Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 164

Archive 160

←

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

Archive 166

→

Archive 170

Create a Software Company Page

I am new to wikipedia and I want to know the correct way to create a page on it about Company along with proper syntax and rules. Please help me out for this . Thanks.Prankushul (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Prankshul. Please read WP:CORP, which is the shortcut to our notability guideline for companies and organizations, and study the links in that guideline. I like and recommend a page called the Primer, which is a good introduction to writing a successful Wikipedia article. If you have any professional connection to this company yourself, please read and heed our conflict of interest guideline. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting notification about "reliable source need", what's that mean ?

I have already included some reference link about my articles and my profile page from other source and together with reference list and external like also attached here, so would you please tell me what is particularly needed for reliable source, and what I want to do remove that notification from my article page.Richard anbudurai 1 (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Richard anbudurai 1, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two things to consider: First, every article in Wikipedia should have several references to independent published sources to show that the subject has been written about by journalists or other authors who are not connected in any way to the subject (for an artist that means that gallery catalogues and exhibit announcements don't count). Articles in art magazines are a good example. Secondly, because the article is a biography of a living person, it should have the references formatted as inline citations so that readers can see which facts are supported by which reference. (See WP:Referencing for beginners to see how to do this.) —Anne Delong (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Uploading a photo to article / Copyright question

I want to upload a text about one of the most famous breweries in my couuntry. I have some old images from the past century when this all started. I am a new user so I am not sure how exactly should I upload them, and if this is copyrighted content (I did recieve it from the owners themselves). So if anyone could help with this question I would be greatful. Thanks 94.230.178.78 (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. If the photos are over 100 years old, they should be in the public domain (I don't know much about copyright law in Serbia, but to the best of my knowledge there are no signatories to the Berne Convention with a local copyright expiration term of more than 100 years). That means you can upload the pictures without violating any copyrights. You will need to create an account to do this. Since the images are in the public domain, you should probably upload them to Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's sister project for free images, rather than to Wikipedia itself. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Complain on random edits to a page

Hi,

I have created an article about a residential housing project. There has been a lot of editing done by random people in that article after it got accepted. I fear that these edits do not always follow the NPOV policy. I do not want my page to get deleted due to such edits. What can i do to prevent such edits or is there a complaint section where i can complain about such users? falaknuma 09:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevchandrav (talk • contribs)

Hello Sanjeev, welcome to the Teahouse. Is The Park (residential project) the article you're talking about? If so, while edits such as these may or may not be considered entirely in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV, I don't see them as seriously problematic to the extent of requiring a complaint. Remember that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, so long as they are making a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. It would probably be best to discuss on the article talk page - Talk:The Park (residential project) - your concerns and what content you feel the article should or should not have. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply User:Arthur goes shopping falaknuma 12:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevchandrav (talk • contribs)

Hello, Sanjeevchandrav. A couple of point in addition to what Arthur goes shopping said. First, it is not your article. It is Wikipedia's article. Nobody owns any article. Secondly, it is very very unlikely that changes to an article would ever render it liable to deletion. Either the article was worth keeping before, in which case any changes can be reversed; or it was not. Having said that, other people may disagree with you about what changes are desirable, in which case you should discuss them on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sanjeevchandrav. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. As a new editor you are experiencing a common culture shock of writers...letting go and setting it "free". Your Wikipedia contributions are licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and means you agree to those terms which allow improvements....and attempts at improvements. In order to combat the issue of a non-neutral POV we attept to use the talkpage to address the issue with the specific editors in an editing cycle called Bold, revert, discuss in tougher situation where the article may become may be stuck for many reasons. It might not be a good idea to attempt BRD to many times in a row, as new editors sometimes get caught in edit wars and cross our 3 revert rule. But this method is based on the idea that bold editing along with a lengthy discussion will result in no edit wars. Lengthy discussion is generally needed because a part of that discussion may mean using a number of Dispute Resolution venues like "request for comment" if there is no consensus. Now, this does not mean that you may not defend your referenced contributions in a civil manner. But if you keep things together and nothing happens you have options shown in the DR links I show. Most important advice I can give a new editor is to know walk away if at some point it becomes obvious you are gaining so support, or...more importantly, if you have a good deal of opposition. Always remember to sign your posts by adding the tildes. They look like this ~~~~. If you are using the edit toolbar option (it usually appears above the edit screen as a default), click the signature icon: or , to add the four tildes.

--Mark Miller (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thank you all for the responses you guys gave in answering my query. As far as the signature thing is concerned, i signed every time i posted. Thats the reason, it says "falaknuma 12:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)" in the end of my posts. Dont know why wiki is again adding the signature

falaknuma 05:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevchandrav (talk • contribs)

The reason that Sinebot is adding a signature is that you have not included a link to either your user page or your user talk page, see WP:SIGNATURE. If you are signing by either using 4 tildes or the signature button, then my guess is that you have made an error in trying to customise your signature, and perhaps you erroneously selected "Treat the above as wiki markup." in the Signature section at Special:Preferences. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help David Biddulphfalaknuma (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad that the problem is solved. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Reliable sources needed Like " validate ?

I would really appreciate for replied for my question, and also now I have one Exact reference link [http://the-artists.org/article/?page=view/article/218/Art-corner], which is valid or not, would you please check it and tell me,thanks once again,Richard anbudurai 1 (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your question has already been answered below. With regards to the source you mention, no, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's expectations of a reliable source. Since anyone can pay to have a profile put up on the-artists.org (I could shell out €35 and get a page published about myself, for example), it is regarded as user-generated content, which is specifically regarded as unreliable. Websites on which the content is created by users are not usable source here (by extension, this ironically means that Wikipedia itself does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a source!). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have removed the deletion notice from the page - the article still has numerous issues, but it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Can a paragraph about a living person titled "biography" have no references or citations and still be valid?

I was looking at some existing biographies to see how they are done, to help me create and edit similar articles. Looking at the article "Chris Potter (jazz saxophonist)" I notice that the entire first paragraph titled "Biography", has no apparent references or citations. I was wondering how this is valid or follows the rules... or... is it actually done improperly? Scottsadventure (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Scottsadventure and welcome to the Teahouse. We have nearly 4.4 million articles, and many of them should be improved. This is one that should be improved, as you have noticed. Yes, that biographical information should have references. The article has an external link to a record company biographical sketch. This is an acceptable reference for simple non-controversial biographical facts: place and date of birth, educational details, and so on. But any promotional claims, often called "puffery" here, need to be cited to independent reliable sources. It can be OK to say that the New York Times called a performer "a great talent" providing a citation, but it is not OK to call him a great talent in Wikipedia's own voice without citations. So this article should be edited to remove any uncited promotional claims. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "Biography" is not an acceptable section heading in such a page because the entire article is in fact a biography. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User deleting wiki text

Hi everyone, I'm not sure whether my understanding of the rules is correct. As I understand it, we're supposed to be very thorough and carefully research and document what we state here. I've noticed an editor deleted several entries on the 'unsolved problems in physics' page (this page also has a tab for 'problems solved in the recent decades'). The editor commented the deletions for example 'A general solution to this problem was discovered in the past couple of decades. Only details remain'. First: if details remain than it's still open, right? Second: the general solution is only allegedly known if it wasn't moved to the "solved" tab along with citations for the exact resolution, right? Thanks for your advice!Almaionescu (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Good question, Almionescu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest that you revert the deletions of cited material once, asking for discussion on the article's talk page in your edit summary. Please don't get into an edit war with the other person, especially if you lack expertise on the matter. You could also leave a friendly note on the other editor's talk page, inviting discussion on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328! I do have the expertise and do not want to engage in edit wars. I just wanted to make sure if I'm right: given that adding text or modifying text is regulated by the reliability rule, shouldn't deleting text be as well? Almaionescu (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Two Quick Questions--Cookies and AfC

1. As I was reverting vandalism earlier, one of the vandals whose mindless obscenities I reverted took offence and vandalized my talk page. I was about to revert the changes when someone else did it for me! I am very greatful to that kind person, and want to give them the "cookies" award that I saw on somebody else's userpage. How do I do that? 2. I want to get involved in the Articles for Creation process, but even after I read the instructions I couldn't figure out how to review articles. How do I do that? Thanks! Sincerely, Cogito-Ergo-Sum (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The cookies are part of WP:Wikilove - you will find a large number of template there for thanking a fellow editor. I'm a semi-regular AfC reviewer, basically you need a fairly comprehensive understanding of the minimum acceptable standards for articles. (If you understand the reasons that make a page eligible for deletion then you will probably grasp it quite easily.) A recent discussion came up with a consensus that reviewers should have logged at least 500 edits to articles and have demonstrated an ability to co-operate with other less experienced editors. Some folks believe that AfC reviewing is simply a case of "no, no, yes, no, no, no, yes, no, no, no" but that is far from reality - a reviewer needs to be able to explain the reason why a draft has a problem and also advise the editor how to solve the problem. If you'd like to learn more you're welcome to take a look around and ask questions at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation, we're always happy to have new interest. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

My page "Bodhtree" got deleted

I have created my Company ‘Bodhtree’ Wikipedia page number of times but it is getting deleted. I have created a new page one month back it was still not approved or deleted. And I have not posted any promotional content but still I’m facing the same problem, kindly do the needful182.72.66.222 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If this Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bodhtree is the article to which you refer it has no references apart from a press release and no assertion of notability. The subject needs to have been written about in detail in reliable sources. It has also been the subject of a deletion debate here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, the result of which was delete because it failed WP:CORP. You also need to read conflict of interest guidelines.Theroadislong (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. There are deletion records at Bodhtree, 3 more at BODHTREE, a couple at Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, another at Bodhtree Consulting, a failed AFC at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Bodhtree, and an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, also a failed undelete request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 12#Bodhtree Consulting). On each occasion, advice and various links have been provided, including at User talk:Anethi, User talk:Arvind Nethi, User talk:Sheeba williams (which was blocked as a sockpuppet), User talk:Lathasri, User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_40#Bodhtree, and User talk:Ramachandra20. Throughout this lengthy process, there has been no evidence that the organisation meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability of organisations and companies. Could you provide us a link to the page you created one month back? If you are associated with the company, you need to read one of the items of guidance provided frequently in the past, about conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources for medical articles

Can the contents of a popular science book, which has never been published in any peer-reviewed publication be considered a secondary source? Can the opinion of one of its authors published in his blog - opinion which has never been published in any type of medical literature - be appropiate for a wikipedia article?Johntosco (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi John! Seems some rather loaded questions there? Is this related to the "small scientific studies" section below? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Johntosco has created several similar argumentative sections here at the Teahouse, and elsewhere on Wikipedia. I don't think that the overarching recommendations from experienced editors (recommending that Johntosco commit to the neutral point of view) is likely to change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge! It is related, but not the same question. However, I must point out that nobody so far has replied to this very specific question. Is it or is not a secondary source?Johntosco (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Maps in infobox

Can someone point me to where I can find out how to edit maps for the infobox. Specifically how to add the point of interest on the map. (.... and there are other tricks like adding in a mini-world map to show where you are in the world - but this is secondary). &Brew 06:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andbrew.downes (talk • contribs)

Hello, Andbrew.downes. If you can be more specific about what it is that you want to do, it will be easier to provide you with some guidance. There are various ways of creating location maps or utilizing existing ones in infoboxes, and the answer to your question depends in part on the region you want the map to cover (we have existing location maps for all countries, I think, and for many smaller areas, such as individual cities) and the type of article/infobox you're dealing with. Deor (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at your contributions; and if you're referring to the article Kasteel Radboud, no pushpin was appearing on the map of the Netherlands because you had incorrectly given the longitude as negative (west) rather than postitive (east), so that the specified coordinates fell outside the area covered by the map. I've emended that. Deor (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What does "rollback (AGF)" mean?

I have Twinkle on (I think that's where it is from) and one of the edit rollback options says "Rollback (AGF)". What does that even mean? Thanks. XndrK (talk · contribs · count) 16:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Rollback, in and of itself, reverts all of the edits of the previous user. AGF stands for assume good faith, so an AGF rollback is one where you believe the previous editor had good intentions, but their edits were still problematic enough to require reverting. You'll also be prompted for an edit summary when you use it, which you should fill in. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I knew what a rollback was, but not the AGF. Thanks. XndrK (talk · contribs · count) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to skim over Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for other commonly used terms like AFD, SPA, COI, PROD, FA, ANI, BLP, etc... There is a lot of alphabet soup on this site!-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It is only under rather unusual circumstances that rollback may be used to undo good faith edits. See Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback where it says "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool". However, Twinkle is not concerned with good editing and merely provides some buttons to click. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That same page also says "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." Twinkle is one of the tools that allows custom edit summary with rollback. Also, not every AGF rollback is just "changes which you happen to disagree with" - it could also be changes that are against the manual of style, adding mainspace categories to a userpage, or something like that.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Thank you. I was at least partly wrong. OK to roll back my good-faith edit (provided you use Twinkle!). Thincat (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Unable to Access e-mail account, get Scheduled maintenance bein done

Whaen I try to access my Yahoo e-mail account I get a Down for Scheduled Maintenance. I need to be unlocked from that Scheduled Maintenance mode.206.217.19.239 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, 206, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, this isn't really something we can help you with, here; this is mainly for asking questions related to editing Wikipedia. You might try asking at the appropriate reference desk, to see if someone there has had the same problem, but even there, it might not be the kind of thing they can really help you with, either. It's probably best to try calling or otherwise contacting Yahoo directly. Thanks for stopping by, though! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As Writ Keeper says, this page is for help in using Wikipedia, not other services. But generally "scheduled maintenance" is nothing to do with any particular account: it means that the server (computer) is being worked on, affecting everybody who makes use of that server. I googled "Yahoo scheduled maintenance" and found this page, where a lot of people are complaining about the same thing. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Editting the Letts Nitrile Synthesis Mechanism

Hey all, I'm writing an article on a named organic reaction for a class, and I do not have access to the mechanism. I've proposed one, but would like some input.

I guess I'm asking how do I set up a forum-type thing where people can talk about the proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semajer1 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article I've compiled. Letts nitrile synthesis

Semajer1 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Semajer1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't studied chemistry for many years, so I am not competent to comment on the technical details. However, I see some problems. It appears that you have added your own interpretation of this chemical reaction to the article, with a link to your own talk page. If I am understanding your additions properly, this violates our policy against including original research in articles. We never include links to user talk pages in the body of articles. User talk pages are important for the functioning of the encyclopedia, but are entirely "behind the scenes" and should never be part of encyclopedia articles.

Another problem with the article is that the references are very brief and sketchy. I know that these abbreviations are sometimes used in scientific literature, but here on Wikipedia, it would be far better to give the title of the article, the full name of the author(s), the full name of the journal, and any other relevant information, such as a link if the article is available online. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I see reviews of my article?

Hey,

My notifications box tells me that someone reviewed by article (submitted and awaiting decision.) How -- if at all -- can I see the review (presuming there is something to see)?Paul D Nelson (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Paul, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lloyd L. Brown has not been reviewed as an Articles for Creation submission yet - when it is reviewed, the review (if declined) will be on that page.

Most likely the notification was because Wikipedia has a separate "review" process whereby editors can check newly created pages for problems. The naming is confusing - this is not the same process as reviews of Articles for Creation submissions. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing Too Often

Does editing a page too often make the page less credible and more likely to be disapproved by admins?

Alex Leventer (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No. And the disapproval or approval of admins is irrelevant, as they are in no sense super-editors. Usually quite the reverse in fact. Eric Corbett 03:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ouch!--ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on board with "usually" but wouldn't disagree with "often".--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with Eric, let's just say he's not a big fan of admins and this isn't exactly the first time he has used an opportunity to express his opinion. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are two sides to this, and their distinction isn't that clear. Editing a page "often" is nothing to worry about. All users are able to view article history revision (page version) by revision, and all edits can be reviewed. Editing a single article "way too often" is a whole another question. There is no set limit to this, but my rough estimate would be, 15 or so edits per hour per article, or 10 or so edits per hour per article for extended periods of time. Even at those rates it only becomes a problem if it's a persisting habit. Now, editing rate has nearly nothing to do with the credibility of the edits themselves, but it can make an editor look disruptive if it's frequent. There is no harm from rapid-fire editing other than flooding the version history (and thus making the review process tedious) and using up unnecessary amounts of space (since after each edit, a new version of the entire article source is saved into the servers). An editor might get notified and asked to please use the preview function while editing or spend a bit more time on each edit though. --Pitke (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"since after each edit, a new version of the entire article source is saved into the servers". Only the differences are saved. It would be pointless to save the entire article and would multiply wikipedia's storage requirements by an extraordinary amount. PRL42 (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)==New Article For Your Review==

Looking for some help critiquing my first Wikipedia article. It's located in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stellany/sandbox.Stellany (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Stellany. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. A quick glance at the article showed that most of the references are bare links. If you watch the first video at Referencing for beginners], you will quickly be able to create proper in-line citations. I will read your draft in more detail and leave notes in the talk page. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 02:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I chime in. There's also a tool (WP:Reflinks) that turns bare links into citations. If you 1) use this url: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks 2) select "Interactive" tab, 3) enter the article name and run the application it will create properly formatted citations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone help me to rename my page, to "move a page"?

This is the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bdrone

It needs to be named BHUTAN (Band)

Could someone do it please?

Thanks! BHUTAN (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done There are a couple of points here. The article does not show the band to be notable, so it is not appropriate for article name space. You seen to be that band, so you need to read WP:COI, and, assuming you are a confirmed user, whcih you may not be yet, you could make this unwise page move yourself. I say 'unwise' because it is likely to be deleted on sight as it stands (0.99 probability) becuase of lack of inherent notability. However, it is not in the right place to be out of danger for deletion. You ought to place it in User:Bdrone/BHUTAN (Band) while. you are developing it. If you cannot do that please just ask.

To help you, this essay is worth a good read. You need to learn how to work here before leaping into the great unknown. Many people will help you not to trip over. Please listen to them. Fiddle Faddle 00:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Tim is prolly correct on the userfication ... once you have the article in your sandbox, you can improve it, and then if you wish, I recommend sending it through the WP:AfC queue, where other folks (many who hang out here in the teahouse) will be happy to help you improve the article even further. Feel free to leave me a message on my talkpage (and although it looks like you prolly already know this I'll put the standard info anyhoo -- click the 'talk' button by my name, then 'new section' at the top, type your message and click save).

  There are some hel-pages which give you an idea about what publications typically prove wikiNotability for bands, see WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, see especially pitchfork and slant but note that other independent Reliable Sources are totally fine. See also WP:BAND for general help about wikpedia-specific Notability. Airtime on Argentine radio, is this you?[1] Does BHUTAN have an article in Spanish and/or Portuguese wikipedias? Coverage in non-English-language sources is just as good as English-language, as far as proving wikiNotability goes. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. The band website looks pretty cool. :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

need of thrid party for our page

Dear Sir or madam,

I need to find a solution to edit the article about us on Wikipedia, that is currently not correct and does not include up to date information. How can I do this without "conflict of interest", as your service calls it?

thank you

Anne-Laure for www.egta.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGTA_%28advertising%29 213.246.254.30 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest upfront; such candour is much appreciated. Whilst you are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, you are allowed to suggest changes on the article's talkpage. To do this, go to Talk:EGTA (advertising) and leave a message proposing whatever updates are needed (remember that you'll need to suggest sources for the information as well). Above your message, add the code {{edit request}}. This will flag the page as having an edit request needing attention, and another editor or group of editors will consider the proposed changes and (assuming they agree with your suggestions) edit the article for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

help

Hi i just created a page and received a message from wiki. What should I change? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.172.127 (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately we have no idea what this message is and so can't help, what page are you referring to? Samwalton9 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, IP starting with 173. Did you forget to sign in or did you get signed out without realizing it?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Did Constance Ray Harvey win a presidential medal of freedom? If so, 1946 can't be right.

First time here in the teahouse; forgive me if I'm doing this wrong.

I was looking at the page for the presidential medal of freedom and noticed that it was awarded to a Constance Ray Harvey. I had never heard of her and so looked around for information about her. As far as I can tell, she never won this award. The wiki says she received it in 1946 -- which precedes the inception of the award itself -- so at least that much must be wrong. The citation link is dead.

I'm reluctant to simply remove her from the page since I really don't know that she was not honored in this way.

2601:8:A600:546:21C:B3FF:FE75:905D (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, very long IP, and welcome to The Teahouse. You ask questions like this at The Humanities Reference Desk.

And please don't remove the information, because someone might be able to find the information another way. The web page might be archived. See WP:LINKROT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IPv6. I don't agree with either of the previous answers. The Reference Desk is for asking for information, but it seems to me that you are not looking for informaiton: you have reason to believe that the information in the article is not only wrong, but impossible, and the citation that purports to support it doesn't work. I would advise you to remove it, with an edit summary explaining why you are doing so; or if you are not confident, discuss it on the talk page of the article. If it was possible that the information was right, but the citation had rotted, I would agree with Vchimpanzee, but in this case I don't. --ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

2601:..., thanks for noticing this. I've found the updated url for this article -- it's apparently been moved to a different location on the same site [[2]]. The article mentions receiving the Medal of Freedom "after the war." The Medal of Freedom is distinct from the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Based on this, I've removed Harvey from the list.Larry (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor noticed a significant error, and these are clearly two different awards. Your question is perfectly appropriate for the Teahouse, as it involves correcting errors to an article. The original Medal of Freedom was given to about 20,000 people, so was a nice recognition but not all that prestigious. The Presidential Medal of Freedom established by John F. Kennedy in 1963 is much more selective and accordingly much more prestigious. It is considered the highest civilian award in the U.S. and usually a dozen of less are given each year. So we can estimate less than 600 awarded in half a century, as opposed to 20,000 in less thsn 20 years for the previous award. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I misread the question. I thought the person could use advice about how to get the real answer. Then I tried to go back and fix my response, but now I see there was good reason to remove the information.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving and naming article

I created a draft article in my user sandbox and moved it to the article space. Now my Sandbox link at the top of the page redirects to the article. I gather I should have created a subpage first with a /... How can I restore my user sandbox? Thanks!Claudeb (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I found the answer below, so I am all set. Or as Roseanne Roseannadanna would say, "Never mind!" (But thanks anyway.) Claudeb (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Claudeb: Hey Claudeb. Glad you found your answer! Please note though that you were distinctly speaking in the voice of Emily Litella:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You are so right! (It's all slowly coming back to me.) Claudeb (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you know, "It's always somethin!"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia need donations?

According to sources the site is worth $486,139,770, so why does wikipedia need donations?

- Steve

49.183.33.118 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steve, welcome to the Teahouse. Such financial projections are somewhat misleading. What exactly would be sold to make Wikipedia worth nearly five hundred million dollars? The right to control what is on the site, so that big companies could dictate what their entries said about them? Then it wouldn't be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The right to datamine Wikipedia visitors' interests and details, so that (for example) whatever big business "buys" the site could track that I spend a lot of time looking at Wikipedia articles about 19th century military uniforms, and then extract my email address in order to spam me with emails about companies that might want to sell me replicas of such things? I wouldn't be very happy about that. The right to put targeted advertising on Wikipedia articles, so that if I am looking at the Lord of the Rings article then a huge pop-up advert from my local cinema to see the latest Hobbit film will appear? Well, consensus right now is against all of these things. Some of the reasons are mentioned at Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The concept of "worth" in internet companies is almost meaningless. Twitter was "worth" $8.4 Billion, in December 2011, but hadn't made a profit. As the Dot-com bubble showed, people have paid extraordinary amounts for, primarily, non-tangible assets, only to find they are almost worthless. Donations keep Wikipedia independent of advertisers, and other parties with vested interests, who would like to control our content. I, and many, if not most, other editors would probably leave, if they felt they were donating their time free to a company making a profit out of them. Arjayay (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I was curious where the very specific number $486,139,770 came from so I Googled it. It's from http://www.evaluateanywebsite.com/most-expensive/. Their 6 most valuable "websites" are: www.google.com, google.com, www.facebook.com, facebook.com, www.youtube.com, youtube.com. I think listing the same site with and without www should immediately disqualify the list from any consideration. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, my house is "worth" $867,459 -- but that doesn't put food on my table [donations welcome]. ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That website values my own small business website at $3.00. My website has generated well over $1,000,000.00 in revenues, and I would be homeless without it. So take such such assessments with a grain of salt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Page history lost

Hi, Someone has redirected Horrible Histories (CBBC) to Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) and the page history got lost. I tried to undo it myself, but it's not the last edit. Could someone fix this, please, or else tell me what I should do? Cheers, PS, No need for a talkback on my page - I'll be keeping an eye on here. Coco Lacoste (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I post such requests at WP:AN --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Give me five minutes, I'll sort it out. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, Yunshui. --Coco Lacoste (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OMG! Objection your honour: this WP:WikiProject was completed within the specified budgetary parameters of WP:FREE, but took 60% longer than the contracted WP:DEADLINE. Now, I'm sure Yunshui's WP:LAWYER will be pedantic and respond WP:IAR like usual, but I strongly suggest we should all form a posse and go on a WP:WITCHHUNT to see if Yunshui has be 60% more WP:BITEy in past teahouse contracts. p.s. Hi Yunshui, sigh, no worries for you today, I actually lost my wiki-torches and wiki-pitchforks somewheres, so you're off the hook <narrows eyes> this time.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Blame my laggy PC - that's a big page to delete and recreate (twice). Yunshui 雲‍水 15:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Give poor Yunshui a break. Maybe the esteemed editor needed to brew a cup of tea. Or take a pee. This is a human we're talking about, not a bot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Questioning the Validity of an Article

I just started editing articles on Computer Science (AI, OOP) and I was surprised to see an article titled Object-oriented ontology Ontology is a term that has a very clear meaning to computer science and library science people but saying object-oriented ontology is just redundant. So I was surprised to see that there was an article with that name. I looked at the article and it's obviously not computer science but the more I look at it, to be honest I think it's just BS. I also know some philosophy and none of the terms they mention in this article are familiar to me. The first two references, the ones that sort of set up the whole article, are IMO not valid refs for a Wikipedia article. The first one is a book that I can't find anywhere, not listed on Amazon, not even in a Google search did it show up and it's marked with "invalid ISBN" on the page. The second reference is there but it's just someone's blog. I think this is just a vanity article by some philosophy professor who couldn't get his work published. Is there a tag or tags I can use to express that? Can I nominate the page for deletion? I see no need to have an article with this name at all and I think it's confusing to people who want to learn about object-oriented analysis and design, ontologies in library science, or ontology in philosophy. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The answer is that anyone can nominate any article for deletion, but be aware that this one is about a subject that is nothing to do with your field. It would be wisest to study the article first in some depth to discover if it is simply something outside your own experience, and that has a place here. It carries a heavy list of references, and I imagine many of them will be easy to find and follow. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. It's not outside my field. I have a BA in philosophy and I started a PhD in philosophy at one point. I've read Heidegger who the article claims to be based on and other existentialist writers such as Sartre. I make my living in computer science but I know quite a bit about philosophy as well. My question was HOW do I nominate it for deletion, I've never done that, and are there other things I should do first -- besides documenting the problems on the Talk page of the article of course. MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey MadScientistX11. There are various ways to seek deletion but for an article like this, the method would be through articles for deletion. The mechanics are set out at the section of that page with the shortcut WP:AFDHOW2. I recommend taking a look at WP:BEFORE before plunging in. Note that the focus at AfD is not generally on the current state of an article, but rather whether Wikipedia should have an article on the topic at all; AfD is not for cleanup of valid topics with poor content. In that regard, the common touchstone of all of our inclusion policies is direct treatment in reliable sources and since there are quite a number of results for "object-oriented ontology" at Google Books, I think you should explain as part of your nomination why that isn't dispositive here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that the list you linked to qualifies as a lot of books on the topic. None of the books had OO Ontology as the title and most of the books were about computer science. "Object-Oriented" and "Ontology" as I said have very specific meanings in computer science so of course you are going to find a ton of google books that match "object-oriented" and "ontology" but most of the books in that link you gave had absolutely nothing to do with Heidegger or philosophy. I only saw one book, one that was on "Object-Oriented Theology" that actually used the phrase in the context of philosophy. But anyway, you anwered my question and I take your point that I should check out some of those books more carefully and some of the other references in the article to see if (as I suspect) they are all bogus. BTW, if you look at that article there are lots of references but many of them are "Ibids" to the one or two initial references which IMO are not valid. MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: You're the subject matter expert and I have not looked at the current content in depth or explored what the sources say about the phrase's proper meaning. I was just alerting you to what others may make inquiry about and saying, in effect, since there appear to be quite a few book sources that use the exact phrase (the search was the entire phrase in quotes, not "Object-Oriented" and "Ontology") which is a touchstone of deciding whether a topic warrants and article, it may be that the topic should have an article but that the current content is bullshit original research that does not actually reflect the actual topic and should be mostly or entirely replaced, rather than the article deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: Nominating an article for deletion can be daunting. Go to your preferences panel and, I think under Widgets or some similar area, enable Twinkle. This tool allows easy nomination for all the deletion vehicles and does its best to prevent errors. In order to make a useful nomination you need to marshall your arguments for deletion if using what Twinkle will refer to as XFD. It knows what to chose from the various routes available, but you must make the case against the article. Be clear not to use WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is a guarantee of failure. If you are sure of your ground and can say so clearly you will at least provoke a discussion. Be aware that well referenced articles tend to be retained, and be aware of WP:TLDR in your deletion rationale. Fiddle Faddle 11:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the great discussion everyone. Sorry if I was a bit harsh at times, sometimes I just get caught up in the argument. I'm not going to tag it for deletion. I did some better searching (I should have tried searching for the whole title of the book, not just the author name and part of the book as I did originally) and found that book that sort of sets up the whole article was published at some point and is in Google books. I still think the article is (as another editor commented on the talk page) "word salad", unreadable, and says nothing of value, but I think that about a lot of postmodern philosophy. Thanks for the good advice, I'm glad I asked first. MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How about nipping in to the article and correcting the errant references even of the article is pants? Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I thought of that, was even going to ask about that but figured I've taken up enough space with the question already so thanks for the prompt. I wasn't sure what the proper procedure is. So here is a specific example. This statement: "Specifically, object-oriented ontology opposes the anthropocentrism of Immanuel Kant's Copernican Revolution, whereby objects are said to conform to the mind of the subject and, in turn, become products of human cognition" is supported by this reference: http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/object-oriented-ontology-a-manifesto-part-i/ Now that reference does say something about Kant but it seems like just someone's blog. Is the proper thing to do there: 1)Challenge each specific reference like that with some tag? 2) just remove the reference and replace it with a "needs citation" tag? or 3)Just forget about it and go back to doing constructive work and stop wasting everyone's time with so many questions? MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many tags, such as {{FV}}, {{Primary-source-inline}}, {{vague}} and many others. One needs, with an article of this stature (pseudo-stature? I express no opinion) to signal one's intentions on the talk page, and then, and only then, open with a small salvo. How one proceeds after that is dictated by the reaction one gets. In general I find that adding a reference alongside a less than useful one is good policy, replacing a reference seldom is unless it is an inappropriate one and one can justify it, probably ion the talk page of the edit summary is too short.

Wikipedia is easy to edit, but it is not simple, if you follow me. Fiddle Faddle 19:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's my bias, right out in the open: Postmodern philosophy is so esoteric, such a minefield, and so dismissive of the accepted norms of improving an encyclopedia, and of interest to such a narrow segment of our readers, that my recommendation about editing this article is . . . oh, I forgot what I was going to say, and it doesn't matter at all anyway. I think I will go improve the article about Herman Bottcher instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, kind of came to the same conclusion already myself. I documented on the Talk page the issues I had with it, and I left a tag questioning the validity of the refs and I went back to improving various articles about object-oriented (the computer science OO) software and process, something much easier to say concrete, verifiable things about. MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

about categories

Hi, I saw in the "albums" (music) category by year (e.g. "1967 albums")that aside there are the sub categories of "soundtracks", "live albums", "Christmas", etc. And that is right. But there's something strange, for me. The so-called "debut albums" are not in the category of his year. I mean, they are in a page by their own, called "debut albums" not linked with the main page containing every album released for each year. At least you can find 1 every 10 "debut album" also in his year category. Otherwise they are only in the "debut album" category by year. I think that if one wants to know which are the debut albums for each year is good to go to a "debut albums" category, but if you go to an "albums by year" category you should find EVERY album, even if it is a debut album. So when I find a debut album and his page is linked only to the debut category by year, I create the link also to the albums by year category. I hope this works. Do you think I am doing right? Fathersun (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Fathersun, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. Categorisation like everything else on Wikipedia is voluntary and can be hit and miss. Sometimes the problem is that the most specific categories aren't found and the person adding cats stop at a higher level. Replacing the categories with a more specific one or ones is absolutely the right thing to do. Incidentally there is a gadget you can activate that makes the process of adding or removing categories even easier. It's called HotCat and you can activate it by going to your Preferences page, go to the Gadgets tab and you'll find it listed under the editing section. NtheP (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization which says: "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". So if an album is in Category:1967 debut albums then it shouldn't normally be in the parent Category:1967 albums. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Fathersun! I agree with NtheP: if you find some pages in wrong categories, you should re-categorize yourself. But, unfortunately, the answer to you question is: No, you are not doing right. I'm afraid NtheP did not understand you well. You argue that some albums are only in the Category:1966 debut albums, and not in the Category:1966 albums. I understand that you say that if an album was issued in 1966, than it should be in both of these categories. But, that is wrong. See, Category:1966 debut albums is a subcategory of Category:1966 albums, so every article that belongs to the Category:1966 debut albums also belongs to the Category:1966 albums because whole of the first category is included into the second one. If you add an article to both categories, as you did (dif), than the article is included in the Category:1966 albums twice: once in the top level category, and once in the subcategory, which is per definition also included in the top level category. This is not the correct way to do it. As PrimeHunter noticed above, this is not in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. Article should normally not be included into both a category and it's subcategory. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page cleaning?

Should talk pages ever be cleaned up? In browsing, I've come across pages that are tagged as needing help. I go to the talk pages and the issues identified on the talk page are not apparently problems with the current version of the page. One example is Talk:List of Usagi Yojimbo characters where much of the talk is concerns about the rights related to images that are no longer on the page. The rest of the discussion seems to be about creating a separate page for the star of these comics, which apparently exists now. What is the policy on cleaning up talk pages like this? Wipe them clean, preserve them as the rationale behind the current state of the page, or actually indicate the resolution of the issue? 1bandsaw (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 1bandsaw, and welcome to the Teahouse. I undersand your concern: some article talk pages contain discussions that are years old and no longer important. But, nothing written on the talk page should be deleted. Talk pages are like evidence of the past. If we delete, we will loose evidence that might be important in the future. But, old discussions may be archived, so that they don't bother readers. See this example: Talk:Mozart. This talk page has 11 archives (there are links to the archives at the top of the talk page). So, all old discussions are kept, but they are kept in the archives, not in the main talk page. You can do it yourself. You can, for example, create a page Talk:List of Usagi Yojimbo characters/Archive 1 and move those old posts to the archive. Read more about archiving here: Help:Archiving a talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting an article published

Help! I have written two brief articles on Vail Valley Medical Center, a notable institution in North America's top ski resort, and both articles have been deleted. I am not Wiki-savvy and could use some help creating an article that will meet your guidelines. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. I've corresponded with User_talk:MatthewVanitas, who encouraged me to reach out to the Teahouse.

The early successes of Vail were clearly connected to having a quality hospital to treat injured skiers. One of the hospital's first full-time doctors was President Ford's personal physician.

Today, Vail Valley Medical Center treats patients from around the world, including Aksel Lund Svindal.

Vail is home to the world-renowned Richard Steadman, MD, who treats famous athletes right in the Vail hospital.

Howard Head Sports Medicine is a service of Vail Valley Medical Center and an official medical provider of the US Ski, Snowboard and Free Skiing Teams.

As a hospital, we are not at liberty to disclose the names of our patients, but countless articles, blogs, and social media posts credit Vail Valley Medical Center as a hospital that treats well-known professional and amateur athletes.

The hospital will host Kevin Pearce as part of an injury prevention program sponsored by Vail Valley Medical Center: [3].

Again, your guidance on getting an article published would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Vvmcwebmaster (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. As I understand, you want to write an article about a company (medical center) in which you are employed. In Wikipedia, this is called WP:Conflict of interest and is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, and we want to be objective, and you cannot be objective if you write about your own company. Wikipedia has very important rules called WP:Notability. Only things and persons notable enough may have article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not place fot advertising and promotion. So, if your company is Notable enough, as you claim, than somebody else will write article about it. If nobody wrote an article, than it is probably not yet notable enough. My advice to you is to either give up writing article about your company and try editing some other articles, or, to closely read this before you create article again: Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You can also request that somebody else write the article about your company here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)