Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 742

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 735←Archive 740Archive 741Archive 742Archive 743Archive 744Archive 745

Could this article I’ve written be moved to Mainspace please?

I’ve written an article on Chartmaster Infurion, here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thaddeus976/Graham_Donald_Warner

I’m wondering, is this good enough to be published on Wikipedia? If so, could someone move it to mainspace please, under Chartmaster Infurion? Many thanks. Thaddeus976 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Thaddeus976 Your draft is sourced to IMDb which is not a reliable source, the other source is merely a catalogue listing. Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by reliable sources so that information can be verified.

We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. If there are no such sources then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the IMDb links confirm that Graham Warner did indeed have a credit as sound effects assistant in the film “Hangar 10”, listed under Sound Department, and that he added “additional material” under the Music Department for the film “With Love From...Suffolk”. I’m not sure of any other way to confirm that. That ‘The Passerby’ is used in the film Hangar 10 is confirmed by the end credits of the film which mention both Graham Warner and Chartmaster Infurion by name. All I can say is - everything I’ve written is absolutely accurate and correct. Whether Chartmaster Infurion is noteworthy as an individual or not I guess is another thing! Thaddeus976 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thaddeus976. I know it can seem strange; but his appearance in lists, and in IMDb are not enough to establish notability. The special sense in which Wikipedia uses that word does not mean famous, or popular, or important, or influential, or significant (though it is often correlated with these). It means that several people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write in some depth about the subject, and been published in places with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. If that is not the case, then there is nothing which could go into an article on the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Theroadislong and ColinFine. I will take that as a no for this article then. I will keep the code somewhere safe and maybe one day, if Chartmaster Infurion is written about somewhere reputable, I can try again. Thaddeus976 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

K2-146b

I’m back again. I do need help with an article I created, K2-146b. Anything I can do to improve it? Based on these citations/websites used in the article, anything I can do to improve the article? —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello LovelyGirl7 - welcome back. I only have very limited experience with astronomy related articles - but it looks pretty good to me. It's got through WP:NPP OK, and looking at your sources, I can only really suggest you repeat the year of discovery in the Infobox, and add some of the interesting stuff that us Earth-dwellers can appreciate. Namely, that it orbits much closer to its sun than Mercury does, and that being 97% closer to its sun than Earth is to ours, it orbits very rapidly and well inside what would be regarded as the 'habitable zone'. Providing your sources are reliable, I feel these little extras turn a dull factual stub into something that starts to seem more interesting. I don't think I can agree with your use of the words "Neptune-sized" - I realise the need not to copy phrases, but for the sake of accuracy this is not the same to me as "Neptune-like" which is the term one source uses. On checking further, I see Neptune is c.17 x larger than Earth, whereas one of your sources states K2-146b i just a bit under 2 1/4 times the size of earth (2.2 times). I hope this feedback is of value. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I love using sources. I did added the sentence you mentioned about Mercury. What do you think about the sentence I just added? Should I remove the “Neptune-like” part from the article? Feel free to also do improvements to the article if you would like. —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

How can I move my article from the Draft page to the main Wikipedia page?

For the second time, I have received this message:

"Hello, Davidhanson471. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Integrated Rubber Network Models". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code."

I am confused about what the Wikipedia Editors want me to do to have this article moved to the Wikipedia main page (I thought that I had done this but apparently not). If there are objections to the content or its suitability for Wikipedia, I would be happy to address and correct them but I can't seem to find anything to respond to. Could someone please tell me how to move forward on this issue? Thank you. 14:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Davidhanson471 (talk)

Looking over the deleted draft's history, I see that it was declined, then you did nothing to fix the article, then it was deleted because of six-months inactivity, then it was restored, then you did nothing again, then it was deleted again.
Instead of trying to fix a problematic article, I find it's best just to do the following:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find about the subject.
2) Focus on just the sources that are specifically about the subject and provide in-depth coverage (i.e. not sources that only mention the subject in one line, or sources that only discuss the subject in relation to the primary topic), and that are not dependent on or affiliated with the subject (so if the subject is a company, not the company's website).
3) Summarize those sources, placing citations at the end of each summary. You might want to do this off-site, in a program like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++ (programs with heavy formatting like Microsoft Word and LibreOffice writer are more likely to have issues in copying).
4) Combine overlapping summaries where possible (without arriving at new statements no individual source supports), repeating citations where necessary.
5) Paraphrase this draft to ensure there are no copyright violations.
6) Post this version of the draft, wait until it's received approval, and then expand it using sources you dropped in step 2 (just make sure they don't make up more than half of the sources, and don't let affiliated or dependent sources make up more than half of that).
Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It has gone again, as you failed to do anything after the reminder you received a month ago at User talk:Davidhanson471#Draft:Integrated Rubber Network Models concern. You probably ought to remind yourself of the discussion at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 673#How do I respond/ correct objections to draft: Rubber Elasticity/ Integrated Network Models?. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello, I am a new editor and i have added to the tropical medicine page as part of my semester coursework. I would love some suggestions or feedback before moving my work over to the mainspace. Here is a link to my sandbox. Kpo1364 (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kpo1364 welcome to our tropical Teahouse! How refreshing: not only does the tea taste lovely, but your article is pretty impressive, too. Great stuff. Of course, here at the Teahouse life wouldn't be the same if we couldn't point out a few things that you could improve on - but, hey ho, that's the way we all are here. First off, the one really important thing to say is that, whilst it's fine to prepare coursework like this in your sandbox, there is already an existing mainspace article entitled Tropical medicine, so we can't allow two. But that said, once your work has been assessed as a stand alone piece, there's no reason why you shouldn't incorporate it into the existing article. I hope that's precisely what you're planning. Heaven knows - it could do with improving. (your version looks a lot more interesting - at quick glance). It will be just a quick glance, but I'm sure others here could suggest additional things for you.
Your lead sentence should match our Manual of Style by emboldening the first use of the title. (we can ignore the odd positioning of the Contents box simply because it's in your sandbox). A good trick to checking style of writing is to read it out loud, ideally from a printed version you can annotate as you go along. Had you done so, I'm sure you'd have noticed how odd this sounds Physicians in this field must learn to diagnose and treat a variety of diseases and ailments that they may encounter in the field. May I suggest you work through and try and make every sentence much more succinct and factual? Remove any tendency to write as if it were an essay - you are writing an encyclopaedia today! Instead, how about simply: Physicians in this field diagnose and treat a variety of diseases and ailments. ?? Then go on to explain what these are.
You could create a distinct section with the title 'History' prior to that on 'Training'. Your references mostly look well formed, though there are a couple of red highlights to indicate some errors you need to fix. I like that you've used repeated citations well. My quick glance didn't let me check whether for some references you've listed the entire pages of that document, whereas we ask simply that the individual page or pages are cited to identify precisely where each factual statement is located within it. You can use {{rp}} for this (just click the link and you'll work out what to do with it). I'd quite like to see a 'Further reading' and a 'See also' section, and headings with titles that follow our style rules on capitalisation (see WP:MOSCAPS. All said, this isn't at all a bad piece of work - perhaps a bit too essay-like in places, with a lot of oft-repeated words and phrases (like 'these diseases' in the NTD section) which could do with being sorted out. There's no sign of any copyright violations, and I hope you'll feel able to carefully insert key elements into the live article. (You could even link to your sandbox from its talk page and discuss your proposal to add content with those already watching the TM article. I hope this is a useful start for you - I certainly think you've made a superb start at becoming a great Wikipedian. Well done. Regards from a very un-tropical UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hiya Kpo1364. If you wanted to fix the cite errors, they're nothing big, just date format stuff. (If you only have a month for a journal issue, just use October 2015, not 10/2015, or for a full date always 15 October 2015, not 15 Oct. 2015 etc), although the last ref might need to be changed from cite web to another template to fix. Only other thing that jumped out was that in one sentence, you lapsed a bit and referred to "our military" Interesting as it is to ponder Wikipedia with its own armed forces, its not really the sort of thing you should say in an article. I thought it looked pretty good so far. Curdle (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

draft "approval"

I have been hoping to create an article about the writer Renee Gladman. When I went to create the article, I found that a draft had already been created:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Renee_Gladman.

This draft had been rejected for publication, I'm not sure under what circumstances, by an editor named GeoffreyT2000.

I cleaned up the article a LOT and added a number of citations. I re-submitted it for publication, because somehow I couldn't just publish it directly (or couldn't figure out how). Weeks later, it hasn't been approved. I even reached out to GeoffreyT2000 via his talk page, and haven't heard back.

Can you please help me publish this article? Thank you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewestin (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mewestin, and welcome to the Teahouse! You have successfully submitted the draft you have improved for review. Now all you have to do is wait. In the meantime, you can keep improving it. You should especially add new independent sources. Use them to include even more information. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mewestin, the draft is correctly queued to be reviewed, so it will happen. I just took a quick look through the list of references, the impression I get is that the article is largely based on Gladman's own writing about herself and her work. You should try to base it mostly on what independent sources, such as professional critics, journalists and academics have written. That is what makes an author notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. Wikipedia cares very little for what the subject of an article or the subject's employees, agents, representatives, friends or relatives have said about the subject. It's only when disinterested outsiders have taken sufficient note of the subject to cause them to publish significant in depth information about the subject, that it has become notable. You are welcome to continue working on the draft while it waits for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Re-submitted articles do not go to the same administrator. But IMO, the draft will be rejected again. Nothing Gladman writes, nor interviews of Gladman, are valid as citations. That is currently a lot of the draft's content. Limit the article to describing what people have published ABOUT Gladman. David notMD (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
David notMD, it's actually "not the same reviewer", most AFC reviewers are not administrators. I'm one of the few that are also admins, the roles do not really overlap much. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about Objectivity/Promotional Writing

Hello. I've been told that my writing is often too promotional on pages that I try to edit. However, several competing pages write in a similar manner and are not penalized. The current "editor" im working with wanted me to pay him to make changes but I dont think that it's ethical. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.128.60.45 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Could you tell us the names of the articles that you are working on, and the name of the editor who wants you to pay them? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hola

Hello my friends, I am a little overwhelmed about this site. Can someone help me please? As editors maybe someone would like to contribute to Wikipedia with a Low Profile software engineer who has created many inventions to the world? I am his wife. I read that I can't write the article by myself. At home, we have many prototypes already created by him and his Software engineering team. He is working in his biggest project now. He doesn't like recognition. Thank you. Best regards. --Dannykangoo (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)danny

Welcome to the Teahouse Dannykangoo Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with your husband have chosen to publish about him. The article would be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about him. You would need to show that he meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Article: List of tea varieties?

Have a cuppa - you've earned it with that question!

I've noticed that there is no article that lists different types or varieties of tea in general. Is it reasonable and useful to create such an article? Also, is it possible for a list like this to get featured (it might be either incomplete or too long while meeting the other criteria for a featured list)? FlyingShrimp (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What a good question, FlyingShrimp, and what a good place to ask it. That deserves a cuppa! Most articles that we have on one form of tea or another seem to use this template: {{Teas}}, which lists them all at the bottom of each tea-related page. Some people argue that when we have a template listing everything we don't need a 'List' to duplicate it; others seem to disagree and think that both approaches have merit. But there again there is also this List of Chinese teas. The problem I envisage is defining what is meant by 'tea'. I'd suggest that limiting a list to only those notable/recognised varieties based on Camellia sinensis would be manageable if anyone were so minded to create one. A question to pose on the talk page of Tea, perhaps? Regards from the tea-drinking capital of the world[citation needed], Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this elaborate reply, this is exactly what I needed to know, also thanks for that nice cup of tea:) ! I guess I'll actually try to get more information on the Tea talk page. FlyingShrimp (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Check out this list: EN:Category:Chinese teas, and this one EN:Category:Chinese tea. Broichmore (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm game for chipping in to this mini-project, @FlyingShrimp:. It seems like, from the general vibe, that it should be, not a single list, but a number of lists:  List of Japanese teas, List of oolong teas, List of tea cultivars. That sound like what you were thinking?  Nessie (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Not to mention:  Lists of brands of awful teabags you wished you'd never bought and why you should stick to proper loose tea in future! Regards from the Teahouse, and have fun, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Would it be ok that ESL users contribute to English Wiki? --H.S Warren K 01:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howd Warren (talk • contribs)

Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Anyone with some capacity for communication in English and enough common sense to avoid trouble is welcome to edit Wikipedia. A number of upstanding and vital editors speak English as a second language. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being so remedial but...

On Ted Neeley's wikipedia page, there's a parenthetical note asking how it could be possible that he could have performed on the Smothers Brother's Show, and I found a clip on youtube but couldn't figure out how to add to the References section. I noticed the biography notation above the editing box, and it said to use 'high quality sources' and I wasn't sure if you guys wanted a youtube page being linked to as proof of a thing as opposed to something... I don't know, more formal I guess, but I could've sworn I'd seen youtube pages in reference sections on yall before, but just didn't know how to have it applied. I've made small typo corrections in the past, but aren't sure what yall'd want with the two cents I picked up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJeg43-FTmg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehappypoet (talk • contribs) 18:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Welcome to the Teahouse, Thehappypoet. Looking at Neeley's article, I can understand the objection: that the way it's written, it seems to stipulate that Neeley appeared on SmoBro after 1974, well after the show had been cancelled. If you rewrote the mention to him having appeared earlier in his career, that would make much more sense. That being said, YouTube can't be used as a source to support the notability of a subject, but this is a case where it can be used to verify a simple visual fact. Ravenswing 22:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ravenswing, it is not at all the case that YouTube can't be used as a source to support the notability of a subject. Many, perhaps most, YouTube videos are not reliable sources and can't be used on Wikipedia at all, unless that video is the subject of an article (very rare). Some YouTube videos would be primary sources, and of little or no value in establishing notability. Some YouTube videos are fully reliable secondary sources, and of as much value as printed news publications. Youtube is a platform, not a publisher, and everything depends on who actually published a given clip, and what it shows. Specific context is vital. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
And the context that is most useful for the Wikipedia novice is that YouTube seldom meets the appropriate standards for linking to an article at all, and that the overwhelming number of links to TV shows or movies violate copyright standards. As a frequent flyer at WP:AFD, I can think of scarcely any cases where YouTube links were legitimately considered to satisfy the GNG, and we do a disservice in suggesting otherwise to newcomers. Ravenswing 02:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
First, thank you being a helpful editor and for reading this post. Can you please provide your feedback on adding a new section to the Chandra Levy article. The article is currently rated a "Good Article", I just want to be careful and want to enhance the article versus degrading it.
The section would likely be titled "In popular culture", I have done some extensive research and there are at least 12 documentaries concerning her case, should I add the section?
Thank you,
Vwanweb (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S.
I have posted this topic on the articles talk page, I am just reaching out to another group of editors for guidance.

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse Vwanweb! What sorts of sourcing have you discovered? Could you give some examples? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Vwanweb. I am not a big fan of "in popular culture" sections, but many articles contain them. So, if included, the content must be policy compliant and truly encyclopedic. Please read a very good essay called Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. I do not believe that documentaries about the disappearance and murder of Chandra Levy belong in such a section. Any such section should be about fictional works, song lyrics, poems, paintings and sculptures. You say that you have found twelve documentaries. The best of those should be used as reliable sources. The worst, which are amateur, repetitive or those that advance conspiracy theories, should be ignored. Because Gary Condit was falsely accused, our policy on biographies of living people requires that we be very cautious about including any sensationalistic or poorly referenced content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please help me to publish my draft

Hi According to a reviewer on my talk page, subject that i am interested in writing about is non-notable on Wikipedia standards. Subject Mr. Abhijeet Gholap is a Indian National award winning film producer (reference quoted in the draft). He is also a successful entrepreneur and is founder of Optra Ventures that consist of OptraSCAN which is part of Cancer MoonShot 2020 project.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/2999965, https://www.360dx.com/business-news/optrascans-demand-service-may-make-digital-pathology-more-affordable#.WrNAeOhubcc, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161018005285/en/NantOmics-Launches-Augmented-Intelligence-Program-On-Demand-Digital

Kindly help me to understand Wikipedia standards ~Optrajennifer

@Optrajennifer: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In examining the draft, I would first note that the way I read it and the sources is that a film that he worked on won an award, not he himself. The sources all seem to just mention Abhijeet Gholap, discuss something he is involved with, or consist of an interview with him, neither of which is sufficient to establish notability. There needs to be in depth coverage of him in independent reliable sources that indicates how Abhijeet Gholap meets the notability guidelines for biographies listed at WP:BIO. I must agree with what you have been told on your user talk page that it seems unlikely such sources exist. Please understand that not every person merits an article here. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Arthur Margoschis, Want to know if any voluntary writers are assigned by Wikipedia

My article Draft:Arthur Margoschis has been declined once for not being in an encyclopedic format and peacock terms. It is still at a draft stage. I feel that my article is a very important one. It is about a Christian SPG Missionary who made valuable contributions to my place and people. Most of his details could be at Oxford and Cambridge libraries. Now am not able to consistently do researches on him, and write this article. Now I just wanted to know if there are any voluntary writers who are assigned by Wikipedia to complete this article. by Johnson.Johnson.devaraj (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:Arthur Margoschis
Hello, Johnson.devaraj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not assign anyone to write any article. It is possible that some volunteer might choose to work on the draft you have created, but there is no guarantee. From a very brief glace at the draft, you have a fair amount of information and a number of sources already collected. I don't know how high quality those sources are, or what more might be wanted.
Note that Wikipedia articles should use the neutral point of view. They should not be written to praise or blame anyone or anything, but to present the facts as documented in published reliable sources. peacock terms and Puffery should be avoided, but that is a matter of writing style, not research. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Johnson.devaraj welcome to our Teahouse. No, as stated above, everyone here is a volunteer, and no one can assign anyone to any individual task, I'm afraid. (We even have to make our own tea!)
That said, at a quick glance, your problem seems less with references and much more with the style of writing you have used and how you have included far too much petty detail, some of which is not supported by inline citations. My advice would be to cut out any sentence that cannot be supported by a reference. Do this one line at a time, ensuring that your words are not accidentally portraying him or his town in pleasant terms - just use factual terms. By way of example, there's no need to state that he was a 'capable doctor', even though you have a reference to a person who wrote exactly this. It's just stating the obvious, and is irrelevant trivia. That he was a doctor is a different thing altogether. Trying to cut this article down to half its size is a good way to force yourself to decide what to excise. Be cold and clinical (i.e. neutral) in what you write, and I'm sure you'll get there. Sometimes less is more. (I haven't considered issues like WP:Notability, which is always key here, but I suspect this won't be a major issue, and the reviewer didn't highlight this. Does any of this assist you and give you confidence to move forward? I hope so. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, The other day I uploaded (JFB-Profile4.jpg) a picture of the mathematician Jeffrey Brock, which got deleted because of copyright issues. I agree with that decision. Since then, the author of the picture (Jeffrey Brock) has added a line to the website where that picture is located (https://www.math.brown.edu/~brock/) declaring that he's the author, and included another line (visible when hovering over the picture) declaring that the picture may be used.

Still, the new upload of the picture got deleted. Can anyone advice?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janedbdp (talk • contribs) 11:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That looks to me to be a valid and acceptable copyright release. Maproom (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Janedbdp - this looks absolutely perfect to me. (Tripods and self-timers are great things to use to take your own picture, so one doesn't have to worry about another photographer claiming its their copyright!) I can't, at a quick glance, see the notification of deletion you would have received on your talk page- there should be a link to guide you how to get an image undeleted. If you need further help with this, just come back and ask. (and don't forget to sign your messages, and include full links to pages and files you're talking about - it makes our work here much easier). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Janedbdp, welcome to the Teahouse. Your new upload was commons:File:Jeff Brock.jpg. Deleted Commons file pages can only be seen by Commons administrators so I cannot see which information you gave. I see you posted to commons:User talk:Patrick Rogel#File deleted, Jeff Brock.jpg. That user nominated the file for deletion but is not an administrator and cannot delete or undelete files. The new upload was deleted by commons:User:Ronhjones who can be contacted at commons:User talk:Ronhjones. I don't know whether Commons has a policy about licenses which are only specified as a mouseover on the image. I do see the mouseover made by this in the html source of the page:
<img class="imageStyle"
	  	title="Image: Jeffrey Brock - this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.
{{cc-by-sa-4.0|Created by Jeffrey Brock}}
"
	  	alt="head" width="223" height="330"
	  	src="files/JFB-Profile4.jpg"
	  	/>
PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


Thanks so much! I've asked the user who deleted it, as suggested. --Janedbdp (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Archiving CSD logs?

Kosher? Permissible? Allowed but frowned upon? My CSD log is over 114k bytes, and it takes a bit of time to fully load. Anyone have thoughts on it? Thanks L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi L3X1. User:L3X1/CSD log is made by Twinkle with an optional setting. I would say you are free to do what you want with it: Archive, request deletion, turn off in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, whatever. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, PrimeHunter. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, L3X1, as you'll be well aware, CSD logs do get scrutinised at WP:RFA, and that there was a recent case of someone deleting theirs, and soon after standing for adminship, which caused one or two raised eyebrows. So, maybe keep it all if you think you might oneday want to wield that mop yourself. It's certainly impressively red. (Wouldn't want to bump into you on a dark editing night!). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing templates

Good afternoon,

I'm a complete newbie and would like to know how to remove a box (I believe they are called templates) from a page that suggested there was too much advertising material in a paragraph. I have edited the paragraph and would like to remove the box. I followed the instructions (click on box, it will turn blue and click delete) but I only got 'edit'.

Can somebody give me 'idiot proof' instructions? Many thanks.

P.S. It says above to place question at the bottom of the page, I'm assuming it doesn't do that automatically, I also don't know how to do that. When I click on 'publish changes' at the bottom of this question......what changes? I find this all very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecloggs (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Spacecloggs and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The box is known as a maintenance or clean-up tag or notice, and it is produced via a template, in this case probably Template:Advert. This will show up in the wiki-source as {{Advert}}. It may be removed by editing to remove that piece of code. However, if you are at all unsure that the problem has been completely fixed, and all advertising tone removed, I suggest that you post on the talk page of the article involved, and request that a more experienced editor review the situation. If you mention here what article you are looking at, one of the volunteers here would probably examine the situation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

New article

How should I know if the select topic is notable enough to write an article on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Garginsnout (talk • contribs) 10:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Pete Garginsnout, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, a topic is notable if it has been covered in some detail in multiple reliable sources. Below is some advice on creating new articles. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Earin

An entry that I just made was redirect with all the info entered deleted without a discussion. The redirect has no information about the entry listed. Note that I did provide sources and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnuwame (talk • contribs) 14:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jnuwame, and welcome to the Teahouse. SamHolt6 converted the article Earin into a edirect pointing to i.am+, with the message redirected article to i.am+, the company which recently bought out Earin. Earin did not receive significant coverage, nor did it actually produce any products due to project delays. Any verifiable info about Earin could be added to the i.am+ article, with proper sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but my issue is that ll other references/citations were deleted with no discussion. The redirect - removed all other references and history. Such as [1] Which the first product was first delivered in 2015, and only credits the sale company.

Here is a complete list of the history

Product reviews:

Funding details:

Media Accolades, M-2 Previews: 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnuwame (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
This material is more appropriate for the article's talk page, but I will do my best to respond here. From my reading of the article and it's sources, the company is a startup that produces a limited number of wireless earbuds. However, a majority of the sources cited by the article place more emphasis on the concept of wireless earphones as opposed to delving into inter-workings of Earin itself. Other sources such as Kickstarter.com, Swedishstartups.com, and the various product reviews are all dubious sources for an encyclopedia. Citing our policy of Wikipedia:PAGEDECIDE, articles that do not have sufficient information or in-depth coverage should not have their own articles, and should instead be added to different articles. This is backed by the most recent (8 Jan 2018) citation concerning the company ([1]) which notes that the company has been bought out by i.am+.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/10/hearables/

Wikipedia:Indexes

Can someone please explain to me how Wikipedia:Indexes works. Is this a valid form of categorisation, or is it a bunch lists like any other lists? Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply, or reply on my talk page, this page is too busy to have on my watchlist)

Hey @Prince of Thieves:, can you tell us more about your plans for what kind of index you want to do, or not? I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia:Indexes until you mentioned it. Looks like it may be falling out of favor, as the portal may get deleted and the template mentioned, Template:For index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) looks like it was only ever a test page. I'm not the most seasoned piece of wood around here, but I don't see the big advantage of an Wikipedia:Indexes over Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, but i'm not one to kink-shame. If it works for what you want to do you could still go for it, but be prepared if the sun sets on the format and whatever that may entail. Nessie (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Nessie: Thanks, but this was in regard to a debate on whether to get rid of one, rather than making a new one. And yes, it looks like it's on the way out due to disuse. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Weird Question

Does anyone know what happened on the main page on November 16, 2016? There were alot of edits but the username has somehow been removed and I was just curious. Thanks Goveganplease (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision deleting edits wouldn't make a lot of sense if we then revealed what the edits were on request... sorry, but your curiosity will have to go unsatisfied, I'm afraid. Yunshui 雲水 15:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks anyways. Goveganplease (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Separate language sets

Is Cubic function and in other languages pl:Równanie sześcienne. Similar is Quartic function and pl:Równanie czwartego stopnia. Is possible merge English and other version to Polish and others version? I can't merge because is different WikiData. Borneq (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Borneq, the Polish articles are about the respective equations, rather than fuctions. I have no idea whether it's really a meaningful distinction, someone more familiar with the subject could better advise, so I'm asking WikiProject Mathematics for opinions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that, in English Wikipedia, there is only one article for Cubic function and Cubic equation, the latter being a redirect to the former, while there are two different entries in Wikidata. I have previously encountered the same problem with Fibonacci number and Fibonacci sequence. This has been solved by the magic command {{Interwiki extra|qid=Q23835349}} at the end of the article (the qid must be adapted). D.Lazard (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It would be useful if someone could write a bot for scanning the redirects having a Wikidata entry and adding the magic command at the end of the target of the redirect. D.Lazard (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
In most Wikipedia languages (English, Polish,etc) is only one article, but problem is in German version. There are shorter and longer article. Longer enclosing shorter (?) and German version force all other languages to have both versions or exists disjoint language sets for this subject. Borneq (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Article about MI (Misery Index) was rejected.

Greetings,

My draft about MI (Misery Index) was rejected? How can I find out the reason(s)?

Thank you,

There is a note on your talk page at User_talk:73.16.162.194 and also on the draft at Draft:Winter_Misery_Index. RudolfRed (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Add cycloid drive cam to cycloid drive article?

Cycloid drive cam is a recently patented advancement of cycloid drive technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA2x6nWBj-k

Would it be possible to add a section under cycloid drives which explains how a modified cycloid drive, normally used only for rotary speed reduction, can now also be used for large rotary-to-linear speed reductions using a single moving cycloid drive disc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.150.215 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you can find published Reliable Sources to cite for the new additions. See WP:REFB. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

References, online or printed

Good morning,

When giving references, isn't it preferable to cite a website containing articles about an individual? Or you only prefer articles from megazines? I don't write articles about myself or friends or colleague or my company, but I'm told that I write articles about people I'm close to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA Media Agency (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The poster has been blocked for promotional editing under a promotional user name, but since it is a relevant question: Sources can be online or offline as long as they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Sources that are easier for the reader to access are preferrable, but the first requirement is that the source is reliable. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Online sources are more convenient for readers who want to look at a source, perhaps to learn more about specific information cited in the article. One potential problem, however, is that online sources might disappear for some reason. Therefore, it's advisable to use a web archiving service, such as the Internet Archive or archive.is, to create an online backup copy of the original page. Many citation templates contain spaces for the address of the archived copy and the date the archived copy was created, so that those two items appear in the citation. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of quoted text in articles

Hi, I am in the midst of drafting a new wikipedia page and was told by someone on your help line that it is forbidden to use quoted text from other publications (i.e., because that's a copyright violation). But what if I am quoting from books or other publications to which I myself hold the copyright? Am I still still forbidden to use them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmcelroy (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mwmcelroy, and welcome to the Teahouse! The advice you were given was either incorrect, or you misunderstood it. Brief quotations are okay if they are relevant and properly formatted.
What is not okay, on the other hand, is copying long sections of text from copyrighted sources. In theory, you can use long portions of text you own copyrights to, but since this is almost always a bad idea I won't go into specifics about how to do this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, Mwmcelroy, while brief quotations are indeed permited, each must be marked as a quote, attributed to the source, and must be followed by an inline citation to the source being quoted. All this and more is explained at MOS:QUOTE, which Finnusertop linked to above. I mention it explicitly here in case you did not follow the link, and so others may also learn from this response. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep Getting Rejected

I don't often edit pages on Wikipedia as we have rarely been successful but just wondered if someone could give me feedback on this article we are struggling with. Been trying to update this page but keep getting rejected for "looks like advertising copy" and "relies on references". I am not sure how it can be improved, it looks pretty basic to me. Any experienced members care to provide any advice? Thanks so much! New copy follows: The American Academy of Health Behavior (AAHB)[1] was founded April 1, 1997 by Elbert D. Glover, PhD, a professor in Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at West Virginia University School of Medicine to “transform the health promotion and health education field from a teaching- and service-centered profession to one with a stronger research foundation in which discovery would be valued as a means of improving practice and enhancing public health. The origination of the Academy was based on the belief that the future growth and evolution of the health promotion and health education fields rested on a strong commitment to conducting and disseminating quality research.”[2] The initial office was located in Morgantown, West Virginia. Today, the executive offices are located in Rudolph, Ohio. The Executive Director is Joanne Sommers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendrowe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, one problem is that the quoted portion is word-for-word a copy of content located at https://aahb.org/About_the_Academy. We do not permit copyright violations here; that quote is not fair use of copyright content. You'll need to write using your own words. General Ization Talk 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It was our own copy from our website but I get your gist, and appreciate the advice. Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendrowe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Stevendrowe, you mention "we" and "our site". Just who is "we"? The rule at Wikipedia is that each account must be used by one and only one person. Accounts may not be shared, and may not represent companies, organizations, or groups of any sort.
Also, please sign your posts on talk and discussion pages like this with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will transform this into your user name and a timestamp, or your custom signature if you set one up. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A friend of a friend who runs the organization asked for help with editing this page since he doesn't have much coding skills, and this is how I got involved. I am not affiliated with the organization, and I am not being paid, I was just doing it as a favour. Some people at Wikipedia are giving me some bad attitude as they think I am trying to sell something. That attitude has completely put me off contributing here so I have to walk away from it. The information may have to remain out of date or incorrect which is a shame since that will my expectation about reading any other info on Wikipedia. Appreciate the time though. Goodbye. (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendrowe (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking Help with Draft/Work In Progress Page/Article

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so please excuse me for my limitations.

I've researched around for answers to my questions, getting some answers for some things and striking out on others.

Here's the draft as of now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tqiwiki/Peter_Steinmetz?wteswitched=1

Starting with the title, the name of the page should be changed to "Peter N. Steinmetz" (adding in the formality of the subject's middle name initial).

Before I submit it for review, I'm seeking help here because I imagine it's too far from being anywhere close to good enough for that.

Please advise any and all revisions to get it on its way to conforming to the Wikipedia protocol.

I added a photo of the subject, but it looks like the photographer has since passed, so striking out on getting enough of a permission or authorization to use it, and so that photo got removed, understandably, so, in the meantime, I'm seeking another photo that will work for the article.

If there's something I should keep in mind for future reference when getting articles started, from terminology here, to templates, to formatting, and so on, please advise on that, too.

Thank you for any and all help.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Tqiwiki (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Tqiwiki, the draft, User:Tqiwiki/Peter Steinmetz is organized very much like a resume or CV for Steinmetz. It should instead read like an encyclopedia article about him. It should not list all of his professional publications, only the moat significant few. It need not list every professional position that he has held, and the ones it does mentions should be included in prose, not in the form of a list. It should cite several sources that are independent, and have been published by reliable sources. The content of the article should be based largely on those sources. Significant details should be directly cited to such sources. You might take a look at existing articles about scientists, such as Hazel Bishop and Joanna Aizenberg, as examples. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Some advice on how to build articles:
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Underwood M1 Carbine

How do I find out if my M1 was issued to a serviceman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.212.254 (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello @142.0.212.254: this page is only for questions about how to use Wikipedia itself, not answering general questions. To ask general questions from volunteer fact-finders, please visit WP:Reference Desk. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_742&oldid=832465556"