem to be about the band, and not mention very much about her. Take a look at WP:GNG, that´s your "problem" so to speak, and it may be that there aren´t the sources to satisfy it at this time. And if that´s so, don´t waste time on it. Take a look at this deletion discussion, it might be helpful: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sowon (singer). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)