Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 772

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 765←Archive 770Archive 771Archive 772Archive 773Archive 774Archive 775

Biography should use naturalised name or original name of the person?

I wrote an article on Ayik Umar Said, which is his birth name. When he moved to France he legally changed his name to André Aumars but all of the references written in Indonesian refer him as Ayik Umar Said. So how should I address in the article as well as in citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumars (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Aumars and welcome to the Teahouse. The rlevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME which says Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) and Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. So if there are sources in English, follow those. If there are not significant, reliable sources in English, follow the sources that there are. Whatever title the article has, mention both names in the lead sentence, with each in boldface. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who can help me here

Hello everyone i am a wikipedian and wanted to edit friendly and contribute in wikipedia thus i want to make wikipedia clean from vandalism too. so, while reverting and reviewing i am making mistakes cause i dont know well about rollback and pending changes reviewer. so, i would be thankful from my inner heart if anyone could teach me about these things. MTKASHTALK Contribs 08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MTKASH, welcome to the Teahouse. It's always a good idea to read about how things work, especially if any actions you take could impact on the efforts of other editors. It can be upsetting when another editor wrongly deletes or reverts one's edits. So, do please read Wikipedia:Pending changes and Wikipedia:Rollback on these topics. Whilst the latter is a special permission, users of Twinkle do have access to a similar 'rollback' function, which anyone can use (with care, of course). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Pigeon Point Lighthouse

When the Pigeon Point lighthouse was in operation in the 1800s and on a clear night, how far away could a ship's crew be able to see the light by those navigating the waters within its parameters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.98.85 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a forum for asking questions about using or editing Wikipedia, and it is not a general question asking forum. You could try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I note your question has been very helpfully addressed on your talk page by David notMD. Assuming clarity and a powerful enough light, you might find some helpful formulae on Wikipedia itself, backed up by referring to the citations each article gives. I'd suggest Horizon to start with. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank You.

I wanted to say , I will try to follow the rules too the best of my abilities. - English Translation. YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, YodogawaKamlyn. That is a very sensible approach to take. Please write in English at all times on English Wikipedia (including on your user page, and in edit summaries). If you have any particular questions about editing, do feel free to come back and ask. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions/tips for improving infoboxes on Luxembourg commune articles

I'm looking to improve the infoboxes on Luxembourg commune articles, such as here. Particularly I would like advice on the following three issues:

1) How to get the ranks of the highest and lowest points to appear on one line, eg.
1 of 102

rather than

1
of 102

2) On mobile, I have noticed that the heraldic shield tends to display on the left of the infobox though it displays centrally on desktop.

3) I would like the template to allow for the display of flags in the infobox, as well as their heraldic sign, similar to the infobox for sovereign states, for those communes that have a different city flag to their heraldic sign. eg, Luxembourg City (flag). Would this need the infobox to have a conditional formatting, so that if there is a flag, the heraldic symbol changes size and colour to allow for the flag to be displayed next to it?

Thanks in advance, Luxofluxo (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Luxofluxo and welcome to the Teahouse.
I think I have an answer for the first part of your question: if you examine the last few lines in the sources of these two templates — one which exhibits the problem and one which does not, you'll find that the <noinclude> directive needs to be placed immediately after the closing double brackets with no new line started in between.
As for your other two questions, these (well actually all of them) are at a technical level beyond what can be addressed here at the Teahouse. The Village Pump (Technical) board may be a better place to try: WP:VPT. There may be a place more specifically oriented towards template programming questions, but I don't know where it is. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip for Q1, that seems to have fixed it. I'll follow up with where you suggested for Q2 and Q3. Luxofluxo (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Question about

Hi..... How is everyone to day20:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutt-Shut (talk • contribs)

Hello, Nutt-Shut, welcome. Some of use are doing OK, thanks. Do you have a specific question about editing Wikipedia which you need help with? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes actually just a little something am curious about how much work do administors and higher rank editors do is it hard.

my next questions does admininstors and other maintance editors have to sit in front of a computer the entire day doesn't it hurt you peoples eyes I am guessing most of you wear glasses right . Nutt-Shut (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nutt-Shut: We are all volunteers here, so each editor or administrator puts in just as much time and effort as they wish to/feel able to. There is no such thing as a 'higher rank editor', though perhaps you refer to those editors who have made many tens of thousands of edits? We do actually have a list of editors arranged in order of the number of edits they have made (see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits), and another listing by the number of articles editors have created (see WP:List of Wikipedians by article count. Whilst not hard, being administrator here is a very responsible role, and it does take a lot of time to properly understand most of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, so only those editors who the editing community at large actually trust are ever likely to get appointed as administrators. To gain that trust, each editor who puts their name forward to be an administrator certainly needs to have demonstrated a long history of competent editing and a calm temperament across a broad range of issues and topics, especially as they may be asked to deal with editors who might be in conflict with one another, or to answer unusual questions they might be asked, as well as justifying the actions they might have taken. I am not an administrator myself (though I have been considering whether I'm competent enough yet to put my name forward to take on that role). However, I do now wear glasses; whether I can blame that on Wikipedia is highly debatable. See Computer vision syndrome. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)  

Where is the places to create userboxes and share them for others to use 🌂Nutt-Shut (Talk) 03:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC) — Nutt-Shut (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of MaysonMage009 (talk • contribs).

Nutt-Shut You signature leads to my userpage please fix this right away, as this can confuse other editors. Thanks.Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Héctor Ireta and Ágústa Eva...

Come on! Why did you guys delete the fact that they were both married? They are married according to Phineas and Ferb Wiki[1]! And I can tell you that, don't delete it no more! — Maude~Duggel (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://phineasandferb.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_cast_members_in_other_languages/Youth_characters_and_cast
Likely it was deleted because it was sourced to Phineas and Ferb wiki, Maude~Duggel. Sources must be reliable. Wikis, including this one, are not. John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please put it back! I ship those two and they are just like the Brangelina of voice dubbing! They just got married in 2016 :( Maude~Duggel (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft to article

Good morning, My article is still says 'draft'so how can I make my article officially published? I went back to the page but I could not find the button that says "Submit your draft for review". Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabcockWanson94 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello BabcockWanson94 and welcome to the Teahouse.
I've put an [[WP:articles for creation|}} template on your draft which supplies a "submit" button. If you submit the current draft, it will likely be quickly declined because it fails to resemble an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a company's "about us" page from their website. You may also have a username that violates our policies. I don't want to be discouraging, you've done many things right it getting this draft put together, but it still needs a great deal of work. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Omnideck 6

any idea to add something about this one? the product has been released since 2013. <Personale talk/> 05:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The draft looks to be in good shape to me, I'd submit it for review. Richard0612 09:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Okidoki. <Personale talk/> 05:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Report

I wanted suggestbot to send only NASCAR articles but it sent a few company and also a mythology article.Kpgjhpjm (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is how SuggestBot works - it feeds articles you've recently edited into a collaborative filtering algorithm to recommend new ones. No limits are placed on the recommendations - it doesn't filter by topic area or category. Richard0612 09:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Kpgjhpjm check this out. It lists all NASCAR articles with problems: Cleanup listing for WikiProject NASCAR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Richard0612: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions has an option to specify WikiProjects for SuggestBot. @Kpgjhpjm: I haven't tried SuggestBot but I see you missed the space in WikiProject NASCAR and entered WikiProjectNASCAR in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Ahhh I see. You learn something new every day. Richard0612 11:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hello! I was going on Wikipedia when i saw a new message say that a article i made that was made for a wanted page was deleted. I wrote the page because it was on the wanted pages list. I cannot talk to the person who deleted it because the article was deleted last night. Apparently it was deleted because it "did not need to be in a encyclopedia" even though it was on the wanted pages list. can someone get this person who deleted it to say why they deleted it and why did they do it when i wasn't even able to challenge it because like I said I wrote it because it was on the wanted pages list. Thanks CanadiaNinja 13:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

CanadiaNinja, Gamezone was deleted by Espresso Addict under speedy deletion criterion A7 because it was about a web site, but did not explain why the subject was significant or important. see Credible claim of significence. Previously another user created an article by the same title, and it was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameZone as not having the sources to establish the topic's notability. By going to the page where the article had been, you can always see the deletion log which shows which user did the deletion, and the logged reason. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed account

Hello colleagues,

I have a question, if I become autoconfirmed account (as I understand that when I have done 10 edits), I can create article without draft reviewing process?

Thanks and best regards,--Dothien0103 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Massive Yes :). <Personale talk/> 08:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
However, Dothien0103, I would still strongly advise you to start all new articles as Drafts. I do this myself, although i do not normally have them reviewed via the articles for creation process. I cannot create a valid article that is in good enough shape for the main article space in a single edit, and neither can most other editors. Also, particularly 2while you have relatively little experience, I would advise you to ask some experienced editor to do a quick informal review if you are not going to go theugh an AfC review. Otherwise, you may get a significantly stricter review from the New page Pagtrol and your article may be promptly deleted if it fits any of the speedy deletion criteria or may be nominated for deletion at AfD. A review can help spot issues tht might lead to such deletions in time to fix them. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I edited Joseph Volpe MD's profile yesterday...

I edited Joseph Volpe MD's profile yesterday. He approved it and I hit the publish button. This morning I went to check the pages and my edits were not there?? Can you helo me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miller irene (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Miller irene, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would like to clear things up before I answer your question. It is not Joseph Volpe (physician)'s "profile". It is his entry in Wikipedia that he has no control over. With that being said, your edits were reverted for being a WP:Copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from other sources. JTP (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I would add Miller irene that if you work for Dr. Volpe, you are required to review and comply with the paid editing policy. You should also review the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

the legitimacy of Steam Reviews

Is there a WP policy that states that Steam reviews/scores are not valid for "Reception" sections on video game articles? The Verified Cactus 100% 20:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VerifiedCactus and welcome back to the teahouse. We don't usually have policy level consensus on the reliability of specific sources. Generally it depends somewhat on what content a site or publication is being used to source, unless it fits one of our general categories of non-reliable such as user-generated content, fan site, site with no editorial oversight or control. There is past consensus that some publications are rarely if ever reliable: the London Daily mail is one such. You might check at the reliable source noticeboard -- a search of its archives can be helpful. Or you might ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Noted, thank you! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back to the Teahouse, VerifiedCactus. Here is my view. Because Steam is a commercial website that distributes/sells video games, it cannot be considered a reliable source for anything other than mundane things like the precise title and release date of a game. Their game reviews are user-submitted and lack professional editorial control. In my opinion, such reviews are not encyclopedic and do not constitute reliable sources. Please read Identifying reliable sources for more information. If you want more formal input, try the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Credits Secondary Sources, Discredits Primary Sources

I am puzzled why articles citing theories that have appeared in "respected news sources such as CNN" and books published by "respected publishers such as universities" may be listed as sources for an article, while books and articles by first hand witnesses to an event are not allowed to be cited. I am specifically referring to the article on Sathya Sai Baba. Although there are many articles quoting theories as to how his miracles could have been faked, which are cited in the Wikipedia page about him, my attempt to cite a source who personally witnessed numerous "miracles" was removed because the person who wrote the book was a disciple. Well, the author was originally a sceptic, but after witnessing a few miracles he became a believer; and those who do not witness miracles do not become believers. Is one group right and the other wrong? Wikipedia editors seem to prefer a materialistic view that anything they have not witnessed must be fraud. What is wrong with correcting the line, "His acts were based on sleight of hand....[7][8][9]" to "Some say his acts were based on sleight of hand...." This change should not even require a source as the truth of this is self-evident. You can not prove a negative, such as the non-existence of a white crow. So, you can not state infallibly that "his acts were based on sleight of hand." My edit did not contradict the idea that there may have been fraud, but simply changed the tone to be less arrogant and condescending to those who may believe. I can list several books, one by a MD who was originally a sceptic, that show the transformation from sceptic to believer, yet these sources are denied while books about Sai Baba by people who never experienced him, who write books based on "news sources" and gossip are listed as credible. The books I propose are "The Holy Man and the Psychiatrist, by Dr. Samuel Sandweis; also "Man of Miracles" by Howard Murphet; also, "Modern Miracles: The Story of Sathya Sai Baba: A Modern Day Prophet (White Crow Books), by Erlender Heraldsson, Ph.D. Dr Heraldsson "...is Professor Emeritus of psychology at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik. He studied at the Universities of Freiburg and Munich in Germany and at the University of Virginia, and was a visiting professor in the United States and Germany. He has been an active researcher, published over 70 technical papers in scientific journals, and written six books which have appeared in numerous translations and editions, among them are The Departed among the Living, At the Hour of Death (with Karlis Osis), and Modern Miracles. Documentaries have been made of his studies of children who claim to remember past lives, such as by the BBC.-Amazon.com" Is he not a credible source? He is an eminent professor who also happened to witness what appeared to be a "miracle." Is not the creation of the Universe a miracle? But I can't cite a source for that. DharmaMountain (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi DharmaMountain and welcome to the Teahouse. Lasting Wikipedia contributions to our collective knowledge must meet three simultaneous standards: neutral point of view, verifiability , and no original research. First-person accounts of supernatural experiences fail on one or more of these mutually interdependent criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. All three policies must be considered at once, as the informative Core Content Policies essay tries to make clear.
Perhaps the simplest explanation is this paragraph of the binding verifiability policy page: exceptional claims require exceptional sources -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
That said (just looked at the edits, sorry for second thoughts) I think your edits were better in tone (neutral point of view). and I am embarrassed when viewing the wikicode to see that some previous editor used "quack" for a named reference, a violation of civility in my book.(I am embarrassed to say reference name was indeed named Johannes Quack. Going to bed.;) Your edits have my support. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Need help creating an article

I am trying to creat an article for the Italian torpedo boat Orione but I can't figure out how to put the ships Infobox in the article. Please help A 10 fireplane (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Italian torpedo boat Orione (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello, A 10 fireplane, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide helpful? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thank you A 10 fireplane (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Questioning Consistency of Decisions about Appropriate Content on the McNab Dog Page

Greetings,

Before I linked my informative website to a page in wikipedia named "The McNab Dog", I asked on this forum, I believe, if it was appropriate. I was told no. I was reviewing the McNab Dog page today and found the following which is pasted below:

"Beginning in 2014, the MSR worked with Mars Veterinary on a study in an attempt to establish a unique genetic signature for the McNab Shepherd. Samples collected from McNabs across the United States were evaluated for their genetic signature and found to support the creation of a unique breed signature for the McNab. Additionally, the tested dogs were also evaluated for certain physical traits and over 100 disease-causing mutations to help establish a baseline for these in the McNab population.[2]" . This includes a hyperlink to their registry. The registry has a breeders list. In my view, this is clearly a way to create business for their site. That was explanation I was given when I asked permission for my information only webiste, The McNab Shepherd Historical Society, which I am not clear if anyone visited before rendering that opinion.

So I am now questioning the consistency. I will not edit it because I am asking those that render these opinions to be consistent. Information and evidenced-based history vs. a site that is promoting breeders that sell dogs?

Thank you in advance!

Stephanie Madison McNabK9 <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabk9 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mcnabk9, and welcome back to the Teahouse. In thois edit you were advised that it would be inappropriate for you in particular to add mcnabshepherdhs.com as an external link to McNab dog precisely because you would be adding your own site, which is all too often done in an effort to promote a site. You have a conflict of interest in such a case. I would advise you to post at Talk:McNab dog suggesting that other editors review your site and include it as an external link or as a cited source if it seems useful.
As to the link to the registry, that does not seem to be a commercial site, although some of its members are commercial breeders, nor does that site seem to be selling or promoting the sale of dogs. It is being cited as a source, and it seems to me to be a plausible source. If you think that site is not a reliable source, or otherwise should not be cited, again this coulds be discussed on Talk:McNab dog. Wikipedia does cite many commercial sources, when those are the best sources available. For example in articles about corporations, ir is common to cite the firm's own web page for basic data such as the year of founding, HQ location, and names of key officers. This is done even though a corporate site is designed to promote the business. It is done because editors believe that the site is sufficiently useful to readers of Wikipedia to overcome any promotional purpose, particualrly when the site is added by a neutral uninvolved editor. Perfect consistency on such issues in not feasible for Wikipedia to obtain. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello DESiegel

It sounds like another person interested in the McNab Dog breed evidenced-based history, a site that sells nothing nor takes contributions, can edit the McNab Dog page and add me as an external link. MSR is very much a commercial entity. The whole purpose of their mention is to direct people to the effort to join. What else would a breeder list be useful for other than buying a dog?Mcnabk9 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Tully summary missed the mark.

I just saw the movie Tully this afternoon. So, I decided to read what Wikipedia said about it. Maybe Wikipedia didn't want to spoil the twist at the end but in not doing so, the description of the story is false. There really is no nanny. The nanny is a figment of the mentally ill mother. The movie reminded me of the one where the little boy sees people that no one else sees. Whether the main character in this film is suffering from postpartum depression or is seriously mentally ill with bipolar or schizophrenia a psychiatrist would have to diagnose. But the story is not about a special friendship between a young nanny and a mom. The "threesome" referred to on your page is imaginary. I don't know who reported this but the person either didn't understand the story or didn't want to divulge what it was really about---mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.138.151 (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello anonymous user and welcome to the Teahouse.
Film is an interesting art form. By showing a sequence of images, it engages its audience at several levels to synthesize a perception of motion and interpret a narrative. I have read the summary of Tully (2018 film) and, even though I've not seen the film (a family member did), it properly includes the sequence of things the audience sees. Some would argue that it is not the summary's job to synthesize the overall explanation or fill in unstated motivations or explain and resolve possibly confusing or intentionally ambiguous aspects of the film. What we would call "imaginary" events may be shown as if they were real.
WP also has a policy WP:SPOILER that says we do not shrink from revealing aspects of a story that may have been intended as secrets or surprises. If you think there is some factual statement about the plot that you can add to the summary, you are welcome to do so. I do caution against violating WP:SYNTHESIS by adding your own interpretation. The plot summary is allowed to be based on the primary source of the film itself, but any interpretation must be based on secondary sources, properly cited. For additional guidance, you might compare with the plot summaries given in, say, Fight Club or The Sixth Sense. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello IP user. I haven't seen the film but I read several reviews of the film and a couple of them allude vaguely to some sort of surprise ending. I found a review in the New Yorker that contained this line: "There’s a suggestion, at the end of the film, that Tully herself isn’t real—that, throughout the film, she’s a figment of Marlo’s imagination". A review like that could be used as a reliable source for your theory of whether or not Tully is "real" in the context of the plot of a work of fiction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

White logos on white infoboxes

An article I created, Prism Studios, has a completely white logo, so it is not visible in the infobox. What do I do?  Nixinova  T  C  05:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Try asking for help at WP:GL/I. Perhaps someone there can find a way to better present the logo (e.g., adding a neutral background) without altering the logo. If you do ask for help there, then make sure to use Template:GLNF since non-free content cannot be displayed on pages such as that per WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Another thing you might want to consider is using the file the company is using at www.facebook.com/PrismStudiosUK/ or twitter.com/prismstudiosuk. Just upload it as a new version to the existing file, change the source url accordingly, and tag the file with {{furd}} so that the older version is deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Updated  Done. <Personale talk/> 08:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting and adding content

Hi. I have tried several times to not only delete some content on Wikipedia page but to add some pertinent information but to no avail. How can I do this? Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelinarocks (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't. Just because you work for the person in question does not mean you can delete information that is public knowledge. AND, you will need to declare your paid relationship (see WP:PAID), which puts further restrictions on how to manage edits. David notMD (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Angelinarocks, welcome to the Teahouse. You first need to review the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; the latter is mandatory if you are a paid editor(you state that you handle Yancy Butler's PR). As you handle her PR, you should not edit the article about your client directly, instead making edit requests on the article talk page. That said, it is not likely that you will succeed in removing information about your client's legal and personal matters- if they are written about in independent reliable sources, and are not defamatory(i.e. not true), there isn't a lot that can be done. However, if that is not the case, please explain on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oops - yet another edit conflict! Hello, Angelinarocks Normally, deleting incorrect content shouldn't be a problem for any editor. Unfortunately, with your only two edits here you have faced a bit of a problem. You have tried to remove cited content about a person for whom you are the PR agent. Whilst I'm pleased you did state this in your edit summary of the section you blanked, we do actually require all editors to declare if they have a conflict of interest, which you clearly do here. We do also require you to declare that you are paid to make those edits, as explained in this policy on paid work. Just because someone you represent doesn't like seeing bad things written about them on Wikipedia doesn't give you or them the right to delete it, unless it were untrue and not referenced to reliable sources. Sometimes it may be that the odd arrest for something in the past isn't germane to the biography as a whole, so then it might be appropriate to remove or to reduce the content. Having said that, I've now taken a quick glance at the article on Yancy Butler, and this might actually be the case here. There does seem to be rather undue coverage of past substance abuse in relation to the rest of the article. Others might take a different view, but rather than making those edits yourself, I'd suggest posting to the article talk page and questioning whether undue fine detail on substance abuse here is acceptable. I suspect some content might need to stay, but some should definitely go, as per this policy: WP:UNDUE. I hope this explanation is of some use. (Update, I have now left a note of my concerns on the talk page) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
And I've rewritten that section to remove most of it – agreeing that the article spent far too much time detailing these altercations. /Julle (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I also removed some of the legal troubles content (stalking ex-boyfriend). And I believe that Julle did right by keeping the three arrest events but reducing content to a sentence or two on each. As for your COI and PAID, required if you intend to contribute more to this article, but not if not. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Lucas The Spider

Hey guys, like this animated character is everywhere on news and sources, is this character notable? to be created on Wikipedia, I would like though because it's adorable. <Personale talk/> 06:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Personale! The question you need to ask is if there are reliable sources that have written about this animated character in depth. A reliable source is for example an academic publication, a book, or potentially a reputable newspaper. In depth means that the character hasn't just been mentioned in passing, but is the focus of the text (or documentary or ...). You can read more on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. /Julle (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Sufficient sources exist - I've started work on a page at Lucas the Spider... Yunshui 雲水 11:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Wow! Nice job i knew it has reliable source because it was spread already and being an notorious character. <Personale talk/> 08:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

New article not showing up on search engines

Hi,

An article for David Williams-Ellis (sculptor) has been accepted but isn't showing up on google etc. How can this be changed?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a draft (Draft:David Williams-Ellis) - drafts don't appear in search indexing - and it was also a copyright violation, so has been deleted. If you own the copyright to the text, please see this page for details of how to allow Wikipedia to use it. Yunshui 雲水 11:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The post refers to David Williams-Ellis (sculptor) which has not been edited by EmmaJayneRW. New articles are not indexed by external search engines for 90 days unless an editor with a certain right patrols them. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


I thought it had now been accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talk • contribs) 11:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter. Is there any way of asking them to patrol this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. I've deleted the article, as it contains the same copyrighted material as the draft, and am investigating the link between the two accounts used to add this material. Yunshui 雲水 12:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The John Henshall submission on the Sandbox...

Could I have feedback on the latest update, please? Is it fit to be published? If so – how do I move it from the Sandbox to become part of the actual Wikipedia submissions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by White.BS (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This must be about Draft:John Henshall Photography. I assume it's meant to be about John Henshall, so the title is misleading – but as it's a draft, that really doesn't matter. At present it does not include enough references to reliable independent sources to establish that Henshall is notable, so if it were moved to article space, it would be in danger of deletion. Maproom (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
White.BS, you appear to have two versions. Draft:John Henshall Photography was submited and declined on 1 April as not having enough references to show notability. You havent made any changes to it since. User:White.BS/sandbox started 1 April, has had some work done on it; however, this version has no references at all, although there is an extensive collection of external links. You need to reference your article properly,(each piece of information should have inline citations) or it may well get deleted if you try moving it into main space. Reading Your first article might be an idea, and definately read WP:Cite and WP:INDY- most of your external links are either to http://www.epi-centre.com (run by the article subject) or the GTC of which he is president; neither of these can be described as independent. Curdle (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Finding Reliable Sources

Hello! A few months ago I tried to resurrect an article that had been deleted (too much marketing speak). After multiple rejections and trouble finding sources, it's obvious I need some extra help. I initially rewrote the article and submitted something much smaller, "just the facts, ma'am". But after about 6 weeks it was rejected for quality of sources, so I took out some sources, and added several more, and republished. About 6 weeks later it was rejected again, this time for too many sources, and again unreliable. I'm told the sources were mostly press releases, but only 1 of the 10 was. I cut out that source and a few others. I searched for additional sources but can't find any better than the ones I'm using. Would greatly appreciate your help and advice because I feel over my head. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geepeayou (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geepeayou: One thing you can try is your local library. In addition to the print material they will of course have, many of them have access to journals and specialty publications that may contain more reference material. Often they make access to those available online. The librarian might be able to point you toward publications that are likely to have what you need if it's there. But do mind "if it's there". There are many topics for which enough source material doesn't exist to write an article, so no matter how hard you look, you'll never find it. If that's the case, you'll need to find something else to write about instead. If all that's available about this organization is press releases, it isn't a suitable subject for an article at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Geepeayou: Draft:MapD (software) currently cites seven sources, all of them based on statements by Mostak and others associated with the company. Therefore none of these sources is independent, and none of them helps to establish that the company is notable. If you've put in as much work as you have, without finding a single source that helps to establish notability, it may be time to give up. Maproom (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Coaches of high school of texas

contribs) 11:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, AdilMaqbool. Welcome to our Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia that we can help you with? If not, do feel free to come back should you have problems in the future. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Archives not present?

Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949) has 2 archives, but neither of them show up in the talk header. Why is that? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: the archives were located at Talk:Republic_of_China_(1912–49)/Archive_2; talk page is at Talk:Republic_of_China_(1912–1949)/Archive_2, thus talk header did not find the archives Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

why is "Hide probably good edits" always checked on when i go to Special:Contributions

Whenever i go to Special:Contributions "Hide probably good edits" is always automatically checked on. It seems to hide all of a user's edits so I have to manually check it off to see anybody's edits. It's been happening for quite some time now. How do i prevent this from happening? PorkchopGMX 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi PorkchopGMX. Disable "Show only likely problem edits (and hide probably good edits)" at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding wikipedia page publishing

Hi there, I am a new Wikipedia editor. Recently I created a wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirasangi_Lingaraj_Desai) and after that I received an email notifying about the page review and its nomination for deletion. Please let me know the approximate publishing time of it and the information regarding page approval process in brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi Muni (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rishi Muni, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page is published, for now, but like you say, it has been nominated for deletion. You can participate in the deletion discussion if you want to argue that the page should be kept. It's probably a good idea to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions first. You should also be aware of the perceived problem with the article: Wikipedia:Notability. You can participate in the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirasangi Lingaraj Desai. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

incorrect birth year categorization

The Wikipedia page for Brad Blum shows his correct birth year, 1953. However, Brad Blum's name appears on the 1954 Birth Year category page. How do I correct this categorization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllisonJ1501 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, AllisonJ1501, and welcome to the Teahouse. You already fixed it before asking this question. Is there anything else we can help you with? JTP (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@AllisonJ1501: Let me clarify it. You changed Category:1954 births to Category:1953 births in the article [2]. This action automatically updates both category pages. You can bypass your cache if you still see him on the 1954 page. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, PrimeHunter for clarifying. I misread the question. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Resubmitting an article

Hello, I have made some changes at an aericle which had been declined because it didn't "adequately show the subject's notability". I have objectived the text and submitted the changes. But I am not sure if I have done that correctly. I did not get any response. I would appreciate indeed very much if you could advise me. Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Heinz_Nigg&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visualstudies (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Visualstudies, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since the decline, ther has been added to the article: 1 cite to Education Guardian; , 1 cite to Youth in Society, 1 cite to Financial Times, and 1 cite to Royal Anthropological Institute News. Most of these are not freely available online, so i cannot judge the depth of coverage that they give. They all look Like reliable sources, which helps, but the first three are cited only to demonstrate that Nigg's book was widely distributed. I rather suspect that additional sourcs hat discuss Nigg in some detail will still; be needed.
Please note that there can be a significant wait for a re-reveiw, and a lack of response so far says nothing about the result one way or the other.
Please in future provide a wiki-link, like [[Draft:Heinz Nigg]], not a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Heinz_Nigg&action=edit, or use {{ld}} (or {{la}} for an article, like this: Draft:Heinz Nigg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh and please sign sign talk and discussion page comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel, your advice is very helpful. I will add the fact that Nigg's book was not only distributed but also discussed and praised for its contribution to the discourse on the participative use of media in local communities and communities of interest. Only the article on the Guardian can be accessed online, the others have to be researched in libraries. And thank you for your practical advice for a newcomer like me how to handle communication in the Teahouse. Best, visualstudies. --Visualstudies (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Visualstudies, that will be helpful. If the book was reviewed in reliable sources I would suggest that you cite and briefly quote from several reviews. This can help establish the notability of a book or its author. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. However, to assist readers without easy access, you can use the |quote= parameter of any of the citation templates to include a brief quote from the source. This helps make it clear just what the source is saying about the topic. Still, if there are additional sources about Nigg, besides those about his book, adding a few that discuss him in some detail, say 3-4 paragraphs or more, would also be helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel, I followed your advice and quoted from several reviews about the book Community Media and about the background of the censorship case in Zurich. I hope this will prove the notability of Heinz Nigg as a visual anthropologist and community artist. Would be great if you could check and see if there might be other issues that need improving. Best, visualstudies--Visualstudies (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in the Bible

I have been working on rewriting this article for some time now and have removed the flags that were at the top of it accordingly. But now I have noticed that when searching the topic, this article never comes up in the list. Are the two things connected? Was there something else I was supposed to do? Is there some other reason this article would be invisible to a search engine? Sign me clueless, akaJenhawk777 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Google finds it if you add Wikipedia to the search. Bing finds the Wikipedia article at about number 16 in the list just on a plain search. I wonder if the problem is that hundreds of other websites have articles with the same name. Who can fathom the algorithms of a Google search? Dbfirs 16:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha! Okay! I just thought it was odd that "List of women in the Bible" on Wikipedia shows up right at the top when the article with the exact wording in the title doesn't. Number 16 huh? I didn't scroll down far enough apparently! Oh well! Such is life on Wikipedia, huh? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Page of a person from Nigeria

I wanna make a page of a person from nigeria. How can i make it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdilMaqbool (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi AdilMaqbool! Glad you want to add to Wikipedia. This is a very big question. I'd love to reply with a good answer here, but Wikipedia:Your first article probably is better than anything I can say. In short, you want to first make sure the article subject is considered notable, then make sure you have the relevant sources, and then take it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. This is a pretty difficult process if you're completely new, so you might want to try editing existing articles before you create a new one. With that said, good luck with your Wikipedia editing no matter what you decide to do. Remember that every article needs to be based on reliable sources. /Julle (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! In addition to what Julle mentioned, you will also want to make sure that the article’s subject meets Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability. Thank you for your willingness to contribute to Wikipedia! Let us know if you have any further questions, or tag a question on your talk page with {{help me}} so that volunteers will know to come assist you.  :) - zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply on this page (chat page, contribs, chat) 13:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
AdilMaqbool, here are some steps which, when followed, often produce good results. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, 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 22:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

User:TheOldJacobite just reverted for like the fourth time on The Breakfast Club. The guy contributes nothing but reverts to Wikipedia. Keith (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

TOJ has been editing since 2007, and probably has more Barnstars than you have edits. Keep in mind that calling edit war can boomerang. David notMD (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Quite true, but it is not acceptable for any editor, experienced or newcomer, to repeatedly revert as both have bee doing. i hope to see discussion of the actual merits of the edits at Talk:The Breakfast Club now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Surely "they can behave in a way you can't because they've been here longer" is not what we should teach new editors? /Julle (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I certainly do not believe that I can behave any way I like because I've been here longer. But, an edit summary is not an adequate explanation when one's edits have been reverted. The onus was on him to explain his edits more fully on the talk page – especially since he made several edits to the article in one fell swoop, the full complexity of which could not be adequately explained in an edit summary. When I stated my objections on the talk page, he did not respond, he simply reverted again. This is not acceptable behavior. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct, TheOldJacobite, Keith o should have explained more fully, and should have gone to the talk page. Perhaps he didn't know or understand that. But in such a case the experienced editor should not simply keep reverting either, even if s/he is "right", as is emphasized in WP:WAR. A report can be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or unofficially to any handy admin. Or even to any uninvolved experienced editor. Please keep this in mind. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

how much the heavy equipment operators make an hour.

Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquez61 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The teahouse, this forum is for asking questions related to Wikipedia only. Sorry. But thanks for dropping by!Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Translation of a Chinese news article title

Hi! Could anyone help me out with an accurate translation of this Chinese news article title (which I want to use as trans-title=). I feel that Google Translate's version is kind of innacurate. Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Robertgombos Welcome to Teahouse. Well, according to my friend from Hong Kong, it means "Besides SEO, you can also use these 10 foreign directory websites to help you browse". If anyone could help to interpret a better version, pls jump in. Cheers!. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! ;) Robertgombos (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_772&oldid=842548894"