Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 846

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 840←Archive 844Archive 845Archive 846Archive 847Archive 848→Archive 850

Can't upload a photo?

Hello,

I am currently trying to add an image of a statue of Leon Trotsky that I took myself, but when uploading it says, "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons." Does anybody know how to resolve this issue? (I'm sorry if I did this wrong, it's my first question.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Velikovsky (talk • contribs) 02:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC) You must sign your comment when you write in user talk page or teahouse but not when editing articles.Md.Ali25 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martin Velikovsky. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are both operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, but each operates according to its own respective policies and guidelines. When it comes to images, there's lots of overlap between the two site, but Commons only accepts content in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing.
More specifically, photographing a 3D object like a statue means that there are usually two copyrights which need to be taken into account: the one for the statue being photographed and the one for the photograph itself. Since you are the photographer in question, you can decide to upload your photos to Commons under an acceptable free license of your choosing; however, if the subject of your photo is someone else's work (for example, a piece of 3D artwork like a statue), then you may need to show that either the statue is not or no longer protected by copyright, or that the artist/sculptor who created the work has explicitly agreed to allow photos of it to be taken and uploaded online under a free license.
Many countries have special "provisions" in their copyright laws called freedom of panorama which pertain to publically displayed works of art, buidlings, etc. These rules can differ quite a bit depending upon which country the work is located in, so what's OK to do for one country might not be OK to do for another. So, try taking a look at c:Commons:Freedom of panorama for information about the country where the Trotsky statue is installed. If it says that publically installed 3D works of art can be freely photographed (like c:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom), then you should be able to upload your photo without worrying about the copyright of the statue. On the other hand, if it states that publically installed 3D works of art are considered to be protected by copyright (like c:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States), then you're either going to need the permission of the artist who created the work or you're going to have to establish that the work is not otherwise eligible for copyright protection.
Sorry for the bit of a wordy reply, but you didn't really provide lots of information to work with; so, I tried to cover as much as possible. You can try asking for help at c:Commons:Village pump/copyright if you want some additional feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My Wikipedia is not showing

My Wikipedia does not appear whenever I search my Wikipedia from another phone. My own name comes from different Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakti93 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. Are you saying that when you access Wikipedia on another phone it isn't logged in to your account. If so, I believe that this won't be a Wikipedia problem but a function of whether the browser on your phone is storing cookies to remember that you are logged in. When you logged in, did you check the box that says "Keep me logged in (for up to 365 days)"? --David Biddulph (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Shakti93 - you are very welcome here. Like David Biddulph, I was also a little confused by your question. Having seen this early edit of yours to the disambiguation page on Shakti Singh, I worry that you might be expecting to use Wikipedia to tell people about yourself. If that is the case, please don't try. We advise very strongly against people writing articles about themselves, and they must declare any Conflict of Interest they might have in that respect, so if you follow that hyperlink, you'll be able to read what exactly that means). The content you have added to your own userpage at User:Shakti93 is just about acceptable, but please don't try and to expand it to promote yourself. Its purpose is solely to tell people a little about yourself in the context of your editing interests here on Wikipedia. It is not permitted to become like a main encyclopaedia article, and for that reason userpages that do look promotional are very likely to be deleted. I should also expand on the purpose of disambiguatoiun pages like the one you edited at Shakti Singh. These are used to separate similarly sounding page titles already on Notable topics so that users can find the right one quickly. We don't expect to see any entries where there isn't already an article here, though occasionally one does see a red-link where an editor feels a page has a legitimate need to be created because it is likely to meet our general notability critieria - which is how we decide whether articles merit a place here. I hope this assists you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)    

Hey when I am signing comments with four tildes it gives no link.It was all ok yesterday.How can I have link in my signature?Md.Ali25 17:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Md.Ali25 In Special:Preferences, there are two fields that affect how the signature is shown. The other one is a checkbox you can check if you use wikicode in the signature. If you aren't using that, leave that box unchecked. Since your signature text is just your username, uncheck it, and it should link automatically. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the typos. I've fixed the link so it should work now. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Still link is not coming in my signature,I don't know what to do so please help?Md.Ali25 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Ali25 (talk • contribs)

@Md.Ali25: Click Special:Preferences. Remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup". Click "Save" at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter now link is coming.Md.Ali25 (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Question - Publication (article)

Hello,

I created an article that has been declined ː https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bruno_Colmant

How can I fix this please ?

Many thanks,

Sincerely yours, Badr — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadrBoussabat (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BadrBoussabat. You've appear to have created Draft:Bruno Colmant by translating from this French wiki article]. Can you spot the difference? Your draft is more likely to be accepted if you clean it up and structure it properly. You should use a proper infobox into which you can place a photo. (I've no idea where you got the wikimarkup that you've used, but there are many neater ways to lay out content. You should credit the French page from which you translated it, so please see this short instruction for how to do that. You should go through, line by line, adding wikilinks to other notable topics, removing redundant bracketed numbers left over from translation, and you should remove a lot of trivial content, and any sentences in French, except book titles and other proper nouns. The bibliography section is far too long - so why not retitle it 'Selected bibliography' and just include a handful of main works? I note that both the French and the reviewer here on English wikipedia both commented on a lack of reliable sources. This should be your focus for both articles. Does this help? Please remember that we need every editor to sign every talk page post, using four simple keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) so that we know who said what, and when. Bon chance, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@BadrBoussabat:Mostly I agree with Nick Moyes but the bibliography should remain as full as possible. The Manual of Style says that "complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged." --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't deny that it does indeed say that, but I'm not sure all editors would agree with that approach for an otherwise short article. As always, it's about finding the right balance, and not dredging up every little thing anyone has ever published. Sometimes less is more. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

English-based question

I see a proliferation of words formed by adding "-based" to the end of a more usual word. E.g. a Germany-based football club, a water-based sport, a land-based mammal are seen where a German football club, a water sport and a land mammal are neater, more logical and sound less clunky. It would be very sad (sadness-based emotion) if a phenomenon as potent and benign as Wikipedia strives to be should be distracted by temporarily fashionable modes of speech. I have always believed a great strength of an encyclopedia is the use of language which is plain to the point of austerity so that nothing superfluous, subjective or trendy merits inclusion. Am I behind the times? Is almond-based cake better than almond cake? Guidance could be given to contributors just as it is better to spray your roses than let the greenfly flourish unchecked. Best wishes, avid reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.202.135 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2018‎ (UTC)

  • Hello, IP reader. I think you are correct; though I cannot point out the exact page right now, I am fairly sure it says somewhere in our in-house "manual of style" that simple sentences are usually better than complex ones.
The great thing about Wikipedia though is that you can help us. If you see any stylistic mishaps of that (or another) kind, you can edit the page yourself to correct them. You do not need previous approval to do so. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written by many people for whom English is not a mothertongue or who do not have the ability to write brilliant prose, so ugly turns or even outright mistakes in English are to be expected if none else corrects them. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What is an appropriate number of authors to list before using "et al"?

I have edited many articles, lately to address CS1 maintenance issues. I have noticed that the use of "et al" is very inconsistent, even within the same article. I assume all the authors should be included for COINs entries but some editors display all the authors, others only one. Four is the number for the templates used with short footnotes. Any suggestions for the number of authors to list? Should the number be consistent within an article? -- User-duck (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I do not know if there is an MOS entry or other policy. In my unrequested opinion, you should put as many details as possible unless the references links to a robust online database containing the full bibliographic details. I would accept inconsistency between refs with a link to full bibliographic info and refs without that, but only for that reason (i.e. give at most X authors for the former, and as many as you can for the latter, with X consistent within an article).
According to et al styles seem to differ. Weirdly enough, my subfield of physics seems to follow the MLA convention (at most three authors, i.e., "A" for 1, "A and B" for 2, "A, B and C" for 3, and "A et. al." for 4 or more). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
But your opinion was "requested." I edit a lot of scientific articles. The DOI links usually have a complete list of authors. I assume DOI is a "robust online database" and the A, B, C behavior is displayed by the short footnote templates. I just realized that the "A et. al." display would lead to confusing references if the same author was first for multiple journal cites in the same year, and I have seen this case. (Personally, I do not like the 2018A convention.) -- User-duck (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@User-duck: Yeah, DOI counts as "contains full bibliographic information" by me.
The "unrequested" tidbit was here to make clear that it is just my thoughts and not something I read in the MOS or observed multiple editors to follow, since the latter is what I expected you to be after by asking here. From the lack of other replies, either there is no real guideline or it is really well hidden. If you want opinions to create one or just to test the waters, I would suggest asking at a more relevant place than the general Teahouse; I would say the most promising venue is Wikipedia talk:Citing sources though you could leave a note at Template talk:Citation as well. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Help please post this article on Wikipedia (Draft:Dmitry Green). Thank you very much.Namerst (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Namerst: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was declined. If you want to see it posted, you need to address the concerns of the reviewer, and resubmit it for another review. Please do not resubmit it until you have addressed the concerns. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Global Infrastructure hub

Many time rejected now. Im hoping that someone here can have a look at Draft:Global_Infrastructure_Hub and tell me if this submission has a chance. I think all the issues mentioned on thepage have been addressed. Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcodounis (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, now longer, but not better at establishing notability then when it was last rejected in August. Weakness is still dearth of independent references about GIH versus announcements. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I am not going to exactly answer your question. You have had feedback from the reviewers last time around, said feedback amounting essentially to "show us notability-proving references". So your submission has a chance if and only if such refs are here.
If you are confident that what you added since the last review is enough, you can resubmit. If you are not sure you understand what "notability" means in the Wikipedia context, ask us that question. If you want our opinion about whether (a) particular source(s) help(s) the case for notability or not, point us to that source(s). If you want us to search for better sources, well, maybe someone will be charitable and do it, but that I would not hold my breath. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Listing Funders, Supporters and Board members adds nothing to notability. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Marcodounis: You appear to be an undisclosed paid editor, so I have left the standard advisory message on your talk page. Please do not make any more edits until you have read, understood and complied with that message. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Submission declined

I have been trying to develop a wikipedia page for a United Nations agency, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_Nations_University_International_Institute_for_Global_Health. One of the editors declined the submission because it failed the notability criteria. I don't quite understand this: (1) it is a UN agency; (2) the references are based on references from the Parent Agency; (3) the Notability page clearly acknowledges that initial pages are works in progress (Wikipedia pages are never final); (4) the page is modelled on the style and approach of of other Child agencies of the Parent, and the Parent agency's page itself. If this p[age fails, it seems that the Parent agency page, and some of the Child agency pages must fail too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreidpath~commonswiki (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Being a UN agency, or a subagency of a notable entity, does not guarantee notability. References from the parent agency are useless in establishing notability, because they are not independent (i.e. they have a vested interest in covering the subject), see WP:42.
Finally, if some other pages fail to show the notability of their subject, please point them to us so that we can delete them (rather than expecting this would give a pass to a new non-notable subject). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page for the Parent UN organization (the United Nations University) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_University relies almost entirely on references derived from United Nations organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreidpath~commonswiki (talk • contribs) 15:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. That is a problem. I did not find much sources, so I am going to ask at the UNU talk page if someone else can find better; failing that, I will nominate the article for deletion. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How long do I have to wait for a new article?

I create an article a month ago (Draft : Gwangju Castle). But I received no answer so far. When I had created an article before(January, 2018), I got a reply in less than a week. I want to know Why this situation occured. Please tell me about the way article is checked. I know that you try to check a lot of oppinions from many people. But I want to know this big gap in time. I hope you resolve these problems.

Articles are checked whenever someone gets to them. There's no set time that you have to wait. Also, your articles don't need to get checked if you're auto-verified. REDsEngineer (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hansung023: Also, the reason no-one has got to it yet is that you haven't submitted it yet :) I regret to say, though, that in its current condition, interesting subject though it is, it will not be accepted: it is almost completely unsourced with no inline citations. Also, the prose needs work to put it into an encyclopaedic tone...it's very "chatty", perhaps. Also, if you could please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after each talk page post. ——SerialNumber54129 14:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@SerialNumber 54129: Oh.. very appreciate your help. I was confused between draft and submission. I think I have to receive answer to regiser my article. Now I know that Previous article is just deleted. Ha! I hope everything that you do will come out all right.--Hansung023 (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hansung023: I might be able to give you a hand with it, but only if you can find some relisble sources, which is its main problem at the moment (the tone can easily be changed). Since it's a Korean castle, may I suggest you put it into google books in Korean and see what comes up? Being a Korean castle, I'd expect most of the sources to probably be in the language. I see a few in English—but plenty that are not! ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Why were my questions removed?

Seriously, why? REDsEngineer (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sup, REDsEngineer; what questions you mean? ——SerialNumber54129 15:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, REDsEngineer. Which questions were those? I'm being serious too. I can't see anywhere in your recent contribution history that you've posted any questions here - and if they were somewhere else, you'd better tell us where to look. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@REDsEngineer: Looks like the most recent question you posted was on Oct 12, which has been moved to the archives. RudolfRed (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
True dat; and IIRC the bot archives every 3 days after the last answer? ——SerialNumber54129 16:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
As indeed happened. I'm afraid ya don't get long in here  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 16:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Well that's annoying. REDsEngineer (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

When to archive?

Hi Teahouse,

I've come across this article that I believe is pretty poorly organized:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act
I've starred it so that I might be able to edit it later, but in the meantime I checked the talk page to see what's happening with it. There's only two comments and a bunch of archives that aren't very long (<75KB Help:Archiving_a_talk_page ). I'm wondering if these archives are the appropriate procedure or if I can undo these archives so that the discussion appears in the main talk page as more visible evidence of the page's status.

Thank you! Everydaycurious (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing the name of heading.

In the last two weeks I have made some major contributions to the “Butterfield Overland Mail” site based on primary source references. As a newbie to Wikipedia I inadvertently started out on the wrong foot by changing the heading to what was actually a more complete name based on the official name of the mail contract and was warned not to do so. I apologized and now understand the proper sequence for my entries. I have written two books on the subject and have also written many articles for the Oregon-California Trails Association publications The Overland Journal and Desert Tracks, the Carriage Journal, the California Parks Association, as well as many others. I have also been a consultant to Kirby Sanders, who had the Congressional authority to compile the history for Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company to support the bill in Congress to designate the Butterfield Trail as a National Historic Trail. I have also had a great deal of contact with National Park Historian Frank Norris concerning this subject and to help to correct the misinformation concerning the Overland Mail Company. I am about to start compiling additional information for the Wikipedia site concerning the Overland Mail Company president John Butterfield. Unfortunately, the site on Wikipedia is titled “John Warren Butterfield.” He was only “John Butterfield.” Nowhere in the many primary source references is it seen that his name included “Warren.” Of course, the subject of his name will be well documented from primary source references. Information given for the name of “John Butterfield” will be from numerous newspaper articles, including his obituary, the name on his tombstone and death records, his signature on the Overland Mail Company contract, his signature on his “Special Instructions” to his employees, as well as many others. The similar name, but with the middle name of “Warren” may have come from a graduation article in 1851 from a college near Boston, Massachusetts. John Butterfield’s entire life was associated with Upstate New York with many newspaper articles showing that he was engaged in business near his home in Utica, New York, at that time. John Butterfield was forty years old in 1851.

Here is the question: When I post this information, along with much more based on primary source references, will I be able to change the heading name from “John Warren Butterfield” to “John Butterfield?” Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

The only place I saw "Warren" was in the photo caption. As to the rest of your major additions to the article, I leave that to other editors. David notMD (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Gerald T. Ahnert. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to share your knowledge and expertise on Wikipedia. The quick, simple answer is, yes, you can rename the article to whatever is most appropriate. You do this as a 'page move' by following the tab marked 'Page' close to the top of the screen in desktop view, then 'Move page'. (You'll find more information via this shortcut to one of our help pages: WP:MOVE).
The longer answer involves whether it is appropriate to do so. In this instance, I think it really is. For example, I looked at this very first edit which created the page on John Warren Butterfield back in 2008. There's no mention of a middle name, nor any mention in the one cited source. So I think you are on pretty solid ground. However, might I suggest the better way forward is to first post your concerns on the article's Talk Page and explain your proposal. Wait for, say, a week to see if other editors have strong feelings one way or another (I doubt there will be any). (You could even contactthe page creator, who I see is still active a little here some ten years later) Then you can make the move. Of course, you could 'be bold' and do it straight away, but I'd suggest a pre-discussion ruffles fewer feathers, plus it leaves a permanent discussion of your rationale associated with the page. Should some documentation ever come to light to highlight a middle name, editors can check back and see what happened, when and why. The other justification for a name change is that Wikipedia prefers to title articles based upon how a subject is normally referred to by third party sources, not by how they prefer to call themselves. The policy (which you can find at this shortcut: WP:COMMONNAME) actually supports and gives justification to your your approach to renaming the article. Does this all make sense? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, @Gerald T. Ahnert:. In the article, I see no citations to any source supporting John Butterfield's having the middle name "Warren", but this information has been on and in the article, uncontested I think, since its initial creation by @Halned: on 20 January 2008, and I notice it's also mentioned in the article about his son Daniel Butterfield (said there to be named in full Daniel Adams Butterfield), and is used in the data for the photo of John Butterfield, held on Wikimedia to which it was added by @G. Thomas:, that appears in this Wikipedia article. All of this suggests that it's widely – even if wrongly – thought that it was his middle name (and your suggestion as to its origin may be correct), so before removing that information it might be wise to seek concensus by opening a new section on the article's talk page to discuss it, and perhaps by reaching out to some of the article's other active contributors listed in the article's 'View history' tab.
I'd also observe that the article overall has very few citations to Reliable sources, and would benefit from more.
As to changing the article's heading/title if and when you feel it appropriate to do so, this is done not by literally editing the words as with all of the other text, etc., but rather by Moving the whole page to a new title: this process automatically leaves a redirect at the old title for the benefit of people who might search for it, and ensures that the page history is preserved. Since it's evident that "John Butterfield" is the name by which the man is most commonly known, this ideally should be the article's title, so the move would seem to satisfy all requirements even if it were to turn out that he really did have a (little used) middle name of Warren. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.125 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse mascot

Why does the teahouse mascot look like a moon and a tree? Skijoy222 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a picture of a cherry tree by some rocks rendered in a Japanese style, presumably meant to evoke a Japanese garden and teahouse, and perhaps to subliminally suggest calmness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.125 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It is File:WP teahouse logo.png, based on File:Oxherding pictures, No. 9.jpg which is displayed at Ten Bulls#Kuòān Shīyuǎn's Ten Bulls. It is called "Returning to the Source" or "Reaching the Source". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How can I change the name of my Wikipedia page?

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and noticed that the information on Wikipedia regarding the hotel Amman Rotana is incorrect. As the e-Commerce executive at the hotel it is my job to make sure everything online is on point. I've had no issues updating the information on the page but I'm not able to change the name of the page which is Rotana Amman (incorrect) to Amman Rotana (correct). Can someone please explain to me how can I do this, taking into consideration that I have zero experience with editing on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammanrotana (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

First, please read WP:COI. Once you have done that, you can post a request to the article's talk page. Note that you will need to provide reliable sources supporting your proposed change, and should not implement the change yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ammanrotana. I've added some information about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and username guidelines to your user talk page for your reference. Please familiarize yourself with these because knowing what you can and cannot do when it comes to Wikipedia may help you avoid problems. You should pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and make sure you follow the instruction given on that page. You also might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content since none of the content in the article about your employer is owned by your employer; basically, neither you nor the hotel have any final editorial control over the article and any edits made to it will need to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the name of the hotel is incorrect, then you can follow the guidance given in Wikipedia:Edit requests and propose that the article's name be changed accordingly; you will, however, as pointed out above by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants need to provide links to reliable sources in support for verification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, your User name should not be that of the hotel (User names are individuals, not businesses or groups of people). Someone here can guide you on how to make that change. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure: Wikipedia:Changing username. The recommended (by me) method in this case is to just create a new account with a better name. Something like "Alex at Amman Rotana" or "the e-Commerce executive at Amman Rotana" is acceptable to WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That's fine as long as the old name is no longer used. Keeping two active accounts - especially if using both to edit the same articles - is a big no-no. David notMD (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes-yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse mascot explanation

Thanks guys for the response above. Can we have an explanation below the mascot so that everyone knows? Skijoy222 (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There's more information about the original image that the teahouse logo was derived from at Ten_Bulls. Vexations (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft rejection & general Wikipedia communications guidelines

Hello, I am in the process of editing a draft page titled Ilan Rubin (photographer), and it has been rejected twice for the reason that it reads like an advertisement. I would like to correct this, and am wondering what other information to include or take out in order to ensure that it is up to the standards of the Wikipedia community. Additionally, if someone wouldn't mind looking at my Talk page, I am really new at wiki formatting for communicating back and forth with other users, and I would really love if someone could let me know if I am communicating in the right places/formats? Thanks so much.Danica Newell (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Danica Newell. I took a quick look at your draft and see a lot of problems. First of all, consider this sentence: "Ilan’s photography has gained attention for its uses of abstraction, his inventive lighting solutions, and a unique color palette." This is overtly promotional language that does not belong in this encyclopedia. Read and study the neutral point of view, which is a mandatory policy. Who did he "gain attention" from? All published photographers "gain attention". Who described his lighting as "innovative"? Objectively, there is no such thing as a "unique color palette" since all people with normal vision can see the exact same spectrum of colors. Eliminate all such promotional language from your draft. Your references have a lot of problems. A link to the appearance of a photographer's work in a publication is worthless for establishing notabilty. All professional photographers get published. Eliminate all such references. Eliminate the references that consist only of passing mentions. We need genuine significant coverage. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guideline for creative professionals. Focus on summarizing references that demonstrate convincingly to reviewers that he meets that notability guideline. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did my edit get reverted?

Hi, I made an edit to a suggestion page asking for a page to be written, but it got reverted. Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music/Performers,_bands_and_songwriters&oldid=864254945 I got a message on my talk page from the person saying that I need to cite my sources for the edit, but I'm a bit confused as to why, it's only a recommendation for a page to be made. Can you help me figure out how to make my edit be allowed or what I did wrong? If I'm saying any of this wrong let me know, I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin04atschool (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Merlin04atschool and welcome to the Teahouse.
Even what seems like a simple request for an article to be written has to follow the rules. If you observe, at the top of the requested articles pages, there are instructions that include something like Sources must be provided at the end of the article request, and the article itself must be linked. Any request that does not follow these guidelines will be removed. You must provide at least one starter reference for the volunteer who eventually chooses to undertake creating the article. The starter references should be good enough to establish that the requested subject is notable. We realize that this is a big ask to require a suitable reference from the requester – but the alternative would be to have an exponentially larger list of requests that would be much more difficult to fulfill. As it is, the rate of conversion from request to article is fairly disappointing.
So don't let this set you back. Find a suitable reference for your subject and submit them again. There's no prejudice attached to removing a request without a source. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk page Archiving

How to archive a talk page every month so that at the end of the year I can have twelve archive links on my talk page. Please input the code to my talk page. Spurb (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, Spurb. Welcome back to the Teahouse. Why would you want to do that when your talk page history shows many months go by when no-one leaves any messages for you? You would end up with inumerable archives with virtually nothing in them, which doesn't seem to me to be the best way to approach archiving (not that I'm much good at it, mind you!) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick Moyes, If there is no need for such technique, am okay with it. However, I can't second guess the reasons for such occurance. It is unusual. to be named,blamed and ashamed so that others with similar need can know that process and make good use of these features . Spurb (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Spurb - erm, there's no 'naming and shaming' intended whatsoever. I'm unsure how you could conclude that. I was simply pointing out that you probably don't need to do archiving that way, right now. That said, I'd be interested to see those settings. I think I tried it once for another user and got in a right mess. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Spurb: If you're still interested, I invite you to look at the archiving template on my talk page, which is set up for monthly archives. One drawback this scheme has over the more common sequentially numbered archive scheme is that, once per year, in the first couple of months of the new year, you need to update for a new year (well, I suppose you could put up blanks for several years in advance, but that sounds like a recipe for forgetting to update when needed). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

New and looking for articles to work on

Hi everyone, I’m Aida and I registered an an account about a month ago after reading some news articles about increasing the visibility of women - particularly women scientists - on Wikipedia to help close the gender gap. I’m a scientist myself so I saw it as an inspiration, something to do when I’m not busy with other stuff. Unfortunately life got in the way for a little while but I’m glad to say I’m back and ready to contribute! The only question is where to start? I can’t seem to find any of the projects the news articles mentioned. If someone could point me in the right direction, I’d really appreciate it! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidaakron (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome Aidaakron! You seem to be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. I'd also recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Vexations (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Aidaakron. I also suggest that you read Your first article and associated links. Also read the notability guideline for academics which applies to most scientists. Writing an acceptable article for the first time can be challenging, so please feel free to ask follow-up questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Aidaakron. I have left a "Women In Red" welcome message on your talk page, containing a few helpful links to get you started. That project really is worth checking out, especially the lists of missing (red-linked) women which serves as a really great prompt. I suspect you would find these two particularly helpful:
If you were to sign up (i.e. add your username via the big blue 'Join WikiProject' button) to the Project, you can receive notification of monthly themed events that editors might like to contribute to. We need more articles about women in order to redress the gender imbalance on this encyclopaedia, and we definitely need more female editors creating content, too. So, welcome and do come back if you need assistance with anything. You might like to try out The Wikipedia Adventure which gives you an interactive tour of the basics of editing this encyclopaedia. And if you decide to stick around, you might like to consider seeking 'adoption' from an experienced editor willing to support and guide your contributions. But I'd suggest you simply get stuck in first, and see how you get on. Best wishes from a fellow biologist, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I create an article that only can be sourced in non-English sources

I have got plans to create some articles that only can be sourced with Arabic references. I don't know if that's ok or not. Can anyone help me? Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharabSalam (talk • contribs) 09:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they are independent and reliable. If an English source is available, it is preferred, but if one is not available, then a non-English source is fine. You may read about policy in this area at this link. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Would a page on "Get Laid Beds" the British company be approved?

A company that's been around since 2012 with a wide UK brand recognition.

Made.com is a noteworthy comparison which has a detailed wiki entry on their business, which started a couple years before in 2010.

Seems appropriate, but wanted to check as a newbie! Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophat london (talk • contribs)

@Tophat london: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This company would need to have significant coverage(not just brief mentions or press announcements) in independent reliable sources that indicate it meets the notability guidelines for companies. Its own website or any primary source cannot be used to establish notability. Not every company merits an article here, even within a field. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your missing the biggest Country that is getting blocked

Regarding this page below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube

Seems me as a John Doe Average Citizens by You-tube has been completely shut down. I cannot even see a cartoon - nothing. Why is United States not listed in this pages description of countries that are being suppressed. I certainly am no Alex Jones nor do I even presnet videors. I am signed up to do so but have not done anything further. I am only viewing. Can you please look into updating the Wikipedia page for this ( and other applicable pages ). You hear all kinds of Americans are being surpress - but a average joe "Viewer" ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.43.59.127 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes it is down. But the Teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia only. You may go to the Reference Desk for more info. Thanks. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone deleted my content. What should i do now?

Hello, I added content to a page on a living person, someone deleted it saying it was "garbage" and there was a "BLP violation". It sounded like someone defending a page, (maybe the owner's company? who knows?) There was no violation, I checked all the rules to make sure. What is the proper procedure to stop someone from removing content I published if they simply don't like it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdawgrealty (talk • contribs) 08:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jdawgrealty. It would have been easier if you had told us which page you were talking about. יניב הורון did not say your edit to Tovia Singer was garbage, but that it was supported by a "garbage source" - a tendentious way of describing it, to be sure, but as a matter of policy, blogs are almost never regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles; and the criteria for material in biographies of living persons are more stringent than elsewhere.
In any case, according to WP:BOLD, it is normal for people to revert edits that they think are unconstructive, and your next step is to open a discussion with them on the article's talk page. If you can't reach consensus, then dispute resolution tells you what to do after that. --ColinFine (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jdawgrealty: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Though I might have put it differently, the users who have reverted your edit are correct. The source you offered seems to be a blog; blogs are not usually considered reliable sources as they lack editorial control or other fact checking. In addition, since it deals with a very serious allegation against a person, the sources must be as good as possible, and if there is any question about it, the information cannot be posted. Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living(or recently deceased) people are written about, please review this policy at WP:BLP.
If you wish to present your case defending your edits, you should use the article talk page(the best place), or contact the users who reverted you directly on their user talk pages. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdawgrealty (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP

I am writing a wiki page about a living person's biography. can someone take me through the process of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayin-london (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ayin-london. Writing a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months working on improving existing articles before they try it. Writing a biography of a living person is not intrinsically harder, but the requirements on verifiability and reliable sources are applied more stringently. In any case, I suggest you start by reading your first article, and come back here if you have specific questions. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

hi i have question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash Abdolmohmmadian (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arash Abdolmohmmadian and welcome to the Teahouse. You are in the right place. Please ask your question. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

how I can make page in this Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash Abdolmohmmadian (talk • contribs) 10:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arash Abdolmohmmadian and welcome to the Teahouse. I moved your follow-up question to the same section as your original question.
Writing a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend some weeks or months working on improving existing articles before they try it. But you can find information about writing a new article at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How to add my Chinese translation of Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) to the original page

To whom may concern, Hello, this is James LI. I am interested in the entry of Australian Defense Force Academy (ADFA)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Force_Academy). And I have translated the original one into Chinese already. The following links is my uploaded Chinese translation in sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jameswenlongli/sandbox#Chinese_translation_of_Australian_Defence_Force_Academy_(ADFA)).I am just wondering is there any chance that my translation can be attached to the original page as a Chinese version? Like other languages as Japanese or Deutsch attached in the left bottom corner in the original page. And what should I do to make it happen if it is ok. Thank you so much for your time. Regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameswenlongli (talk • contribs) 10:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jameswenlongli you need to copy the Chinese article to the Chinese Wikipedia at https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/澳大利亚国防学院 (assuming that the Chinese text I found at the top of the article is the correct title). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You also need to make sure that you attribute it, as derived from the English article, to comply with the terms under which material in Wikipedia is licensed, Jameswenlongli. See WP:Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Jameswenlongli and ColinFine! I have just sought for ADFA at zh-wiki: zh:Special:Search/ADFA, and it looks like the correct name may be 澳洲國防學院, used in the zh article about The University of New South Wales zh:新南威尔士大学. --CiaPan (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Search History of an article for first instance of a word's inclusion?

Hi all, Another curiosity query. I shall start with the background in order to avoid an XY problem.

Helping wp:Typo_Team/moss with their c/e'ing, I came across the potential error inAssassin's Creed: Brotherhood - wikt:skilas. Thinking it would be an easy correction to 'skills' I hopped over, Ctrl+F'd my way to the word in question and read the sentence for context:

Advanced Wanted mode is a variant of Wanted mode, with differences between malakas and skilas includes an increased amount of NPCs on the map to make it difficult to pick out targets and a less accurate compass.

..and then I scratched my head.

So, in an attempt to find out if the paragraph had been vandalized at some point prior I attempted to look through the history of the article for it, but it's a large article, and has many many edits. So I thought I would come here for a two-fold reason:

1. Any way to search an article's history for a word?

2. Suggested improvements to the sentence in question, retaining the use of, but identifying 'malakas' and 'skilas' if they are in fact, real words?

--Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elfabet. If you have the default language "en - English" at Special:Preferences then the top of a page history has a link "Find addition/removal". I used it to find [1] which looks like vandalism or nonsense. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Link to the Wikiblame doc (which is what the "find addition/removal" does). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Primehunter, Thanks very much. Wonderful. Elfabet (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Benutzer:TES-Techno/TES-Techno

Hallo liebe Wikipedianer. Ich bin noch neu hier und möchte meinen ersten Beitrag fertigstellen. Kann evtl bitte jemand mal drüberschauen ob man es so lassen kann für Wikipedia. Danke--TES-Techno (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Gruss Thorsten--TES-Techno (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TES-Techno/TES-Techno

(via Google Translate) Hallo TES-Techno. Dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Sie sollten stattdessen Hilfe bei der deutschen Wikipedia anfordern, indem Sie diesem Link folgen: de:Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia. GMGtalk 12:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK quick question

It has been a couple of years since I did a DYK. In the meantime I have forgotten half of the process, and the other half seems to have changed - so I hope somebody can help me. I raised the nomination here. At the time I had not done my QPQ review, so I left a comment saying I would provide that information. I have done the review now, but for the life of me I can't find where the QPQ information should go... --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gronk Oz. You should add a link to the DYK template where it says :* Reviewed:. GMGtalk 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Found it! Sorry for bothering you, @GreenMeansGo: I was expecting to see it at the top, but it's at the bottom so I didn't notice it. Thanks for not calling me an idiot.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey no worries. I only do DYK once in a blue moon, so I get turned around myself sometimes. GMGtalk 13:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring & Vandalism difference

How can i tell if there's an occurring recent edits that may be a Edit war or Vandalism? Like some editors are reverting the shortened article to a more detailed one, & an article with minor vandalism that is being undoed over and over. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 08:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Vandalism is made of actions that deliberately break Wikipedia: for instance, blanking pages, putting "that person is shit" in biographical articles, etc. Edit warring is when there is disagreement between editors about the best way to write a page, and one or multiple editors repeatedly revert to their favorite version without having obtained consensus to go with it. Those are thus usually different - vandals get blocked fast enough that they do not really have time to edit war, and most edit warriors are convinced that their version is the best for Wikipedia. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

When to mention race?

Hello,

I'm wondering if there is a policy or general understanding about went to state the race of a person on Wikipedia? I noticed that Frances Harper is defined as an African American suffragette, however Susan B. Anthony's race is not mentioned. I'm inclined to edit Susan B. Anthony's to state her race, white, as well.

Thanks for your thoughts on this,

Laila Ibrahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laila Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Laila Ibrahim, and welcome. Generally speaking, when it comes to what to put in articles, we follow the lead of the reliable sources that have written about the subject. If the sources generally tend to state a specific individual's race, especially also if they explain why it's significant, we should include that in the article. If that's not generally done, we'll likely follow their lead and not make a bigger deal of it than they do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Laila Ibrahim please see the WP:EGRS page that has fairly detailed guidance on such "identity" issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It strikes me that if a suffragette of African descent is described as African-American, a suffragette of European descent such as Susan B. Anthony may be fairly described as European-American. Baba Blacq Sheep (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Baa Blacq Sheep: you are a new account and perhaps aren't quite clear that this is an encyclopedia. The reasons why race is mentioned sometimes but not other times are explained above. In this case, the vast majority of suffragettes were white, so that wasn't unusual and rarely if ever mentioned in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with user:doug weller and that you shouldn't look at it that wikipedia is pointing out when someone is non-white, what wikipedia does is note the things that stand-out about a person, what makes them notable. It seems that in this day and age, we take steps to point out when a non-white person is doing something notable, to say, "look, everyone is capable of great things." Perhaps in its own way that is racist, too, I don't know. Maybe sometime in the future people will think, "why did they care what color a person's skin was?" (and I hope we get to that day sooner than later). So yes, if sources think it is notable that a person was non-white, then we reflect that here as editors. StarHOG (Talk) 14:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_846&oldid=865020130"