Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 731

Archive 725

←

Archive 729

Archive 730

Archive 731

Archive 732

Archive 733

→

Archive 735

new page for a person

Hello, I'm a "newb" and was wondering how someone gets a wikipedia page about them. I realize they should be a public personality and that the page should have mentions and links to their appearances/work/etc. What about newer people to the public arena? What constitutes one being eligible for their own page? Thank youKimberlytoday (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kimberlytoday: Hello and welcome. People do not "have pages" on Wikipedia, Wikipedia has articles about people. Wikipedia has no interest in what someone wants to say about themselves, or how they want to be portrayed. Wikipedia is not social media for people to post their resumes or merely list their work experience. In order for someone to merit an article on Wikipedia, they must be written about with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicate how they meet notability guidelines. General notability guidelines for people are listed at WP:BIO, though many specific professions have more specific criteria, like musicians at WP:BAND. If you are asking about possibly creating a page about yourself, you should review the autobiography policy first. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would further add that Wikipedia having an article about someone is not necessarily good for that someone. See this page. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To be more clear, I am referring to Television contestants. I see there are some people who have pages that tell about them, like which shows they have appeared on, etc.. But some have pages and some don't so was wondering what constitutes or warrants one having a page and who initiates it? As an example, see "David Campbell" an ANW contestant on NBC, does he write that or who?Kimberlytoday (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Its "David Campbell (Ninja Warrior)"Kimberlytoday (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kimberlytoday: As for who initiates the creation of an article, that is done by anyone who wishes to and has the proper information and sources to support it. In the vast majority of cases that is not the subject of the article themselves- most of the time the subject is not even aware there is an article here, or is not involved with it at all. While possible, autobiographical articles are highly discouraged per policy at WP:AUTO, as people naturally write favorably about themselves and such an article would have a difficult time of being neutral with its point of view. People who want to write an article about themselves despite the discouragement are strongly advised to submit a draft for an independent review at Articles for Creation.

Not every person merits an article here, even within the same occupation, field, or activity. Not every actor merits a page here, not every politician, and so on. The same goes for TV contestants. Some might merit articles because they receive in depth coverage in independent reliable sources; contestants who do not get such coverage would not merit an article, even if they did the same thing as another person who does. Wikipedia only summarizes what third parties state about a subject- so a person must be written about by third parties to merit a page here. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would add that since Wikipedia is largely a volunteer effort, often the development of articles will be uneven. People participate where they wish, and do what they can when they can do it. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kimberlytoday! How public figures get articles, quite simply, is that they've received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, such as newspaper articles, books and the like. Some also qualify for having done important things, such as competing in the Winter Olympics, making the Billboard Top Forty, or being elected to the Royal Society. Ravenswing 01:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not for me but is for my daughter who is appearing again next week for the 4th time. Her name is listed on the page but with no active link, so was curious as to how it is done. I didn't know if a show producer does it or if they have an agent, etc., thus my inquiry Thank you for your help.Kimberlytoday (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kimberlytoday: It would certainly be possible for a TV show to have people to do that sort of thing, but you would have to ask them. It would be what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest for a show producer or agent to create articles about their clients/participants. Such a person would need to read that policy as well as declare as a paid editor. As I state above, they should not directly create such an article, but use Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand, and the COI is very clear, so it seems that someone with no COI and who isn't paid/hired writes the article. To continue with the ANW TV example, very few of those listed have individual article pages; and I know David C. doesn't have an agent. There seems to be some mystery to it lol. :)Kimberlytoday (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

All it takes is one fan. And as repeatedly noted, the ability to reference independently written, published content about that person. Know two things: 1) there is an active Articles for Creation process - and also an active Articles for Deletion process; and 2) once an article is on Wikipedia then anyone can add more content as long as it is verifiable by valid citations. If your daughter has ever been in the news for something she would rather not be public, tant pis. David notMD (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kimberlytoday. It may be acceptable for your daughter to be mentioned in another article if the information is (1) encyclopedically relevant (in other words not WP:Namechecking) and (2) something which can be verified by a citation to a reliable source. Article content inclusion, however, is not assumed to be automatic, but rather often needs to be determined though WP:CONSENSUS. A stand-alone article about your daughter, however, is something quite different and requires that her Wikipedia notability be clearly established. In some cases, it might just be WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article to be wrtiten about someone. In other cases, they might just be Wikipedia notable for one specific connection to an event and not for anything else. Regardless, whoever decides to write an article about your daughter is going to have to show that she has received the WP:SIGCOV to justify such an article. Wikipedia notability or the lack thereof is one of the main reasons why articles are deleted, so it's the biggest hurdle which needs to be cleared. As for other stuff, as pointed out by David notMD above, subjects of articles or their representatives do not have any final editorial control or ownership rights over article content. So, you might want to read WP:PROUD, WP:LUC and WP:BLPSELF before writing or encouraging another person to try and write a Wikipedia article about your daughter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - so much good advice and links to research. My purpose was more for my own knowledge rather than "getting her a page". I'm sure at some point if she continues that will happen in time. I was just curious. Already learned to give her a wide berth. Kimberlytoday (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What constitutes an independent source?

Hey Wikipedia Friends,

I am working on an article about a financial tech company that I work for (I'm aware of the danger of bias, which is why I'm coming here first). I'd like to find out if the following sources pass the criteria of independent and reliable, and if they establish notability before I get too deep into writing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/your-money/as-stocks-fall-its-time-to-measure-your-risk-tolerance.html

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/fintech-startup-takes-fear-investing/

https://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/new-site-seeks-to-analyze-investors-appetite-for-risk/

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/ghmf45eddll/riskalyze/#316f46ae40bd

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/12/investing/riskalyze-market-volatility/index.html

https://www.fastcompany.com/3041660/the-worlds-top-10-most-innovative-companies-of-2015-in-person

https://www.benzinga.com/personal-finance/financial-advisors/17/08/9967743/how-riskalyze-won-the-hearts-of-financial-advisors

I hope this is the right place for this and I appreciate the help! Justin Dwyer (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Justin, and welcome to the Teahouse. The specific place to ask this for particular sources is the Reliable sources noticeboard; but here is fine for general questions. Both independence and reliability of sources depend in part on what information they are being used to support; so it's hard to answer the question without knowing what information you're taking from them. So, for example, the first one - the NY Times - is probably a reliable source for anything mentioned in it; but whether or not it's an independent source depends on who the Wikipedia article is about. If it's a company that the author, Ron Lieber, is in any way associated with, then No. If the article is about one of the companies mentioned (FinaMetrica, Riskalyse, Betterment, etc), then maybe. It looks to me as if the first part of the paper is independent of all of them, so claims from that part could be cited; but later on, the writer is expressly drawing on material from one or other of the companies, and those sections of the paper are not independent of the corresponding companies. They probably shouldn't be cited in respect of another of the companies either, because they are competitors, and so not independent. I haven't looked at any other of your references, but I hope this gives you a feel. Please look at IRS for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Cant able to edit my page

Why can't I able to publish my article?IOSRD.INDIA 04:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOSRD.INDIA (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IOSRD.INDIA. The draft article you submitted is located at User:IOSRD.INDIA/sandbox/International Organization of Scientific Research and Development. This draft is blank and contains no content. Why should we accept a blank article? Please read Your first article to learn about the things you need to do to write a proper draft article for review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit not posted

Is there something wrong with my edit? I added information concerning two well documented cases and for some reason my changes were marked unhelpful.I've included the link to the edited page and my edit was listed 23:53, 26 February 2018‎ 72.224.253.113 (talk)‎ . . (22,432 bytes) (+1,861)‎ . . (To balance the claim that electromagnetic frequency is a delusion, I cited two well known cases of such harassment that have been reported on by reputable national news media outlets from two different countries: USA and Canada.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_harassment&oldid=827828508 72.224.253.113 (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your edit did not include any citations to references that could be checked, so I agree with the editors who reverted your edits as unhelpful. When Wikipedia goes so far as to describe something as a conspiracy theory, the standard of evidence required rises to overcome the easy ability to find anecdotes at enthusiast sites. Ordinary, inconclusive, or incidental press reports may not be considered reliable sources without further backup, so unsourced or vaguely sourced anecdotes are also unacceptable. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I agree with jmcgnh. The two links you provided are not reliable sources and are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. We need sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure broke

For some reason, in Mission 7, I was rejected from continuing and had to make an edit to the wiki summary of Earth. I typed in the correct wiki summary. I did the previous test correctly and even linked some extra words. Can someone tell me why I can't continue? SpinningTwig (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

SpinningTwig-There are 7 missions in The Wikipedia Adventure.It means that you have completed the game. Congratulations and Welcome to Wikipedia — Frc Rdl 07:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SpinningTwig, welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Some users doing The Wikipedia Adventure on a tablet or mobile phone do encounter difficulties (see notice about this at the bottom of the Adventure's start page). I had to start it three times via a tablet to get it to the very end. There are actually 15 badges to collect in total, and you have still to collect the final three badges via Mission 7, so I'd suggest giving it another go. Note that some of the instructions pop up right at the bottom of the editing screen, so can be easily missed if you don't scroll right down. You'll probably also end up with duplicate automated messages or badges left - but you're free to delete any of these. It's good editing practice, too! I hope this is the start of a great Wikipedia adventure for you personally. I've left a welcome message on your talk page, containing a few useful links to start you off, plus a nice plate of biscuits. Don't eat them all at once! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Issues with Interlinking "my" article

Once upon a time, I created an article in Polish about Book of Demons game. I then translated it in my sandbox space to English. Today I've published English version and wanted to interlink it with its Polish version. Following the instructions on the page about interlinking does not seem to work. When I click on a greyed out "English" in Polish version, Wikipedia moves me to English article but not the otherwise. Clicking on "polski" in English article displays prompt that the page does not exist at all.

Could you help me interlink it? MJesio (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It needed this edit to Wikidata. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph! MJesio (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Created an Article but won't appear in any searches outside of Wikipedia.

I created my first article (Stub) about a football club I am associated with as we are trying to increase our online presence.

I created and then "Moved" the Stub from "Draft" to "Article" but the page will only appear in a wikipedia.org search, it will not appear in Google etc. Am I missing something?

10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishwhale (talk • contribs)

Hello Irishwhale and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your article still needs to reviewed by a new page reviewer before it will be indexed by search engines. I don't expect that review to go well, since you have not included any references in your article. It's okay to have removed the proposed deletion template, but you need to address the issue of how this team meets WP's standards for notability. It's good that you made a declaration of your connection on your userpage, but you have to understand that Wikipedia is not able to help with your "online presence" if the club has not been written about by independent, reliable sources. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Irishwhale I would second what jmcgnh says above. Your club's online presence is, frankly, of no concern whatsoever of Wikipedia. You cannot use Wikipedia to promote or advertise your club. In order to merit an article here, your club must be written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines for organizations listed at WP:ORG. As you have a COI, you really should not directly edit about your club and those in your situation are better off using Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review by an independent editor before it is made part of the encyclopedia(instead of afterwards, as you did, where it would be treated more critically). I have tagged the page with some issues to be addressed. If it will take you time to address them(and you can address them) I would suggest you consent to the page being moved to Draft space where you can work on it and then submit it for a review. As the page stands currently, I don't believe the page would survive a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

move from Draft to Publish

Hi - I have created a page for my daughter on wiki... Its still in draft mode. How do i get to publish this article and link it with her name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kaitlyn_D%27mello Fddmello (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fddmello. it appears you are referring to Draft:Kaitlyn D'mello. Normally, I would advise you to submit your draft through Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but I think that would be a waste of time at this particular moment because I cannot see how any AfC reviewer would approve this as is. There are quite a lot of issues with the draft, some which probably can be fixed with a bit of effort, but the main problem appear to have to do with Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Too soon. You might also be mistaking Wikipedia's purpose as explaned Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Just for reference, there was a similar question asked at #new page for a person by another editor wanting to write an article about his daughter. You might want to refer to the answers given in that thread since they contain links to pages that you may find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Fddmello I would add that you seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media for people to just post information about themselves(or their relatives). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that summarizes what third parties write about various subjects. If you just want to tell the world about your daughter and promote her career, you should use social media like Facebook. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Delayed Draft Approval

Hello all,

I have attempted to work on a well know Malayalam movie producer who has been the person behind many successful hit movies of Indian Cinemas. Please help in getting the draft approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ousepachan_Vaalakuzhy Rajeshsingri (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rajeshsingri: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are almost 2600 drafts awaiting review, and reviews are conducted by volunteers, so it does take some time to process them. Please be patient. Quickly glancing at your draft, I'm not sure the sources are sufficient. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft status

If an article is in draft status, does that mean it is in review as well?

AlisonICFAD (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, AlisonICFAD, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not always. In particular, your draft Draft:International Council of Fine Arts Deans (ICFAD) has not been submitted for review. I've added a button on top of the article for you to press when you're ready to submit it. I'd advise you to further work on it though. It's currently only sourced to the organization's own website, whereas Wikipedia articles should primarily be interested in what independent sources have to say. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

AlisonICFADI would add that as you have a COI, you need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on what independent reliable sources state. If your organization does not have coverage in independent sources, it will not be possible for there to be an article about your organization at this time. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell the world about your organization, it is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

My draft - rejected

Hello! My draft was recently declined. Why was it that? At the link below you will see that Jan Lexell should have shown notability since he has received an honorary doctorate and is also a full professor at Lund University. Why was my draft rejected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jan_Lexell Nimbo.lo (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Which one of the nine criteria do you feel he passes here Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)? Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

With the honorary doctorate he has he should pass the #2. Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an honorary doctorate is a highly prestigious academic award though! Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it isn't. Honarary degrees are awarded all the time to many people, notable or not. It in no way speaks to his academic notability. My alma mater once gave an honorary degree to Tim Allen (who is notable, but certainly not for academics). John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You would find very few people who'd agree that an honorary doctorate, routinely handed out like candy to graduation speakers, generous donors, local celebrities and the like, constituted a "highly prestigious academic award." Ravenswing 21:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:NPROF explicitly says that it is (and seriously, an actual honorary doctorate is pretty much the highest honour you can get in academia. Honoris causa doctorates are possibly more important when they are given by some academic institutions than others, so a h.c. from Harvard would be more impressive than one from Podunk College, but Luleå tekniska universitet has status of university which in a Swedish context means that it is a highly reputable centre of learning.) Please note that in an American context the concept of honorary doctorate may have a different value, but this is not an American context. --bonadea contributions talk 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Bonadea, where does NPROF say that? John from Idegon (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); [...] honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose. Specific criteria notes 1. --bonadea contributions talk 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ​Welll... It really does depend on the circumstances; some places dish them out like confetti to local celebrities, donors, and anyone they think will get them publicity. My alma mater at one point gave an honorary doctorate to Kermit the Frog. ‑ Iridescent 21:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Rather different context, so it's not really appropriate to try to use a foreign measuring stick for what a h.c. degree means here. --bonadea contributions talk 21:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nimbo.lo: - Kudos for your referencing, as it is vastly, vastly improved since your last query about this draft article at the Teahouse. Great work! Stormy clouds (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: - Thank you!

I agree that an honorary doctorate isn't usually considered a prestigious academic award for WP:PROF purposes, but I still think we have an easy pass of C1 based on citation counts. He doesn't seem to have a Google Scholar profile, but a GS search for his name shows that he has written numerous papers that have each been cited >100 times (one was cited >1800 times and for many of these he was the first author). That's notable even in the highly cited field of clinical medicine. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@EricEnfermero: - Hello! If the h.c. doesn't count in for the notability academic criteria and if I add to the submission that several of his work has been cited many times. What reference should I use. Is it enough to just link to the Google Scholar where I have searched Jan Lexell. Would that be a good reference? Nimbo.lo (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorting problem in Category

Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historically_segregated_African-American_schools_in_the_United_States

As you will see, the alphabetical sorting is pretty far off. How is this corrected? deisenbe (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles are sorted alphabetically by state. For example, Calhoun Colored School has [[Category:Historically segregated African-American schools in the United States|Alabama]], which sorts it by "Alabama". I'm not sure this is best - I want to say I've seen a category handle sorting like this in a clearer way. Chris857 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. after some looking, I may be mis-remembering about having custom category section headers instead of just the single letters. Chris857 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with uploading photos publishing a page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jennifer_Kehoe

Good afternoon,

I am starting to get slightly frustrated trying to get photos and a page published. The page in question is for a Paralympic alpine ski guide Jennifer Kehoe who with her Visually Impaired athlete Menna Fitzpatrick are competing in the Pyeongchang 2018 winter games next week. All of the photos i have so far uploaded have been deleted, they have been taken either by myself or friends, they do not have a copyright or any licence infringements.

I really want this wiki to be live before the games, please help and advise. Regards, Daniel, MACCAWALES86 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, MACCAWALES86 (Daniel) - welcome to the Teahouse. Bottom line first: Image issues are a matter to be dealt with by volunteers at Wikimedia Commons, not here. That said, let's see what I can advise (although my experience in this area is a relatively limited). Firstly, you appeared to have uploaded two images which (rightly or wrongly) at least one has been concluded to have come from this photo gallery in the Bournemouth Echo newspaper, and another from a commercial photographic website at https://lucpercival.photoshelter.com. If that's the case, you need to accept that you have absolutely no right to upload another person's image. If incorrect, and you supplied that image to the newspaper, or work for them, then you my need to demonstrate that fact. So, is this something you think you could easily do, if required? (work email/invoice for payment/receipt from the paper etc?) If so, I'll give you a link at Wikimedia Commons for you to appeal the deletion and to upload proof that the image is your own. If one or more images is a friend's, and not yours - they, not you, will need to create an account and upload the image as they are the ones releasing image rights, not you. Please don't think people here - or at Commons - are trying to be awkward. The reality is they're trying to protect the image rights of other people. So, if you've done wrong in uploading them, they did right to delete them if they were suspicious. If they are your images, just accept that they're trying to protect your image rights first of all, plus ensuring Wikimedia's reputation is that it only hosts images that are free for everyone to use, including commercial use.

I note that you appear to have uploaded this image which you've attributed to Mark Scorgie. It's an absolutely massive file, so it's quite probable that you do have hold of it legitimately. But if Mark is a mate of yours, you'll need to get him to send in a release form for the image because, once again, I can't see how you own the rights to that image to release it (unless the originating website had already released it in perpetuity under what we call a "Creative Commons" license). Do you need a link for that person to submit an image release declaration? If so, I or another host can dig that out for you shortly.

Oh, and something that definitely is a Wikipedia matter: please do not remove the 'submission declined' notice again from your draft - that information is there to help you, or for other editors to help you. Deleting it is, well, err, unhelpful. Regards for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MACCAWALES86. I know that this isn't what you are asking about, but I think it is important to explain something to you. Like many people, you seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles about notable subjects, based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them. It is not a medium for people to promote themselves or their associates, no matter how worthy. You have referenced it better than many first timers manage; but I'm not sure that any of the references you give is both independent and substantial. Also, the tone of the draft is often quite inappropriate. No Wikipedia article should ever use promotional languages like "made history ... by becoming the first ever ...", unless this is a direct quote from a source wholly unconnected with the subject. I note that the sentence I quoted from is cited to the Pyeongchang 2018, which says nothing about either being the first or being World Cup champion.

You say "I really want this wiki to be live before the games": please understand that in Wikipedia there is no deadline. Wikipedia cares very much about the quality and reliability of its articles: that they are well-referenced to reliable published sources, and provide a well structured and well written neutral summary of those sources. It absolutely does not care whether they get published before some event or other.

I'm not convinced that Kehoe yet meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which is not about being famous, or important, or popular, or worthy, but simply about whether independent people have published about her. If she is, you need to find some of those independent, in-depth sources, and base the article on them. But I suspect that it is TOOSOON. IN any case, writing a Wikipedia article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and takes time, especially for a new editor.

I'm sorry, but I think that your frustration arises out of your attempt to use Wikipedia for something which is wholly outside its remit and purpose. If you want to get a page on the web about Kehoe before the Paralympics, you almost certainly need to choose a different site to do it on. --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How do we create an entry for our organization?

The Camden Conference is a 31-year-old non-profit, non-partisan organization in Camden, Maine, whose mission is to foster informed discourse on world issues. We believe that this mission can be advanced by inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you tell us how to go about it? 207.5.164.226 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 207.5.164.226 The short answer is you don’t! Wikipedia is not a means to advance your mission. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with your organisation have chosen to publish about them. The article would be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about them. As you have a conflict of interest you would be strongly advised not to write about them. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Theroadislong is correct. If the Camden Conference is reported about by reliable sources, then it should meet the notability threshold for an article. At this stage, someone else will create the article - it is ill-advised that you do so, as you have a conflict of interest. Essentially, keep on conferencing, and someone else will pen an article about you - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it was not created to advance organisation, but rather as a haven of accurate, verifiable information. If your intention is not this, to create reputable encyclopedic content, then it may not be the place for you. Thanks Stormy clouds (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Article help

Hello. I have started "Air Operations in the Korean War", but I am feeling kind of overwhelmed by this project. I was wondering if you could possibly help me in any way.American474 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very active group of editors interested in Military History; they are organized through a Wikiproject, which you can find at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. If you leave a request on their discussion page, you are likely to generate some interest. --Jayron32 17:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32, thanks. American474 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

blocked Account

Hi

I am a new user, I just was trying to explore Wikipedia how to edit the article and how to use it and my id and account was blocked. I am writing in anticipation that someone here will help me or guide me how to proceed. I want to do it the right way and have my article on Wikipedia.Ahsia-info (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahsia-info (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ahsia-info: Hello. If your account was blocked, you need to return to that account and request to be unblocked. There should be instructions on your original user talk page. By creating a second account you are evading your block. Blocks are on the person, not the account.331dot (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, Thank you so much for sharing this information. I will go back and try once again. I have contacted info@wikipedia but it is still not unblocked. The IP address was also blocked. I will go back and try again, Thank you very much for quick reply.

Ahsia-info (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ahsia-info: You may wish to read This guide which will help you. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I go about creating a Wikipedia page?

How do I go about creating a Wikipedia page?ArtMac4 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey ArtMac4. A good place to start would be to review our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Then you can create a draft using the Article Wizard and submit it to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I would also encourage you to take some time first to start small and edit existing articles first, making minor changes. Creating an article is probably the most difficult thing to do here, and first learning how Wikipedia works would reduce the chances of disappointment and hurt feelings after your work is mercilessly edited and critiqued by others. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pradeep Rai and Group of Employees Editing

I reviewed Draft:Pradeep Rai and declined it as having been written to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally, and as duplicating another copy of the draft, which was declined by User:David.moreno72 and deleted due to copyright violation. User:Wiki pkrai asked me, on my talk page, what needed to be done next, saying “We have received the following communication …” I asked:

Who is “we”? Who are you, and who is paying you?

I asked them to ask any more questions at the Teahouse.

The same account then replied: "We are a small group of junior legal practitioners working with Senior Advocate Mr Pradeep Rai…. Writing for this page is part of our overall work with Mr Pradeep Rai. Please do let us know any other information we need to furnish in this regard. “

I am not entirely sure what to do next. This group appears to be acting in good faith but doesn’t understand. I am not sure that this group account understands that group accounts in Wikipedia are not allowed, and I am not sure that they understand that they have not made the required disclosures under the paid editing policy. It is my understanding that they need to start editing with one account for one person and to declare their conflict of interest before we can even review the draft again.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm just missing to where you posted them, but I'm not really seeing simple, declarative statements: "Joint accounts on Wikipedia are not allowed; you may have only one person working on any one account." "Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. You must make an open disclosure that you are being paid to work on an article for your employer before proceeding, and your draft will not be further reviewed without it." And so on. Ravenswing 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ravenswing - I didn't explicitly state the account policy, because I don't happen to know what the abbreviation is for it. I did explicitly refer them on my talk page to WP:COI and WP:PAID and told them to make the required disclosure. They then quoted the policy back to me in a way that suggests that they read it and didn't understand its impact. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ISU is the shared use policy. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've stated the shared use policy and restated the paid editing policy on their user talk page. I am not optimistic, because it appears that they, in good faith, don't understand. They quoted the paid editing policy back to me, but haven't complied with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

looking for a fair use photo

Good morning, One of my students is looking for a fair use photo of Dr. Celine Gounder (https://www.celinegounder.com) that she can add to Commons for her article. Can anyone assist? I would be most appreciative! Thanks so much.Amyc29 (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair use photos can not be uploaded to commons. They can be uploaded here but only if they meet all the requirements at WP:NFCCP. A fair use image can not be used on an article about a living person. ~ GB fan 12:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Amyc29. My advice would be to email Dr. Gounder and ask for her to release a photo she owns the copyright to by following the directions at WP:CONSENT. A lot of people are willing to do this type of thing, since they have a vested interest in improving the quality of their own Wikipedia article. Hope this helps. GMG^talk 12:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Could u see my article and edit it?

I create my first article .. would u help me and see it .. may be it will need some edits.. my article name : Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi/sandbox Really thx

Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi: the question above is the only contribution you have made to Wikipedia, and there is nothing in your sandbox. Were you logged in when you created a sandbox? Maproom (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom thx ... some one deleted my sand box article

Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on your user talk page it seems that the page you created was about yourself. This is highly discouraged, though not forbidden, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. It is important for articles to be neutral. Please review the autobiography policy at WP:AUTO. I would suggest that if you meet the notability guidelines at WP:BIO that you visit Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps your needs would be better served on LinkedIn? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete page

Hi! I have this page that I want to delete. I saw that you should type in {db-g7}} (with one more {) But when I do that it doesn't link into another page, it doesn't come up in the list of pages that should be deleted. What am i doing wrong. It just writes "Template:Db-g7". Please do not just delete the page, I want to learn for the next time!Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Jan_Lexell.jpg

Umm... Hey Nimbo.lo. I'm not sure how you managed to do it, but you uploaded the image on Media Wiki, which is a totally different site all together. I... hadn't even considered it was possible and honestly have no idea if MW has a speedy deletion criteria. Pinging a friendly neighborhood steward who may be able to clean it up for us. GMG^talk 21:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) {{db-g7}} is for use on the English Wikipedia. That template does not exist on mediawiki. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok! Then I'll just keep an eye on the image and see that it gets deleted! Thx Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. If you're on a project other than enwiki, you can usually just use {{delete|reason}}. Other projects have a less bureaucratic code for deleting pages and images :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If your intention was for the image to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, the process which the copyright owner needs to go through is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that the copyright owner is usually the photographer, and that purchasing a copy of the photo does not give you the copyright. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulp: I know, but the photo of him was taken by a photographer. The person on the photo explicitly asked and payed the photographer to take this photo of him and then to give him the photo. Wouldn't that count as the photographer gave the copyrights away? Or do I need the photographer to send a text where he confirms that he has given the rights of the photo away to me? Nimbo.lo (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

moving pages

Why can I move only some page and not others, like Cankar Centre, even if they're not move-protected? L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey L293D. It may have to do with where you are trying to move it to. What error is it giving you when you try? GMG^talk 15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Usually, when I hover on the "More" tab, there is a 'move' option that appears. On some pages, even if not move-protected, that option does not appear. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Hmm. I'm not sure then. It works alright for me, and I've not noticed anything out of place generally, but it may be some kind of glitch. If no one follows up here with any ideas, you might consider asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). GMG^talk 15:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why the link is missing but does it work: Special:MovePage/Cankar Centre. You can start moving another page and change the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And do you have a move tab in MonoBook which has no More tab? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm in vector. Next time I'll try with Special:MovePage. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability

When Wikipedia calls for substantive coverage by third-party reliable sources, what's a rough guideline/estimate for 'substantive?' Going from this quote, it would appear to be approx. two paragraphs at minimum. Is that roughly correct?

Notability: "... think generally two paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue ..."

M47Boot (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as a frequent flyer at Articles for Deletion, where that very question is oft debated, I'd pretty much never consider a mere two paragraphs to constitute substantive coverage for a subject; four's about the rock bottom minimum I'd accept.

Other editors would of course have different takes on the matter, but one consideration is this: this response I'm typing in is two paragraphs exactly, and I don't think many people reading this would consider these many words all that "substantive." Ravenswing 10:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Now we get into the question of how substantive the paragraphs themselves are. Furthermore, two paragraphs from a well-renowned international media outlet is going to have more weight than 6 in the local newspaper... or at least, I think they should. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph length an issue, too. My natural style is paragraphs 75-100 words, but an editor at one of the newspapers I write for does not like length over 25 words. (It's a column width thing.) David notMD (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Template code change

Hi, I'm not sure if this request can be granted but it's worth a try,
Template:Infobox broadcasting network is currently using deprecated syntax ([[File:NHK logo.svg|250px]]) instead of:
| network_logo = NHK logo.svg
| network_logo_size = 250px

I've tried copying code from Template:Infobox broadcast but that's all but failed so I was wondering if someone with a lot more knowledge with templates would kindly update it ?,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ping resident template wizard. GMG^talk 15:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; the template is properly invoking the Module:InfoboxImage. What your describing sounds more like usage on an article. Please elaborate further? Primefac (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Hi Primefac, My apologies I missed a few points off but I was trying to say that "network_logo_size" didn't work however having just tried other parameters "logo_size" does work ... probably should've tested others before coming here!, Anyway apologies and thanks for your help, –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Hey all, I've worked on an article draft for the community health wikipedia page. I would appreciate some feedback on the draft, located in my sandbox under the community health heading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsnu/sandbox). Thanks. Dsnu (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dsnu We already have an article called Community health perhaps you would like to improve that instead. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The sandbox includes a file "File:Table 2 Summary of Governance Issues, Strategies, and Problems.tif" which appears to be a scan of a published document, with no reason to suppose that it is free of copyright. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My entries were remov d

The three notable people I added recently have been removed from the Pawhuska, oklahoma page. I would like to know why.BookerTpanther (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Embedded lists in articles of notable persons assosciated with the subject are expected to already have their own Wikipedia articles. Or to put it another way, such lists should not have redlinks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Should I add the 'welcome to wikipedia' template for new users?

Hello, I'm just wondering if I should add the 'Welcome To Wikipedia' template on new user pages. I kind of feel like it's a good thing, but also at the same time think that I will get in trouble for it or something. So should I add it? AllyGebies (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(Presuming you mean user talk pages?) Go ahead. You qualify for Twinkle, so I suggest using that. I would say, though, that if they haven't made any contributions yet, use the {{welcome-screen}} one, because it doesn't mention their contributions. Thanks for wanting to welcome new users! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Good advice there from A lad insane, and welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Yes, with Twinkle you can automate the process of leaving welcome messages, and can select which type to leave. There are about ten to choose from for positive contributions made by signed-in or by anonymous users; and about the same number for those who might have made their first edit or two in a non-constructive way. You can preview the contents before posting via Twinkle, too, and the welcome is automatically placed at the top of a user's page, even if there are already other messages in place there. Even for obvious minor vandalism I tend to think that a warm welcome and a gentle steer is better than just a gentle warning on an otherwise blank page. You can get tough later, if necessary. I tend to leave welcome messages either because a brand new user has asked a question at the Teahouse or, more frequently, because I've spotted a pattern of unusual editing at Recent changes patrol. However, sometimes it's interesting to monitor the live list of new users accounts as they're created and spot those who have made their first edits from those hundreds a day which have been created, but are not yet active. I have no evidence, but I think a warm welcome always goes a long way. See Special:Log/newusers. Regards from a snowy UK (Wikipedia is open, but everything else is closed here) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)  

I went to add the 'Welcome Screen' template to a user, and when I put the four tildes in (for my signature), it didn't show my signature. It only had the tildes. Am I doing something wrong, or is it a glitch? AllyGebies (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read Template:Welcome screen you'll see that it tells you to {{subst}} the template; you didn't do that and you merely transcluded it. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If I’m not mistaken, consensus has long held that only users who have made at least one edit should be welcomed. For whatever reason, dozens (hundreds?) of accounts are created each day but never make a single edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Perhaps they are created by people who misunderstand semiprotection, and when they realize they have to put in a bit of effort they quit. But where was this consensus stated? I never knew anything about it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that David, I tested it on my sandbox and it now works. AllyGebies (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@A lad insane: Mostly it’s been argued in the past that a bot should welcome every single new account, and each time it has been proposed consensus has been that we should not be auto-welcoming based on nothing but the existence of the account, it’s happened enough times that it is listed at perenial proposals. There could be a few here and there who experience what you describe, but we have no way of knowing which ones they are and which ones created an account and just never bothered to use it for whatever reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: That makes sense, thanks. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

My experience is that other Wikipedia sites send a welcome message immediately, whether you've edited or not. I consider it somewhat of an annoyance, but don't feel strongly that it should be one way or another. When I do userspace NPP, I often use a welcome template if the user's talk page hasn't been created yet, but - by definition - those users would have to have created at least a user page or sandbox to come up on NPP. When appropriate, I try to add a more personal note, but I suppose even my personal notes could be seen as if they were coming from a bot. Response rate from these welcome posts is quite low, but I like the idea that the account creator gets a jog some days after they created something to tell them that they should come back to WP and keep trying to see if they like it here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Newly Published Article

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my newly published article for my English class! The article is Veterinary Pharmacy! Any feedback would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterinary_Pharmacy Jgreen262 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Jgreen262 and welcome to the Teahouse! I have taken a look at the article, and, while medicine is not my primary field of interest, it was an informative read. I have edited it slightly (adding more WikiLinks and minor copy-edit for flow), other than that the only suggestion I would have would be to add more (reliable) references if possible (more is always better). Overall, I think you have done an excellent job so far! I hope that you enjoy your time on Wikipedia and decide to stick around. If you have any questions, please feel free to let us know and we will do our best to help. Thanks again. -- All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jgreen262. Your article is an excellent start. My main criticism is that it only discusses veterinary pharmacy in the United States. I recommend that you find and summarize sources describing the topic in other countries, so that, in time, the article has a global perspective. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

why?

why has my page been rejected? I cant find any citations on it. the page is Draft:Noodlebomber. Noodlebomber (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Noodlebomber and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft reads as an advert for the subject, so is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. It might be WP:TOO SOON for an article on the subject, but you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources before you submit it again. If you cannot find such citations, then Wikipedia cannot have an article. You also have a problem with your user name because it appears to represent the subject. Are you in some way connected? Dbfirs 08:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Noodlebomber. Perhaps you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a promotional social media platform. You are trying to write an autobiography, which is highly discouraged. In addition, you have done a very poor job of it. Your references are not independent and are unacceptable for showing that you are notable. Your draft article, Draft:NoodleBomber, is so brief that it provides no useful information to the reader. Start by reading and studying Your first article, and I hope that you will decide to abandon this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict): @Noodlebomber: - many reasons. Firstly, it does not include suitable references, but rather links to various streaming platforms. These are not suitable, either for external links or for citations. Secondly, it does not establish notability. Your streaming site must be reported upon by reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. If it does not receive such attention, and you cant (sic) find any citations on it, then the content is unencylopedic and does not merit an article. Moreover, as the draft you penned is about yourself, there is a blatant conflict of interest to it, which is holding it back. Finally, it has a promotional tone, rather than an informational one, and as such is not suitable for Wikipedia. Perhaps make some constructive edits to other pages, and let your streaming network grow independently. If it receives coverage elsewhere, someone else will write an article about you. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

why? (2)

@Dbfirs I am noodlebomber the gamer and I just want more people to know about the work I do. Noodlebomber (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to use other media for your advertising. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to let more people know about new things, but to report what has already been written in reliable sources. Sorry to disappoint you. Dbfirs 08:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Tried to copy image from Indonesian article into English article

I tried to add the image of Beretta Rx4 Storm from Indonesian Wiki (article is id:Beretta Rx4 Storm) to English Wiki (article is List of assault rifles) - English article does not display the picture. What to do now? Krom8888 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the best way to be able to use an image on multiple Wikipedias is to move the image to Wikimedia Commons. You can use this tool to do so, assuming that the image is freely licensed. Iffy★Chat -- 10:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: List of assault rifles displays an image of Beretta Cx4 Storm at the Rx4 entry. --CiaPan (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to all of you for help, advise and the edit that solved the problem (somewhat). Krom8888 (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)