Wikipedia:Teahouse

In page information, if page watchers are less than 30, can anyone view the exact number of page watchers; as 5 page watchers, 7 page watchers?

And if my userpage is watched by 50 people, can i find out who has kept my userpage on their watchlist? 38.95.108.250 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a simple thing but I can't figure it out, or find it in the help files. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deisenbe. I presume you are looking for something more specific than clicking the History tab on the top of the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. The History tab can have hundreds, even (I think) thousands of entries. For major articles it is impractical to go through the History to find out what a particular user did. It's also impractical, in most cases, to go through one user's contributions. I can't believe that with all the tools that have been created, there is no way to simply query this. deisenbe (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how do i create an article page? Brummbar88 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You create an article by going to Wikipedia:Your first article, reading all the directions, and following them. All articles must meet the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion: they must be sourced with reliable third-party sources, be about a notable subject, be neutral in tone, and be comprehensible. There are other requirements, but these are the main ones that have to be met. Also, you can't write an article about a subject you are involved in, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. (Meaning if you work for a company, you can't write an article about that company, among other things.) I am not trying to discourage you from creating an article, but if you write one and it doesn't meet guidelines, it will probably get deleted, which will be discouraging. I hope your article is a needed one, and you can go ahead with it. Add: if you mean create your own userpage rather than an encyclopedia article, all you have to do is click on your name's red link and go to it. Wikipedia is pretty loose with userpage requirements, as long you're not using it to display obscene content, social network, or put down others. See Wikipedia:Userpage for a full explanation of what you can and can't have. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 01:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare[reply]

How do you make a new page? Rtewqq (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rtewqq:, and welcome to the Teahouse!

If you want to make an encyclopedia page about a topic that meets the requirements for a stand alone article , then you can use the article WP:WIZARD. If you want to make a page that tells a little bit about you and your editing of Wikipedia, then just click [[here and start writing! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rtewqq. You can find lots of useful information about how to write an article at Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Header 1
! Header 2
! Header 3
|-
| row 1, cell 1
| row 1, cell 2
| row 1, cell 3
|-
| row 2, cell 1
| row 2, cell 2
| row 2, cell 3
|}

produces

I want the colors and everything, just not the borders, so this won't do:

— CpiralCpiral 19:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cprial: rather than place loads of wiki markup here can I point you at Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters which explains how to colour text and cell background. Nthep (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Cpiral and @Nthep: - Thanks for the Table question and the answer. FYI, after reading, I updated at Tip-Of-The-Day the tip on this topic. It's located at "Tip of the day, June 27 - Pretty tables" and now includes a list of additional resources. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you guide me how i can create a company page on wikipedia. One of my page is gone for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BizportoAjitkumarsinghpune (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ajitkumarsinghpune. The answer is, probably, you can't. The very fact that you are talking about "a company page" makes me think that, like many people who come here, you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, and may not be used for promotion of any kind. Every article should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about it: Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a company (or any other entity) wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what others have said about it. It follows that unless there is substantial published material about your company, written and published without any input from your company (so that excludes interviews and pieces based on press releases), it will be impossible at present for anybody to write an acceptable article about the company.

So, the way I would proceed is this. First, find places where people unconnected with the company have published substantial material about it (not just mentions, or entries in directories) and had them published in reliable places, such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. Blogs, wikis, and social media are not usually regarded as reliable.

If you cannot find such sources, give up - it will not be possible to write such an article at present. If you can, then Wikipedia may have an article about the company (not a "company page"). If, as I suspect, you are connected with the company, you are discouraged from writing an article about it, because you are likely to find it hard to write in a sufficiently neutral way: better to request somebody else to write it, as requested articles. But if you decided to go ahead, you need to read about our policy and practices on WP:conflict of interest; and if you are employed or otherwise paid by the company you must disclose this according to the rules in WP:PAID. If you still want to go ahead, I advise you to read your first article, and use the article wizard.

It is not easy creating an article in Wikipedia. It is much harder if you have a conflict of interest. And it is almost impossible if you come with an intention to promote or advertise. My recommendation would be that if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you find other subjects to work on. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I would like to send a message to another editor specifically (as opposed to a general article issue) -- do I click their USERID and then click "Talk"? Then what do I do?

Ridge wiki (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ridge wiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you go to a user talk page (e.g. yours is User talk:Ridge wiki and mine is User talk:Cordless Larry and then click the "new section" button at top. That will open the editing window and you can type you message to post. Note that user talk pages are publically viewable, so it's not a private message to the user concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's easy Ridge wiki (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Ridge wiki. Just a further tip: unless the other user includes a link to your user page in their reply (called a "ping"), you won't get a notification that they've replied, so it's a good idea to either check their talk page every now and then, or add it to your watch list. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Ridge wiki (talk) and @Cordless Larry: Thanks for the question and the answer. FYI, I have excerpted parts of above & created a new Tip-Of-The-Day proposal on this topic. It's located here. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add information to the General table for the following page; however, I keep getting error messages about too many external links (I am only including two links, just like the other entries) and am unable to save the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_research_networking_tools_and_research_profiling_systems DATA180 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DATA180 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Do any of the external links violate WP:EL? Any link you add must provide substantial information about the topic of the article that for some reason cannot be included in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to add an entry to the table with two external links, as others have done. DATA180 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that others have added additional information. Am I required to do this, and if so, where or how? Thank you. DATA180 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the links you are trying to add, DATA180? (If you get the same error message when trying to post them here, just describe them to us instead). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to examine the edits and comment but will just note that the attempted edits can be seen by clicking "filter log" at the top of Special:Contributions/DATA180. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DATA180. You made about 47 edit attempts which were declined by bots. Many were identified as attempts to add external links containing your user name. That is inherently self-promotional. Do not do that any more. Others were identified as spam. Please do not spam Wikipedia. Others were identified as possible vandalism. I will not call them that myself, but you should be careful to avoid editing patterns that look like vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And to be a little more blunt than PrimeHunter you seem to be very serious about trying to enter a URL that matches your user name , which probably equates to spamming to promote a Website where you have a conflict of interest. The filter is designed specifically to stop people from doing that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to be posting spam. I am just trying to get the information for the company I work for posted, and I've never used this tool before.DATA180 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising board, so this isn't the tool you need. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DATA180: See for example, on this Teahouse page, § how i can create a company page..., about two sections up from this discussion. Most of the answers there are relevant to your inquiry as well. --Thnidu (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created an article yesterday and there's a few things I've tried to do that I think need double checking, I found some images on flickr.com (with OS licence) and added them to wikimedia commons and then created the page. Anywho, could you kindly check and give me some future tips about how to add pictures to/from the commons etc to biographical articles. Thank You! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Ferdinand Pippathecat (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of your images were free. I have tagged them for deletion. I also changed the license tag from the public domain files to {{PD-author}}. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Pippathecat hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I suspect anything you got from flickr.com is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, and if I am correct the photos will be removed for not having the proper license.

But I noticed you used imdb as a source in the article Joshua Ferdinand. Imdb is not considered a reliable source since in many cases anyone can add content, just like here. For anything you got from imdb, you should be able to find another more reliable source that provides the same information. Otherwise you probably can't use the information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct about Flickr, Vchimpanzee. There are plenty of photos on there with compatible licences (although there are some issues). See Commons:Flickr files. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've got the copyright issues sorted, Pippathecat, you'll find instructions how to embed images on this page. The basic format is [[File:image.jpg|thumb|caption]] (replace caption with the text you want to appear under the image). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vchimpanzee , aww okay I was using imdb as I saw a similar biography article. I think the other wiki editors must have been reading these tea rooms as some have helped out but they're kind of adding and deleting each others content, could you please tell me what the right thing to do is?

Thank you Pippathecat (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I noticed you created Commons:Category:Joshua Ferdinand, but that you added images to it in the wrong way. Rather than adding links to the files to that page, you need to add the text [[Category:Joshua Ferdinand]] to each of the image pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cordless Larry, I'm not sure how to make it appear for media in category like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Michael_Shanks

But I just followed the W icon at the top of each image page, the commons is a bit different and I'm not really sure how to align everything just yet. Pippathecat (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit each of the image pages and add the text [[Category:Joshua Ferdinand]] to the bottom. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have mastered it now. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cordless Larry. I suspected that at least some of the images might have a problem. What I meant to say was that many flickr images wouldn't qualify, but some would. My wording didn't really communicate that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks guys, it doesn't really matter now anyway as my article has been marked for deletion, so I got something wrong. If there's anything any of you guys can add please help me at least incubate my first go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Ferdinand

ThanksPippathecat (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

I recently created a page Abe Burns and his notability is being questioned. I actually know him personally and he is one of the most powerful people in tech investing - he essentially runs all Ashton Kutcher's investing^[1] and was on Billboard Magazine's "30 Under 30"... I'm just wondering how I can make that box disappear if anyone has any tips??

Thanks so much! L — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellybean2786 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 October 2015

@Jellybean2786: "L" is meaningless as a signature here. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes: ~~~~. That will display your username and the timestamp. (I looked at the article's history to find your username.) --Thnidu (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jellybean2786, and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability guideline can be summarised as follows: Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You also mention that you know Abe Burns personally, so you should also be made aware of the guideline set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You need to declare any personal interest you have in the Abe Burns article, and it may be best to ask other editors to supervise your edits by posting suggested changes to the article's talk page and adding the {{request edit}} template, rather than making them directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can I edit my first article so it will get accepted? Here are the specifics:

The rejected article is titled: MaestroConference

The reason it was rejected: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

My reason for writing the article: There is no wiki page about this company. There are other wiki pages about companies that have similar offerings -for example, WebEx, Zoom and GoToMeeting. As a user of MaestroConference they are AMAZING! The company has a heart and is committed to social good. Many transformational leaders such as Marianne Williamson, Depak Chopra, and President Obama use this platform. Additionally, progressive and social changing organizations such as Occupy, the National Science Foundation and the Sierra Club have used their conferencing service. I think it is a loss to the world for this impressive company to not have a wiki page.

Can you please help me make the changes needed to my article?

THANK YOU!!! Gina Maria Mele, M.S. Gina Maria Mele MS (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gina Maria Mele MS: and welcome to the Teahouse!

You seem to have the wrong idea about what Wikipedia's purpose is. We are an encyclopedia that presents content that third party reliable sources have found worthy of discussing. We are not here to provide a promotional platform for AMAZING! things. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the first step, you should remove any phrase that would drop from a marketer's tongue, like " the market leader", "much more engaging ", "and inspire one another to action and change" . We present content in a dispassionate, neutral point of view as the reliably published sources do with any analysis and commentary specifically attributed to the professional critics who have made them, both AMAZING! and SUCKS EGGS!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gina Maria Mele MS! I'm afraid that it is unlikely that you will be able to create that article. As TheRedPenOfDoom says, you appear to have the wrong idea about the purpose of Wikipedia: it is not an advertising platform. You seem to be here to promote one of your clients, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind. Please advise the company to wait until someone not connected with it thinks it is interesting and important enough to have an article here. Please read:

• Our copyright policy
• Our conflict of interest guidelines; and, most particularly,
• Our policy on paid-contribution disclosure; specifically, please note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact; it is an obligation, not an option.

Please don't be discouraged from contributing here – we have almost five million articles, and many of them need improvement. Your contributions to almost all of them are welcome – but please avoid those about companies with which you have a professional relationship. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:10redmoe#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_User:LindseyH140.

10redmoe added themself to Wikipedia:Typo Team/Members as both User:10redmoe and [[User:10redmoe|LindseyH140].

I deleted the latter from the page while fixing the alphabetization.

I think this user was probably in good faith, but there are user pages for both names; "10redmoe" is on all or almost all of their contributions.

I nominated User:LindseyH140 for speedy deletion, leaving a note at User talk:10redmoe#Wikipedia:Typo Team/Members. GB fan reverted the nomination ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/684792764 ), with the reason

Decline speedy delete, not a valid speedy deletion criterion. (TW)

I currently have internet access difficulties and haven't taken the (significant) trouble to look up the proper reference for the restriction on multiple accounts, or I would've cited it. If I am right, can someone please expedite this? If I'm wrong, please tell me in what way. --Thnidu (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you suspect an editor is using more than one account, and it is not a legitimate alternative account which is publicly acknowledged, you should file a complaint at WP:SPI, not place a speedy deletion tag on a user page.

But this is not a typical sockpuppet case, Thnidu. 10redmoe has only 23 edits and last edited 2 years and 1 month ago. The LindseyH140 account was just created 9 months ago. So, the two accounts were never used at the same time. It is quite permissible for an editor to stop using one account (completely) and then create a new account later and use the new account. Sockpuppet cases are when an editor has multiple accounts and is using them simultaneously. So, in this case, filing an SPI complaint is unwarranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:

It is quite permissible for an editor to stop using one account (completely) and then create a new account later and use the new account.

Oh man, I was quite unaware of that! I owe the user an apology. Thanks for explaining. :-( --Thnidu (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Thnidu, just to clarify that deleting someone's user page won't get rid of their account. It's actually impossible to delete an account, because all edits need to be attributed to one. It's possible for an account to be blocked, but deleting an account's user page wouldn't mean the account had been deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: OH well, live & learn. Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the MIT report about the "Decline of Wikipedia". My negative experience as a newcomer was that an article writer is bandied about by various intransigent editors with various agendas and biases. This experience confirmed the truth of the MIT report. I do not find anywhere in Wikipedia on how to cancel/delete my account. Lorzendel2 Lorzendel2 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lorzendel2. I'm sorry you feel that way. That particular report is a few years old, and this very Teahouse was created in response to such issues. I would hope we could persuade you to stay.

However if you wish to disappear, the simplest method is to just stop editing and leave your account alone. If you wish to take things a step further, then there exists a process called Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts are never deleted as they are required for attribution - but as LukeSurl stated, the account name can be scrambled and you can choose never to log in again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia-Team,

Roland Berger has recenetly rebranded its business. Therefore, there are many deviations in the Wikipedia articles as they still contain the old firm name/ logo etc. I already proposed changes on each "Talk" page of the relevant Wikipedia articles. The english articles were alreay edited. Could anyone be so kind and assist me with the implementations of the changes for the German articles? (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Berger , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Berger_Strategy_Consultants and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Schwenker)

Thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards, Franziska PoszlerFranziska Poszler (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid we cannot help you with the German Wikipedia. Please ask at their Help Desk.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please check this page Airy and let me know if it contains any mistakes which influence on its approval?Karen Douglass (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance. Karen Douglass (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to link to Draft:Airy your draft article and not the existing disambiguation page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karen. The draft is very light on citations to reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic. I was going to explain that further but then I discovered that the entire release history appears to be a copyright violation (which mean I would want to look further to see that nothing else is). I don't have time to address this right now. Please remove every single part of the content that was not written in your own words.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i wamted to a picture and more infoShenek (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shenek, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Adding an image to a Wikipedia article is not too complicated. The image needs to be uploaded, and there is an Upload Wizard to help with that. Or, if the image is already used in another Wikipedia article or is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, it does not need to be reuploaded to put it in an article. There's just some Wikimarkup you'll need to use to position an image in an article correctly.

However, you should be aware that most images found on the internet cannot be used on Wikipedia. In order to help you further, we would need to know who created the image and whether that person (or persons) gave permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. Knowing which article you want to add the image to would also help. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse, and welcome to my question. I noticed that much of Devotional medal appeared to have been copied from a public domain source, the Catholic Encyclopedia. There is a note mentioning that some content in the article comes from that work at the bottom of the article, but there is no attribution in the body of the article. WP:PD says that a notice without text attribution in the body is insufficient, but I'm not sure how to format attribution on very long passages — would "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia," followed by use of <blockquote> be good enough? Some of the passages have inappropriate tone and need to be rewritten anyway, but I think some large chunks can probably be left, if I can figure out how to attribute them properly. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the templates at Category:Catholic Encyclopedia templates help?--ukexpat (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, where are you reading that, GrammarFascist? What I see is "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies". At Devotional medal, that attribution is provided by the {{Catholic}} template at the foot of the page. Whether Wikipedia should incorporate content from a non-neutral source from over a century ago is a different question, of course; but I don't see an attribution problem here. If there is one, it affects about 4500 articles. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we're interpreting the "proper attribution" differently in the statement "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies", Justlettersandnumbers. It seems to me that it would be helpful to readers to know which material in an aricle came from a specified public domain source, and a single catchall notice at the bottom of the page doesn't accomplish that. If Wikipedia policy really does unequivocally state that all that's needed to attribute any amount of public domain text in an article is the single simple notice at the bottom of the page, I'm curious why it was decided that was sufficient. Thanks for replying.

Thank you too, ukexpat. I'm going to replace the template I had added with one of those. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The preamble of article Scarcity says:

A common misconception on scarcity is that an item has to be important for it to be scarce, or vice versa. This is not true; for something to be scarce, something must be given up, or traded off, in order to obtain it.

I think something is wrong with this, but I don't know how to express what exactly is wrong and how to fix it. Could anyone help me with this? Thanks. SearchlightWindcharger (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SearchlightWindcharger, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me like the clause "something must be given up, or traded off, in order to obtain it" is incorrect. I would replace that with "it must simply not be commonly available" or words to that effect. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GrammarFascist. Thanks for reply. I actually wanted to say that statements like "this is not true" were not common for Wikipedia. SearchlightWindcharger (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more fundamental than that, SearchlightWindcharger. "A common misconception ... is that ... " is itself a claim, and should never appear in any Wikipedia article without a reference to a reliable source stating not only that it is a misconcpetion, but that it is a common misconception. As it stands, it is Original research, and is more suited to a textbook than an encyclopaedia. I've simply removed the two sentences from the article.--ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I created a page yesterday - and got this message today: Hello, Davidevitt, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Plus Architecture, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

I think it might have been because I copied some text from a website that stated that Plus Architecture was award winning without referencing those awards specifically. Is that the case?

If so I will do a bit more research into finding out what what awards they were.

in the meantime I've removed that text from the page. Does everything else I've done comply?

Kind regards David Davidevitt (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davidevitt: and welcome to the Teahouse. The article's referencing appears to all be in order. There were several other minor problems with it: it hadn't been added to any categories: these are needed to improve navigability of the encyclopedia, and can be added by writing [[Category:Example]] at the bottom of the article. The article also did not contain many wikilinks: these are internal links to other articles, which can be added like [[this]]. Anyway, thank you for your contributions, you have done a great job so far. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 22:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello David, and welcome to the Teahouse. That notice was actually placed yesterday (as you can see from the signature) and referred to the first version of Plus Architecture, which was in fact deleted. The current version is not currently tagged for deletion. In general, copying text from other websites is not allowed, unless it is a quotation, marked as such, attributed to its author, and properly cited. Wikipedia is very strict on copyright infringement. Also, making a page about a person or company (or any of a few other categories) without indicating why that person is significant can get the page deleted promptly. See WP:CSD#A7. Additional independent reliable sources, perhaps supporting expanded relevant and neutral content, would further help the article. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great - thanks for the advice. Davidevitt (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Davidevitt! It appears that you may have a close personal or professional connection to Plus Architecture. You seem to be here to promote your company, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind. Please wait until someone not connected with the company thinks it is interesting and important enough to have an article here. Also, please read:

• Our conflict of interest guidelines
• Our policy on paid-contribution disclosure

Please don't be discouraged from contributing here – we have almost five million articles, and many of them need improvement. But please refrain from editing the Plus Architecture article directly; you are always welcome to propose changes on the article talk page, Talk:Plus Architecture. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

After Ronen Shilo was proposed for deletion, I created a re-draft with a bunch of new sources and information. User:BC1278/sandbox The article was not deleted and one of the admins involved said the redraft was an improvement. But the two admins involved in the review weren't interested enough in the subject to actually bring the nrew redraft live. I can't do it because I have a conflict of interest. This is such a waste of time and work and leaves the article, which isn't very strong, in the same weak state as before.

The Conflict if interest page lists the Teahouse as one forum where editors with a conflict can reach out. I wonder if someone might like to take a look? Many thanks Hi,

After Ronen Shilo was proposed for deletion, I created a re-draft with a bunch of new sources and information. User:BC1278/sandbox The article was not deleted and one of the admins involved said the redraft was an improvement. But the two admins involved in the review weren't interested enough in the subject to actually bring the nrew redraft live. I can't do it because I have a conflict of interest. This is such a waste of time and work and leaves the article, which isn't very strong, in the same weak state as before.

The Conflict if interest page lists the Teahouse as one forum where editors with a conflict can reach out. I wonder if someone might like to take a look? Many thanks BC1278 (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BC1278: Nice job on that rewrite. I've done a history merge, meaning that if you look at the page history of the article, your edits are now in there. Your sandbox is accordingly deleted, and is now clean for you to use for another purpose – though you don't ever need to use "User:BC1278/sandbox". It's actually cleaner to use a dedicated sandbox for each article you are working on. For example, here it would have been either User:BC1278/Ronen Shilo or User:BC1278/Ronen Shilo, depending on whether you wanted to create it in your user or user talk space. Usually, if there's any shuffling of edits that will result from a history merge, I refrain, but it was minor here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the guidelines, of course, I wanted them to write a short article for non-addressed topics.

1) What do you think of this idea?

2) How far out should they become logged-in users?

3) What would be your concerns to ensure legitimacy?

Thank you, Ian Punnett

Ipunnett (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipunnett: Hello and and thanks for your interest. We have some guidance for people who want to help in this manner Wikipedia:Student assignments, and like the page says, "Student assignments can help improve Wikipedia, but they can also cause the encyclopedia more harm than good when not directed properly." Preparation and awareness of what exactly Wikipedia is and accepts for content are keys to having the project work and not blow up like a bomb.

oops -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ipunnett. If you go about this the right way, it can be a very good thing. The Wikimedia Foundation has various tools and resources available to support teachers and professors who incorporate writing Wikipedia articles into their classes. Please read Wikipedia:Education program/Educators. Personally, I recommend Your first article as recommended reading for your students, followed by the Primer. Legitimacy is assured by following our policies and guidelines scrupulously. Please let your students know that they can ask questions here at the Teahouse any time. As for creating accounts, the sooner the better, and they should all try to make at less ten simple but useful edits over a period of four or more days, before getting into serious new article editing. This will give them autoconfirmed status. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello, Ipunnett, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would advise that you read Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:Student assignments for some very good suggestions, and that you consider registering your course with the education project promptly. (This is not required at all, but is IMO a good idea.) I would also advise that you encourage your students to register accounts asap, and suggest that they take Wikipedia:Training/For students and perhaps also Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. A course page is a very good idea, and students might want to link to it on their user pages or mention it on the talk page of the articles they edit. If they are going to be creating new articles, I strongly urge that they create them in Draft space, possibly with the Article wizard. You or an experienced editor or both should review the available sources that a student has gathered on the topic before the student starts the actual article. Article creation is one of the tougher tasks for new editors, but I ahve participated in Editathons where brand new editors were able to create acceptable articles in a single full-day session, so it can be done. DES ^(talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I would be happy to work with you in such a project. I'm already an approved volunteer with the Education project. Let me know if you are interested. DES ^(talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD and DES have given you good, and officially approved, advice. I will be more blunt. I think the idea of encouraging people who have never edited Wikipedia before to start by trying to create articles is crazy. Creating a new article is really difficult, compared to routine work like correcting spelling, improving grammar, restructuring messy paragraphs, and adding citations. I had registered an account and made around 1,800 edits before I felt capable of creating a new article. Please reconsider. Maproom (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom does have a point, Ipunnett. But I still disagree. I created my first article with my 24th edit, and it is still live (although I just went to look at it, and it needs improvement, it would not pass muster as a new article today). I agree that simply tossing someone at Wikipedia and saying "Go, create a new article" is a recipe for frustration for both the student and several volunteers here, and will probably have no positive result. But with lots of preparation and a fair amount of hand holding, I think it can be done and done well. As I said I've seen it done (and helped) at edit-a-thons. But if the preparation and assistance are skimped or skipped, your students will probably hate you and surely hate Wikipedia. So consider well. DES ^(talk) 22:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created my first article, Dirk van Erp, starting with my 16th edit, and have never had an article I started go on to be deleted. I have now created over 60 articles. So, it is possible for new editors to create articles successfully. However, I had been a published freelance writer for decades, and spent a few months studying how to write Wikipedia articles before I started. It is possible for new editors to create new articles, but it is not at all easy. It takes complete dedication to complying with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giving an assignment to "create" an article when the 5 million most easy topics have already been created might be something to consider as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also to consider is the fact that most classes a stress as feature of good writing the promotion of your thesis statement but that type of writing is absolutely contrary to any Wikipedia writing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there are lots and lots of notable and perfectly accessible topics left. Also it might be good to teach purely descriptive writing that is not also argumentative, but this difference would need to be made clear to students (and to the instructor, perhaps) before the start of any such course. But the Education project has had many successful courses to date, and quite a few of them did involve article creation. So it can be done. DES ^(talk) 23:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All sides of this question are measured and informative.

Let me be more specific about my expectations. I was thinking about filling in some stubs, nothing big, nothing requiring a structured article of any length.

For example, I have a student who is writing about healthy eating and a spice reference might just has a stub. An article in this case might be ten to twelve sentences, judging by the other pages.

Some of these students are more talented than others, so I wanted to keep the expectations simple. Even filling in a stub requires thoughtful, competent work to be worthy.

Given that, would Maproom, Cullen328 or DES suggest that editing existing entries for grammatical errors be a better goal?

Please advise. I make all these suggestions with great respect for all that y'all do.

Ipunnett (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to get the students to click on "Random article", fifth item in the menu at the left of this page. They will find some well-written articles, with no obvious need for improvement; many articles on subjects that do not interest them; and some articles on subjects that have some interest for them and an obvious need for improvement. Even if all they can do is correct a typo or grammatical error, that will be an improvement and they can then move on to another random article. If they try to create new articles, it is likely that they will come up against Wikipedia's notability requirements, the article will get rejected, and they will feel aggrieved. (I wonder if there are statistics for what proportion of first articles by registered users end up getting accepted? I doubt that my first article would be accepted now, standards were lower then.) Maproom (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ipunnett! That's quite an ambitious project for an editor with 13 article-space edits, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Your first step would probably be to acquire a much broader experience of editing here, and a good understanding of our policies and guidelines (which unfortunately are of almost Kafka-esque complexity) . After that, I personally would suggest that you ask your students to edit exclusively in draft space (the page name would be of the form Draft:Foo) where their work would have a better chance of survival than in mainspace; and that you impress on them again and again and again that they may not violate copyrights or personal privacy. As for topics, I suggest you ask them to choose a red-linked entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles, in an area that interests them. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I might add one more suggestion to the excellent advice my Teahouse colleagues have already given, Ipunnett, have your students read questions and answers at the Teahouse. Many of the mistakes new users make show up here in the form of people asking why their edit was reverted, or their draft rejected, or their article nominated for deletion. Perusing the Teahouse archives isn't a substitute for the reading suggested above, but I would at the very least make it recommended reading for your students. Being familiar with how the Teahouse works before they need to ask their own questions would also be helpful. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia, and good luck with your project. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what you are suggesting, a method might be for the student to find a WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and find their article assessment grid. In this case it is midway down on the right. Finding a topic rated Top or Important or Mid that is Stub Class could be a basis for directing efforts to needed improvement areas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to protect a company page 65.175.243.206 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user at 65.175.243.206, and welcome to the Teahouse. If a page is vandalized on a recurrent basis, an administrator may place it under what's called "semi-protection", meaning that only logged-in and auto-confirmed users can edit it.

You should understand, however, that a company about which a Wikipedia article exists does not "own" that article and has very little say over what information is included in it. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources report about a topic. So, if a newspaper publishes information unflattering to a company, that information will probably go into its Wikipedia article even if the company doesn't like it. Similarly, flattering information about a company cannot be included in the Wikipedia article unless a reliable, independent source verifies the information — we can't just take a company's word for it that they have a million customers or won a particular award, for example. I hope this addresses your question. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user at 65.175.243.206. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, companies are not permitted to "host" pages on Wikipedia. Pages are only to be protected (have the ability to edit them restricted) to prevent vandalism (deliberately decreasing a page's quality), edit warring (otherwise helpful editors continuously reverting each other), and disuptive or otheriwse problematic editing. Page protection is done to prevent damage or disruption to pages, not to restrict access based on an editor's opinions. A relevant policy to this is the neutral point of view, meaning that Wikipedia presents information without taking sides. For future reference, page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Are only links to webpages viewed as a good reference or is there some other form that is acceptable (ie. photographs, scanned material)?

Site in production: John Donald Barton

Thanks Alan AlBarts (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AlBarts, and welcome to the Teahouse. Scanned material should almost never be uploaded to Wikipedia, nor should scans usually be linked to from Wikipedia, because that would violate the copyright of the material scanned.

That said, material which is not online can absolutely be used as a reference for a Wikipedia article. Newspaper articles, magazine articles and books are all good sources; they may have official copies online, in which case they're fine to link to, but such sources can be cited even if no legitimate online copy exists. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a bit more insight into what you need to do before Draft:John Donald Barton can become an article, AlBarts, all but one of the sources currently cited in your draft are what we call mere mentions. These are useful for substantiating individual facts, such as Barton having interviewed Phyllis Diller, but cannot establish his notability... and without proof of notability, no subject can have a Wikipedia article. This policy is summed up in Wikipedia's Golden Rule: every article must be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.

You may have an uphill battle with this article if offline sources about Barton are as scanty as online ones seem to be. But I would be remiss if I let you think notability is the only issue with the article; it also has some tone issues, not being neutral enough in places. Any praise of the subject of an article must be cited to a reliable source — this includes description of Barton's apparently pleasant speaking voice, for example. I also suspect most if not all of the images you have added to the article will have to be removed, because the people or organizations which hold the copyrights to the images have not licensed them for use on Wikipedia. Tempting as it might seem, you cannot simply use any image you find online. Finally, you will probably be expected to format your citations properly. But I wouldn't worry about learning citation format until we're sure there are any sources worth citing for the proposed article.

Sorry if this is discouraging. I have seen many articles fail AfC review multiple times (as yours has) yet still go on to be accepted as articles, though, so don't lose heart. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on GF's point, you can't refer to unpublished material. So, for example, say you have a scanned copy of his degree certificate. You can't upload that and refer to it, as you're not a reliable source. But neither can you refer to it in an offline cite, as, although it exists, it's not been published in a manner that would be verifiable by others. If, however, that certificate had been reproduced in a book that you've got, you can refer to the page number as, even if hard, it's then possible for others to verify. Bromley86 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if his PhD thesis is available in a university library it can be cited, because it is accessible to other people. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have some published brochures which I had planned on scanning.

AlBarts (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Brochures" are almost certainly not going to count as reliably published sources with a reputation of fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight. And the scanned documents would be copyright materials which you would not be allowed to upload to the Wikimedia commons and most likely not be able to provide a valid WP:FAIR-use claim for uploading to Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants secondary sources where knowledgeable authors, scholars, reporters have analysed materials and presented conclusions and analysis, not Wikipedia editors developing theories, premises, or conclusions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get information on here to stay when I know them to be fact, and they are being removed over and over again.70.39.17.158 (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On Wikipedia, all additions must be cited to a reliable source. Even if you know something to be true, Wikipedia will not accept it unless you find a reliable citation for it. We have this policy so that each person will not be inserting their own unsourced version of "truth". --Biblioworm 15:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True facts, you say? If you could let us know what the material you are trying to add is, and to which article(s), it will be easier to give you advice. According to your contributions history, this post is the only one you have made from this IP address, so I presume that you either have an account but are not logged it, or have a dynamic IP? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of what the others say, I've edited a biography page where someone I'm 99% sure really was a relative maintained that the newspapers had got the chap's place of birth wrong (i.e. papers say Scotland, person says Kenya). Given where his parents lived at the time, Kenya makes a lot more sense but, because we have multiple newspaper article which all say it's Scotland, it stays as Scotland. Bromley86 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow tea drinkers.

At each of the bus and bus-train interchanges around the Australian city of Perth, there is a list of connecting bus routes. When the format for the table was originally established a few years ago by a particular user, |the destination and the route number were always written in bold. However, in recent months, some experienced users have edited some pages so that |there is no bold in the table. I think that the bold should remain, as it makes the table look more visually appealing and draws readers' eye to the final destination (the most important piece of information). My question is, does a Wikipedia policy or guideline exist that suggests that the bold should be removed, or is this just the personal opinion of a few experienced editors (in which case I will alert other users of my intention to edit the formatting so that they have a chance to respond and we can reach a consensus).

I know I'm being a bit pedantic and very long winded on such a trivial matter. Thank you in advance for your help.

102 at 1625 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia house style is described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface. --Boson (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add an external link to a web page and it keeps giving me a warning dialog "Your edit has triggered a filter designed to warn editors, organisations and companies against using Wikipedia as an advertising medium."

The page I'm trying to add a link to is not a commercial page and has content not in wikipedia.

I can't find a way past this error dialog. What can I do? Unixnerd (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Unixnerd: - Wikipedia is not a link farm. The criteria for appropriate external links are pretty limited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link I'm trying to add is just as valid as the others already on the page. The site the link goes to has been running for almost 20 years and is non-commercial. It has been used as a reference on other Wikipedia articles for years.

Unixnerd (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the link really has information relevant to the article in question, then some of that information should be cited in the article, and the link cited as a reference. Without knowing which article you're trying to edit nor which url you're trying to add, however, I can't evaluate whether it would in fact be an appropriate reference by the standard Wikipedia uses. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that there may be other inappropriate links does not mean that one more inappropriate link should be added. Does the link you wish to add meet the criteria for appropriate external links? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been FORUMSHOPPING and has been warned about COI and Username policy at WP:Help desk#Trouble linking an external web page - Arjayay (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Say I'm editing an article with a big list of awards with 20 items, minimal text (just a person's name). There's one a year, and at the moment it's just a tall, skinny list within its own section. Is it possible to force it into columns, a la reflist|3? So:

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

becomes

2015 2013 2011 2014 2012 2010

Or something similar. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bromley, the easiest is probably with {{div col}} and {{div col end}}

or like

You can pipe a parameter in the opening to say how many columns. (and use bullets) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nowikied TRPoD's div col tags for clarity —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks TRPoD. Bromley86 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bromley86, I like:

{{columns-list|3|
enter list items here on separate lines
}}

You can also use a width like:
30em
instead of a set number of columns. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Checkingfax! Bromley86 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My article submission for Martial Arts Unlimited Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martial_Arts_Unlimited_Association because it doesn't meet the notability requirements. I have lots of sources and have cited several parts of the article. What do I need to do? Lkirkpatrick89 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To cut and paste from the rejection note on the top:

What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. (emphasis added)

Basically, you want multiple mentions of MAUA in national newspapers or martial arts mags. These may be Japanese. That establishes notability. For example, that Brazilian JJ article in the Black Belt mag would be perfect if it mentioned MAUA, but it doesn't. As it stands, that's a junk cite, as it doesn't help anyone reading the article confirm anything (other than the existence of BJJ, I suppose, which is covered by the wikilink to its own article). Bromley86 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your AJ wip, and that's going to suffer from the same problem. Every statement needs to be supported by a reliable source and it also needs to be neutral (so no "desiring a fast paced life", etc.). Bromley86 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkirkpatrick89: There are many links, but press releases or pages of co-partners or wiki pages are not the reliably published independent sources that are required. see WP:RS-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

we would like to create an article about a german guitarist. It's a simple translation from german to englisch. Nothing changed so far, except ob missing links to other articles.

But the draft was not accepted.

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

The german article is about "Reentko"

Thanks in advance

Niceland studio (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niceland studio, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken a look at Draft:Reentko. The relevant policy guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability. The notability requirement can be summarised as meaning that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It may well be the case that this is applied less strictly on the German Wikipedia, or just that the German article has slipped through the net there and not yet been flagged for notability concerns. Anyway, what you need to do is demonstrate that Reentko has been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources such as newspaper articles or books. I've looked through the sources cited in the current draft, and there are some problems. YouTube isn't really considered a reliable source unless the video in question is posted by a reliable publisher rather than just a regular user. The Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing source states that is a mirror of something from the World Heritage Encyclopedia, which itself incorporates material from Wikipedia, which means that it isn't reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Niceland Studio! I'm afraid you are trying to do something that can't be done. You are here to promote your artist, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind, so I think your attempt is (or at least, should be) doomed to failure. Your best option is to wait until someone not connected with Reentko thinks he is interesting and important enough to have an article here. Some other things you should be aware of:

• Our policy on paid-contribution disclosure
• Our conflict of interest guidelines
• The implications here of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
• Our policy on usernames, particularly promotional usernames and names implying shared use: you will need to change your username, and make sure that only one person uses it – usernames are for individual, not collective, use
• When you translate from de.wp, you must provide attribution of the source material; a handy way to do this is with a {{translated}} template on the talk page

I'm afraid that's a lot of reading and a lot of "rules". Please don't allow any of it to discourage you from contributing here – we have four million articles, and many of them need improvement. But for artists connected with your studio, please refrain from editing articles directly; you are always welcome to propose changes on the article talk page. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello users of Wikipedia! Small question: I was wondering if someone could help me in learning how to redirect a page to a different one. I have currently begun translating a page in Spanish that I just found out is available in English already & was given this #REDIRECT [[pancake]] to work with. Thank You!

CoolInu43 (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all it needs to act as a redirect. I've deleted the rest of the text from Tortita, and it now redirects simply to Pancake. - --David Biddulph (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working with a professional wiki writer to create a wikipage for our company. The writer drafted a page online and submitted it for comment. He was told by the Wikipedia staff that "we are blacklisted and no further page can be created". We have tried several times to create pages which were decline due to Neutral voice issues, but our most recent submission resolved all of that.

I am completely confused since we are a standard company like the thousands of other companies that each gave wiki pages. We make IT solutions, are a well known private company, etc.

What should I do? Markharris2000 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Markharris2000, and Welcome to the Teahouse. One thing you should do is not attempt to use Wikipedia as an promotional platform for your company . You have a conflict of interest that apparently blinds you to advertorial phrasing like " the innovation and economics " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Those earlier attempts were done by several people that did not understand this non-commercial concept.

Since those early attempt, I hired a professional team to write an information-only

version of what we do and who should care. What I am confused by is that team has indicated that someone at Wikipedia staff indicates that we are blacklisted and can NOT even TRY to write a page that conforms to all of wiki's guidelines.

I am still confused.

Markharris2000 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Markharris2000, There is no "Wikipedia staff" (only volunteers) and any "professional wiki writer" should know that. I can't find any place where this term has been used on Wikipedia in reference to you or your firm. The term could have two meanings in regard to Wikipedia editing. First, a source site or domain can be blacklisted. This means that it is added to a list, and the software will not accept any edits with links to that site. This is done in regard to spam sites and notoriously unreliable sources that might be mistaken for reliable sources. Neither seems likely to apply to you. ee Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. The other is what is more commonly known as "salting" (as in "sow the earth with salt"). If an invalid article is created and deleted multiple time, it may be creation-protected, so that only admins can create a page with that title again. I don't see any indication that this was done for any title associated with you or your firm. I would like to ask your "professional wiki writer" who exactly said this, and where, with diffs. I would also like to know the user name of this "professional wiki writer" to be sure that this person is complying with the terms of service. DES ^(talk) 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly context that is sorely lacking. Another possibility, is that this regarded the writing company being blacklisted. For example, as part of the Orangemoody sockpuppet case. It is actually possible that Wikimedia staff could have corresponded, though it's more likely it was a volunteer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the mainspace has been salted Pluribus Networks, which is effectively "blacklisted." I don't know if that was because of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluribus Networks (seems rather aggressive after only 1 recreation although it was created by another self admitted COI editor User:Pbgalvin) or one of the paid editing scandals with Orangemoody or Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia or similar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Draft:Pluribus Networks were ever brought to a condition where it was acceptable as a Wikipedia article (specifically, not containing promotional wording or content, and also meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:VRS), then the accepting reviewer would seek unprotection ("unsalting") of the article name Pluribus Networks so that the accepted Draft could be moved there and become an article. Salting is not necessarily forever, just like Carthage#Roman Carthage became the second largest city of the empire even despite the supposed former salting of the city. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently had a Submission rejected due to incorrect usage of Footnotes. When I click on the Edit link to edit the references there is nothing there to edit. Additionally, there is no Edit link to edit the main body text so I can re-do (or delete) those footnote links to the Footnote References. Lastly, I thought *some* footnotes were to be used to substantiate a claim(s) made in the main body of text. Perhaps I'm a little confused and am placing these in the wrong category. My draft can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joe_Schimmel#cite_ref-1

Thanks for any help you can provide. Everything that my client has asked me to provide is there, I just need to complete whatever needs to be cleaned up and fixed before my Submission will be accepted.

Palacenewmedia (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it and see if I can help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PalaceNewMedia, I understand you are new to Wikipedia (WP) and it takes time to understand the WP guidelines and culture. For this reason you have misunderstood the comments from the reviewer. There isn't anything wrong with the formatting of the citations/footnotes but rather the quality and substance of the sources cited in those footnotes. They are not acceptable sources per WP standards (WP:RS) and the article you have written does not meet the standard of WP:notability. Unless the subject has been covered in depth by notable publications its very unlikely any article on them will be accepted for publication on WP. Sorry to bring you this news but that is the reality of the situation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the content and tone of the draft wreaks of self-promotion. In case you are able to find acceptable sources to meet WP:notability the draft will need to be completely rewritten to be much more succinct (shorter) and to have much more a dis-interested tone.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Palacenewmedia, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am going to address several of your concerns.

First, it is normal for the references not to be editable under the references section when editing an article. Each reference's details are at the place (or at least a place) where that source is cited in the article. So you need to edit the body of the text to correct footnote formatting, even though the references display in their own separate section in article view.

Second, "[e]verything that [your] client has asked [you] to provide" may not necessarily be able to remain in the article. As currently written, the article is heavily promotional (even if some of it is promoting a particular variation of Christianity rather than Schimmel himself) and will not be accepted until the tone is much more neutral. I have not removed much of this promotional language, because taking all of it out would require severe pruning of the article and I wanted to give you the opportunity to try doing that yourself.

The note left by MatthewVanitas when he declined the draft is very important. If a subject (whether a place, thing or idea, or a person like Mr. Schimmel) is not "notable" by the Wikipedia definition, then no amount of formatting references or listing accomplishments will permit the draft to be approved as an article. Every article on Wikipedia is held to the notability standard.

To get you started on finding independent publications by reliable sources that make more than a mere mention of Mr. Schimmel, I have found and added two sources to the article. Neither of them is sufficient on its own to establish his notability, nor would they suffice taken together. But they should hopefully point you in the right direction. You should ideally find two to three sources that discuss Mr. Schimmel or his work for at least a few paragraphs. Remember that the sources for establishing notability cannot be connected with him, such as someone he has worked with or a publisher of his work. As always, feel free to come back to the Teahouse if you have any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I think I am starting to understand most of what is going on. I am simply attempting to add information in the same way that, say, the following person has been added on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Hunt_(Christian_apologist). Mr. Schimmel falls into almost the exact same category, and yet there seems to be no problem with Dave Hunt being acceptable. Any other suggestions would be helpful. If I need to remove several sentences, references, External Links, etc., I am happy to do so in order to make the article acceptable. Also, I am a COI non-paid contributor, so do I need to place this code at the beginning of my article and/or anywhere else?

Palacenewmedia (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Palacenewmedia - I'm not that confident about the Dave Hunt article, its referencing looks rather thin to me. Take a look at its talk page, there's been some pretty hard discussion about the article. It also is only rated "Start class" so probably not a good idea to use it as a benchmark, in fact comparing articles is generally a bad idea, because there is a lot of junk on Wikipedia that has not been pruned or culled yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a fair amount of time in to make a small article on BillionGraves. It was rejected because it looks like advertising. I used a similar company Findagrave as a guide. Even though this company seems to be growing (about half the size of findagrave) and is making connections with several bigger companies, it hasn't been around very long (4 years) and I could not find much from the news sources. Is there a simple way to make this acceptable? or should I give it a few years and maybe try again at a later time? Or is there a way to make it a stub and pass it on to someone else to flush out and improve?

It took me about a day to research and put this article together. I'm sure most of you are much much faster, but I'm slowly learning. Thanks kerfuffle (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is probably just let it go for a couple of years until your subject becomes more notable, if it does. Or you could write the article in your sandbox and work on perfecting it for a while before you launch it to public space. Remember, articles are supposed to be neutral in tone--you can't write like you're promoting that company, and you must have reliable sources (an article about the company in the New York Times would be seen as a reliable source, a blog post on it would not?. You can put a sandbox draft up for review and get it checked out by others before you launch it to public space, if you choose to go that route. Happy editing. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I wasn't trying to promote the company so much as demonstrate it's relevant enough to merit a wikipedia page. I'll give it a year or 2 and continue to poke away at it.

In the meantime I'm taking the training thing to help better understand NPOV etc.

Cheers kerfuffle (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kerfuffle, the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't relevance, or size, or turnover, or importance, or fame, or influence, or popularity. It is solely whether people unconnected of the subject have written enough material about it, published in reliable places, to provide the basis for an article - we call this criterion 'notability', but it's a somewhat unfortunate name, because people often mistake it for some of the qualities I listed. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a company says about itself, or how it want to be presented. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. I'll finish the training and try to create a different article that is more notable in the future.

BTW I don't represent the company, I simply noticed that findagrave had a page but billiongraves did not. Thought this might be a good opportunity to move from editing to creating. I see now that it isn't about 2 companies or people or things being equally popular, but notable in reliable and published sources. Thanks for the info. kerfuffle (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, would the article on Danaher Corporation also fail in this regard? It seems to have mostly internal company references also.

Thanks

kerfuffle (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryancormack the references for that article are mostly independent, from what I can tell. It's not a great article because it's mostly lists, but its references are better.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I understand. Thanks.kerfuffle (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subheading added by Colin Fine, because this is another question from another editor.ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irene we are RMOS Consultancy and facing with the same problem. every time i am trying to create a user talk page regarding my company RMOS Consultancy, it gets rejected so feeling helpless kindly help ?

RMOS Consultancy RMOS Consultancy (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rajnitsharma. There is no such thing as "a user talk page regarding my company" - a User talk page is a page which any editor may use to communicate with that User. What I think you mean is that you want to create a Wikipedia article about your company, in which case the advice given to Irene is relevant to you, as is the information already on your user talk page. One more point: it is forbidden to have a User name which suggests that you are editing for an organisation. I see that in fact you do not have this, but a personal user name. But if you continue to make your user name display as the company name, you are likely to get many editors annoyed with you, because it looks as if you are here purely for promotional purposes. Please don't do that again. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question is related.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, folks. Should we be adding Authority Control templates to individual works of fiction? If so, is the authority data the same as that of the work's author? Thank you for any help that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NewYorkActuary, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm sorry no one answered your question sooner; I suspect that, like me, other volunteers didn't know the answer. I have now read Wikipedia:Authority control and Help:Authority control, and I could not find an unambiguous answer to your question. My best advice would be to go through the page history of Wikipedia:Authority control (and maybe look at its Talk page too) in hopes of finding a user who might be able to give you a better answer. You might also try Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is staffed in part by people who are librarians "in the real world" and might be familiar with authority control from that angle. Sorry I can't offer a more helpful response. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I, too, found those documents ambiguous. I'll try one of your recommendations. Thanks again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Are you familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels? I took a look at the article templates there (very helpful for creating new articles, by the way) and didn't see any mention of authority control templates for individual works. On the other hand, the infobox included in the novel article template includes fields for both isbn and oclc number, which provide authority control in a way, for example:The Sacred and Profane Love Machine. It might be a good question to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HazelAB: Thank you for the suggestions. As things stand right now, some individual works have authority control, others do not. But the question seems to go further than just anything within the scope of WikiProject Novels. For example, United Nations Charter has authority control, and so does 0 (number). The thing that puzzles me is whether (and how) those templates get added when the documentation for the templates explicitly limits their scope to "people". I haven't yet asked at the Reference Desk, but I think that will be my next stop. Thanks again for the suggestions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And,obviously, if they know enough about what they are editing and if they have a parent's permition. It does say Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly yes. Anyone can edit, but they do not add what they "know", they merely summarize and WP:CITE reliable sources. I think we also discourage anyone under 18 from posting any personal information.

So, if a kid is capable of citing books (or just wants to fix grammar and spelling problems), then cool.

More information can be found at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Few, thanks Ian.Thomson. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there's no Wikipedia policy on children editing if the child is under 13 and from the US the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act may apply to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.243.206 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking this question mainly in regard to articles about urban districts or other neighborhoods in the larger cities.

In the past few years, the availability of detailed historic maps online has been increasing rapidly. Materials once accessible only in the largest university and public libraries, and in person, are now free to research online, or require only a library card. The Sanborn maps are provided free to cardholders by many public library systems, at least for the state where the library is located. The David Rumsey collection of online maps is free to access, including the Baist real estate survey maps. Together, the Baist and Sanborn maps offer a remarkable window into the history of a city, with innumerable clues about the character of neighborhoods 80, 100, or more years in the past.

The catch is, in the case of large cities the Sanborn and Baist sets comprise many hundreds of pages, and in the case of Sanborn across multiple sets for different years. It has taken me many weeks to find the right Sanborn and Baist pages for the Palms district of L.A., largely due to the fact the post-1910 maps for Palms are generally included with Culver City, even though it was L.A. that annexed Palms in 1914, not Culver City. With that in mind, shouldn't we have the option of adding this information to the Infobox for those articles where it's relevant? In the Infobox for Palms, it would be nice to add the following data points:

Baist Map page(s): 1921 Baist Real Estate Survey Atlas, plate 38 (recto) Sanborn Map page(s): Palms, California (1910)

                     Culver City (1924 p22 , 1929 p22)

Assuming it doesn't violate Wikipedia policy or intellectual property rights, I'd also want to provide URLs here. In general I think this would be desirable as a standard.

I've noticed that there are already previously defined attributes like postal_code_type and postal_code. How are those set up?Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pithecanthropus4152. I notice that the infobox for Palms, Los Angeles already has two maps. It is difficult for me to see how links to historical maps belong in an infobox. Please keep in mind that the section of the Manual of style on infoboxes says "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." The takeaway is that only "key facts" should be included. A current map and the ZIP code seem to be key facts, but I doubt whether links to historic maps are truly key. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pithecanthropus4152, I agree with Cullen's comments above. Note that there is no reason why the page numbers for these maps couldn't be included in an appropriate section of the article body, and perhaps links to them in the External links section.

As to your nominal question, new fields are edited by editing the template page (and its documentation page, normally), such as {{Infobox settlement}}. However large infobnoxes can be comples and tricky to edit. New features would normally be proposed on the talk page, such as Template talk:Infobox settlement. There is a cost, both in implementation and in maintenance, to a change to a template, and it is higher for a widely used template, so an argument needs to be made that the benefits are worth while, and then someone with the needed skill has to be found who is willing to make and test the changes. DES ^(talk) 02:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably done a bad job of expressing my idea. As with most geographic infoboxes, the two maps here show (1) the boundaries of Palms and (2) its location within L.A. The utility of historical maps is quite different. In the first place, I don't advocate adding a picture of the maps themselves, but only a citation to the correct volume, page, or plate to guide readers should they wish to delve into the area's local history. I also advocate that a link might be provided, especially if the website in question provides completely unrestricted access. By "unrestricted" I mean not only free of charge, but also without the requirement of a local library card or other credential. Keep in mind, also, that the Baist and Sanborn maps are not just one-offs that are relevant to only Palms or even all of L.A.; rather they exist for communities nationwide. What is the question asked by local historians--both professional and amateur--when they begin to research a locale, whether it's in NYC, Goldfield NV, or Melonsquashville TN? That question is this: "Is there a Baist or Sanborn set for this neighborhood?". It's for this reason that I thought the inclusion of citations to these maps would be useful, and that the implementation of a standard citation style and template labels would be of value.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains, Pithecanthropus4152: Why do you think that this information belongs in the infobox in particular, as opposed to another part of the article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that if a standard citing format were to be used, it would be a good candidate for inclusion in the Infobox, but only if someone comes along and decides to insert the information--IOW if someone wanted to add this optional information, then this is where it should go. However, the References and External Links sections can work just as well; I didn't think of it beforePithecanthropus4152 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to upload properly. Thank you.

Samuelcobalt (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, I stumbled upon a page under creation Cheryl Lehman and noted to the creator on the talk page that, at the time, it did not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability (academic). I checked back now, and the creator did add material, but: 1) the additions don't strike me as notable; 2) the additions cite other Wikipedia pages created by the same user. What gives me pause to start an RFD for this page is: 1) I'm a newbie (although I have used RFD once already); 2] I'm not an accounting professional - maybe she really is notable in her field, but the page creator's writing didn't convince me.

So, my guess is that I should turn to a Wikipedian familiar with the academic field of accounting. If that guess is correct, how would I do that?

—Boruch Baum (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]