Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 214

Archive 210

←

Archive 212

Archive 213

Archive 214

Archive 215

Archive 216

→

Archive 220

CSD help

I realize that I'm probably the last person you'd expect here, but I need some help with a deletion issue. I had hoped that an afd for article I csd'd would help me understand where exactly I screwed up, but Fram (talk · contribs) demonstrated neither Good Faith nor Civility at the afd, which in turn makes me hesitant to go to him for an explanation of where I messed up (I need to learn from this, not be torn a new a**hole for messing it up). He gave me the technical data, but that's useless if I can not articulate and apply it, and right now articulating and applying the data is the issue. The matter relates to the article Norman Alvis. Can you explain it to me in small words, and perhaps give me some homework to make sure I learn from this experince? I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You could have easily come to me before starting the AfD, I would have gladly explained. But starting an AfD because you don't know why your CSD was incorrect is a very strange way to behave.

The speedy deletion was for

• A1, which should only be used for articles where, after reading them, you don't even know what the subject is (which was not applicable here at all)
• A7: no claims to importance. Being a professional cyclist who has participated in the Tour de France, and who has been National Champion of the USA, is a clear claim to importance. I have no idea what kind of claim you would expect, but remember that the threshold at CSD is "lower" than at AfD, so that articles which may not survive an AfD are exempt from CSD anyway if they make a credible claim to importance. Being national champion of the USA in any professional sport is enough to invalidate an A7 speedy. Actually, being a professional sporter on its own should be sufficient to stop a CSD, do some research, and start an AfD if needed. These are really the very basics of CSD'ing (and AfD'ing), not some obscure technicalities. Fram (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I expected you'd make your point at the afd, which you suggested may be a better venue for my concerns on my talk page. I suppose like Fahrenheit 451's Guy Montag I walked into that one with both arms open, since the sum of your post for keeping the article, boiled down, was to me essentially a rehashing of the Captain Beatty's welcome to Montag upon his return to the firehouse: "Well, here comes a very strange beast which in all tongues is called a fool. Who are a little wise, the best fools be." TomStar81 (Talk) 11:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(This was written before the previous posting, but I am a slow typist) Hello, TomStar81. You have come to the right place for friendly advice! Firstly, I have to agree that a speedy deletion under A1 and A7 was not the thing to do. Reading through Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, A1 is for articles whose subject is not clear. Well, the subject here is clearly named, and also that he is a cyclist. A7 is for articles where there is no indication of why the subject is important. While the article definitely needs improvement, there is certainly a claim to have won cycling races, which precludes A7. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I get A1 and A7, but what I'm having trouble with here (and to be fair this could be an issue with the design of the article, ie the language or the individual terminology that is inherently selective towards individual professions) is where the notability is coming from. When I look at the article I see four races with no positions given for them and five or six other races where the man came in very near the end of the pack. A1 is for short articles, and in my book two lines is short, but it was a combination nomination if I recall correctly (multiple criteria deletion, so they were bundled). Given that there isn't a single place where he's mentioned to have come in 1st, just a list of races he's run I didn't (and Frankly still don't) see any notability here. I'll concede short as a matter of being bundled with significance, but this did/does look to me like afd fodder on ONEEVENT grounds and for having insufficient external sources. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi TomStar81. To check notability, it's always good to see if there's a specific notability guideline. In this case there's WP:NCYCLING and the subject meets point #2 of the additional criteria. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Palmarès: palmarès: A list of races a rider has won. (French, meaning list of achievements or list of winners). Wikipedia is your friend! The races listed under Palmarès are the races where he came in first (the lead says "four races", and the section has four races, that might have been a clue). Furthermore, the infobox on the right clearly shows "Major wins: United States National Road Race Championships (1995)" Now, the palmarès is incomplete, he won a lot more, but that doesn't change the fact that the info is there. Furthermore, in my post to your talk page after I had restored the article (and before your AfD), I clearly stated " winning the American Championship is a very clear claim to notability." My message wasn't very long... Having insufficient external sources is never a reason to AfD either. "A1 is for short articles, and in my book two lines is short[...]" A1 is for short articles which don't have enough context to identify the subject. The "shourt" aspect is the least important part of A1. Oh, and there are plenty of notable cyclists which have never won a race, it's a typical aspect of cycling, which is a team sport with individual winners. Just like there are plenty of notable soccer players who have never scored a goal. Fram (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so we've solved one issue here: The design of the article is partially to blame for this confusion. Having read the contested remark(s) on the talk page I presumed that the author didn't know how to translate the term, and since it wasn't linked I assumed it was a holdover from the French wiki page. That solves the A7 issue decisively: if those races are ones he won, then he meets the cycling criteria, which in turn means notability, which in turn means the article can stay even if its short (though like I noted, some of our greatest articles began life as stubs, so that's not a major issue). So the first lesson here is that the terminology may be subject unique, so I need to learn to make a point to check that from now on. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

...and that leads to the next discovery, which is that the three races not mentioned in the infobox all have a UCI standing, furthering the A7 check. I wonder why it was then that United States National Road Race Championships is the only one in the infobox, since its the only article that doesn't seem to include a UCI affiliation?

National championships in cycling are "closed" (unlike the "Open" championships some other sports sometimes have, like Tennis), and this probably excludes them from a UCI ranking (HC, 1.1, etcetera). That doesn't mean that they are less important though, considering that winning the title gives you the right to wear a special shirt for a year in all UCI races of the same format. Another problem is that the editor who created these articles is enthusiastic but not always very knowledgeable of the subject, which gives some rather unexpected choices in what he includes and what he excludes sometimes. Fram (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So this would be more prestigious such as it were, which would explain the choice of races given in the infobox. And your right about the editors: unto my experience the enthusiastic ones can be problematic because they know what they are writing about is usually notable or significant, which of course is good news, but when they write they do sometimes do so in such away that leaves objective third parties at a loss to call an article as save or keep. In this case a little more context in the article to that effect would've been helpful. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Another piece of the puzzle: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. This would have been useful a few years ago when I first got the tools, but at least I found it now. If this info is right then it also helps explain why A7 was a bad call here, notability and significance are not the same thing, but I have been treating them as one and the same. That'll be lesson #2 then. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article was not well written, and should be carrying some improvement tags. TomStar81, at other AfD's that I have read in which the nominator couldn't see the importance of the subject, the editors who wanted to keep the article have made an effort to rewrite the text or add some references to clarify. I'm not sure why that didn't happen here. Perhaps the tone you set in your nomination text could have been more positive. However, everyone can't be a cycling expert; if I knew about cycling and had seen this AfD, I likely would have improved the article to make the notability obvious, and then added my "keep". That would have been the path to greatest benefit to the encyclopedia with the least drama. However, no one was under any obligation to do this. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I hear that. It's an old problem, and one that's not unique to this specific incident. Hindsight is always 20/20. The greater issue in cases like this is learning from one's mistakes. If we fail to learn, then our mistakes end up repeated, and repeating mistakes is not something I like to do if I can help it - particularly in cases like this, since my error dragged a lot of other people into the black hole. I'm afraid I need to depart soon, as I've been up since 2:00 PM yesterday (my time), but if anyone else notices anything else that could be added or has anything else that would be of use to help me learn here then I would welcome it gladly. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you feel a citation is needed, you should find it yourself and add it, unless you simply don't have the time to do so. People here usually have no qualms about deleting statements or entire articles if the content is wrong, or violates one of Wikipedia's many rules. If you are requesting a citation, it usually means you already have an idea what is needed and, this being a "community project", it would seem much more productive to simply add one yourself, rather than cluttering up an article with citation requests, making it more difficult for everyone to read.

Ormr2014 (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:TomStar81, Just an aside, as someone who used to follow cycling closely. You mentioned five or six other races where the man came in very near the end of the pack. Someone who does not follow cycling might assume that finishing near the back of the pack means one is one of the weaker cyclists in the race. I can recall stages in the Tour de France where one of the world's best cyclists went on a breakaway, and looked like he might win the race, but just missed, and came in last, or almost last. In flat stages, almost all riders are in the pack, and if no one breaks away, there will be a sprint, someone will win by a fraction of a second, and last place might literally be a few seconds behind. If there is a breakaway which succeeds, one rider will win by a few seconds, but if they are caught at the end, they may well get passed by the entire pack. There can be a fine line between winning the race and coming in near last.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Policies regarding descriptions of court cases

I got involved in a discussion between a couple of editors after they asked for additional feedback (the Black bike week article if anyone was curious). The dispute was over whether the allegations in a NAACP lawsuit should be presented as objective truth vs. presented as allegations. So like "The restaurant was allegedly closed" as opposed to "The restaurant was closed".

My own viewpoint is that when it comes to either civil or criminal cases, it should always be phrased in terms of what is being alleged instead of "this is the literal truth" regardless of how solid the evidence is. The only exception is if the person has admitted that the allegations against them are true. The editor who feels that it should be presented as truth feels that phrasing such as "alleged" "adds loaded terms to cast doubt on the statements of the NAACP".

For the record, even when a person has been convicted of a crime, I still phrase it that they have been convicted of a crime vs. their guilt as literal truth, if for no other reason than people get wrongfully convicted and sometimes the wrong person loses a lawsuit and I'd rather err on the side of having correct information on Wikipedia.

I know how I personally feel about the topic of factual vs. alleged and I have my own personal guidelines for how I edit articles regarding court cases, but I'm trying to find any established policies that are relevant. Has anyone spotted any guidelines that might help the discussion? Nothing on the NPOV page seems to give any solid answers on this. Thanks. Bali88 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the discussion at Talk:Black Bike Week and I personally agree with a lot of what you say. However, you are asking about guidelines and we seem to be curiously lacking although WP:BLPCRIME, and the pages it links to, may help a bit. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal only seems to deal with technicalities of style. Perhaps it could be extended to deal with the issues you raise. What WP aims to do in such areas of doubt is to refer to highly reliable independent sources and follow their treatment. Maybe such secondary sources can be directly quoted sometimes. WP:Verifiability is crucial, particularly when many statements may be open to being challenged. My general feeling is that after someone has been convicted it is OK to drop "allegedly". Anyway, it's often possible to refer to the statements witnesses made and to the judgement of the court rather than say what someone did or didn't do. WP:NPOV can cut both ways of course – in situations where there has been a possible miscarriage of justice WP needs to be careful not to prejudge that issue either. Hope this helps to some extent, and best wishes for your editing. Thincat (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Edited Article please review and a question on draft

Hello,

I've just edited info on my article. Can the article be reviewed by someone? I've adjusted the tone, removed some redundant references and added third party sources. I can still remove some more references but I need help. Someone mentioned that the article was in the article space and should be moved to a draft space if I'm still editing. How do I adjust it to a draft space? and once I send it to draft and edit it, would I have to re-submit it? Or is it best just to continuing to edit in the article space? Please advise. Thanks in advance.AdBCWi14 (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AdBCWi14. Your article can stay in article space. The point about draft space is that it is for a candidate article that will be reviewed by someone before it is created. That is totally optional for a registered user like you (I have never used it); and, intentionally or not, you have bypassed the process and put it in article space. Which is fine. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese characters in an article?

Can a Wikipedia article include Chinese script? When I use Chinese characters in a footnote to an article, they do not appear in the mock-up draft. James A.ubSteele 99.240.248.179 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP address, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question. Yes, an article can have chinese characters. For example, Go (game). Please see Wikipedia:Chinese for more specific details about it. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 23:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is preferable that articles about topics related to cultures that use writing systems other than Latin script also include an alternate rendering of the name of the topic in the relevant script (or scripts). Modern browsers should support the display of these scripts. However, articles in English Wikipedia should not include lengthy passages in languages other than English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. The reason you don't see the Chinese characters may be because you don't have Asian fonts installed. I don't know which operating system you're using, but if it's Windows you can install the requisite fonts from Regional & Language settings in the Control Panel. On a general basis, it's perfectly OK to use Chinese characters in a footnote but you should if possible include a translation and the pinyin equivalent. All Chinese text should be wrapped in a template called {{Zh}}, which has a number of options that affect the display, click on the link for more info. You might also like to read the Chinese style guide and the Chinese naming conventions guide for further details on how Chinese is handled within Wikipedia. There are a handful of Chinese speaking editors around who will be happy to help you. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking truthfully

I've learned that editing Wikipedia practically guarantees that you will be challenged; to either speak truthfully, or mouth innuendo that both you and those addressed, know to be bullshit. Should you pretend that everything is copasetic, and force yourself to maintain a collegial tongue? Or should you make damn sure they knew you were there, and that you meant to be heard? Sometimes, to fix stuff, you got to call it what it is, find agreement, and fix it. It is idiocy to know something is "fucked up"; to the point of agreement, and yet: decide to proceed without fixing it. I'm in the midst of a Category:Wikipedia category fiasco and to maintain myself as an editor in good standing, I certainly am unable to speak truthfully; and I think that sucks.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anne F. Figy: civility is required by policy here. However, in my opinion this is also the pragmatic approach. Wikipedia is a (massively) collaborative project, it requires discussion in order to achieve progress through consensus. This cannot be accomplished if we drop to the base of this pyramid, even if we are still being truthful. VQuakr (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Pragmatic is not my strong suit. Especially when "practical considerations" are impractical; theoretically.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Use citations to back you up - articles, books, etc(correct wikipedia citations only). If both sides have evidence to back them up then both are included in the article, usually with a controversy subtitle (with relevant citations to prove the controversy). 117.199.10.200 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Tea

Suggestion Colour vs. Black and White

I'd like to suggest that Wikipedia favour colour photographs over black and white photos as information-wise colour photographs serve the purpose better. For example: Noam Chomsky 117.199.10.200 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Tea

Hi, 117.199.10.200, and welcome. Teahouse is a place for asking questions and assistance. If you want to propose a new Wikipedia policy, you should go to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you want to propose a photo in the Noam Chomsky article be changed, you should go to Talk:Noam Chomsky and make a proposal. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

117.199.10.200 also posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Suggestion Colour vs. Black and White. Please only start a discussion in one place. A link to that place can sometimes be posted elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Contribs in Preferences, Contribs at edit counter

Why is there a big difference between a user's edit count at Special: Preferences and at X! edit counter? It is not even the number of live edits! Hg andVenus 12:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@HgandVenus: Hey HgandVenus. AFAIK the edit count in your preference does not include page moves, any uploads made over existing files or deleted edits, whereas the tool server edit counter includes these. My edit count currently has over a 13,000 edit difference between the two, mostly because of page moves and deleted edits. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Spaces in headers

Hi, is there a policy regarding having headers with spaces (such as == Header ==) or without spaces (such as ==Header==)? I have seen both, and use spaces myself but have seen scripts that leave no spaces. Thanks, Matty.007 11:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Both markups (with or without spaces) return the same result, so basically, it is exactly the same thing. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Automated scripts do it with no spaces and I was wondering if there was a policy which stated either way? Thanks, Matty.007 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy. Help:Section uses both styles. It would be really a pointless policy to have, since both styles return exactly the same result. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. I was just stumped as to why scripts changed it when there was no rule either way. Thanks, Matty.007 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories

To find a list of previously created categories do I just search in the search bar for example Category:White spruce ? But if one doesn't come up am I permitted to create a new one on a new article that I create? And it will just show up red until I create that article? Or is there a certain protocol about creating new categories? Thanks Nmcke (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Nmcke. This is a good question, one that many new editors ask. You shouldn't add categories until the article is in the main encyclopedia. Also, if the category you want is not on the list, please don't make one up. A lot of work and discussion has gone into the categorization scheme. There are experts who come along after new articles hit mainspace and add categories. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense! Thank you Anne Delong Nmcke (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Article to be reviewed by editor

Hello

Can an editor please review my article? I have edited it and it still has a tag on it. The editor that placed the tag is not available. I've adjusted the tone, added more sources and would like assistance to remove the tag. Thanks in advance AdBCWi14 (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. It does help us, if you tell us which article you are talking about, do I assume it is Canadian Registered Safety Professional? - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It is. I suggested Articles For Creation or changing it back to a draft, but I guess this editor doesn't know what to do. I've been helping some, but I think another editor's help would be useful. A move to User:AdBCWi1/Canadian Registered Safety Professional might be the best thing at this point.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi AdBCWi14. The tags are on the article as the sources you have used as references are too closely associated with the subject. This causes a problem with verifiability and more importantly notability, which are key to the inclusion of an article within Wikipedia. Some of the other references do not mention CRSP at all. You might like to try and find sources that are independent of the organization and which show why it is notable.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment

I just made an addition to the entry called 'Ruger Vaquero' and haven't a clue what I'm doing. But, I wanted to get the info out there because it could involve safety. Do you see glaring errors in formatting or placement? I would have liked the author to review this addition before it went in but I didn't know how. Thank You, Gerry Boate Geraldboate (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Geraldboate: There are several problems with your entry: For one thing, the reference which you have called #3 could be renumbered at any time. Secondly, Wikipedia editors must use their own words in writing the article, and each fact must be backed up by a reliable published source, not an email, forum posting, blog, etc. A more appropriate way to add this information would be something like this: "According to the manufacturer's specifications (and here add a citation to the appropriate document) the XXX model is intended to use only YYY type ammunition, and not ZZZ, which is similar." Note that I know nothing about weapons, so likely the terminology is wrong, but you get the idea. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me what's wrong with my page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/California_Innocence_Project

I have no idea how to proceed. Can anyone help me? Thanks so much

My58chevy 58chevy (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The review waiting template was at the bottom of the page, so I moved it. Hope this answers your question. If it doesn't, feel free to ask again. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 23:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ol' buddy, ol' pal

Is it an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia to use "casual mentions" of the article's subject by referencing them by their forename, which I feel implies familiarity (impinging neutrality)? I understand the guidance at Wikipedia:SAMESURNAME and don't question its appropriateness. I am specifically asking about singular connotations; for example: Noam Chomsky's article, where it says "... born William "Zev" Chomsky ... William researched Medieval Hebrew ... William placed a great emphasis on ...".--Anne F. Figy (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The first-name use isn't meant to imply back-slapping intimacy, but purely to disambiguate William Chomsky from his son, who is the subject of the article. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not a question of casually mentioning the article's subject by their first name, as you seem to suggest; that would imply familiarity. "William" has an article of his own, William Chomsky, where he is (properly) referred to as "Chomsky", while his son Noam is mentioned by forename only (piped of course to the article Noam Chomsky). It all seems correct and proper to me. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

I unintentionally provided an "out of context" example and apologize for confusing the question. I agree with you that it seems fine and I would use Wikipedia:SAMESURNAME in reasonable justification. I believe you answered my question however, if in fact you said it would not be correct to use the forename "outside of same surname disambiguation". Did I understand this correctly? Thank you?--Anne F. Figy (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that wouldn't be correct at all. Unless talking about a child, I suppose. Calling Noam Chomsky "Noam" in his own article would be ludicrous. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen may be correct that this usage is "ludicrous" but it is all too common in our articles. I change first names to surnames whenever I see this. In the Chomsky case and other articles where we discuss two people with the same surname, I would prefer "William Chomsky" to "William". An exception is people clearly best known by their first name or nickname. We say Cher rather than "Sarkisian". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

People for planet: let us make it a strong reference.

Can anyone agree and help me with drafting this, please?

People for planet (P4P)

Successive reports are warning us that our current methods are pushing life on earth out of balance, in particular through the use of polluting energy sources.

Meaning "people for planet", P4P is a term which people can refer to their willingness as a world community to take care of life on earth.

Ardoc.team (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of your article? Is People for Planet a environmental group or other cause? What sort of coverage do they have in the media? In order for an article to exist, it has to cover a topic that is notable. Articles are created on topics that are well known, not made to make them well known. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 07:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not a group and it should not because then it would be restricted to 'members' of a group. I rather would like this to become an open source philosophy, referred to by the abbreviation P4P. E.g. P2P stands for peer-to-peer, P4P stands for 'people for planet'. Ardoc.team (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea! Unfortunately, as the idea is not notable nor widespread it doesn't really warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you want to create the page in your userspace and continue to work on it there, feel free and there are lots of editors here to help you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. But I still have a question, because no visitors come to my userspace and if one occasionaly does, they don't give feedback. And I have submitted it for review, then it is declined. Help! Ardoc.team (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ardoc.team, it sounds as though you are trying to promote a new idea. New ideas are great, but encyclopedia articles are only about already well-known subjects that have been reported in the news, written about in magazines or books, etc. For something new, you'd reach more people with a Facebook page, a web site or maybe a blog. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Once you have attracted enough attention for coverage in respected newspapers and magazines, if this does happen, the organization may be notable enough for an article here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC

Hi Ardoc.team! Sorry, but at an encyclopedia, you are generally not allowed to promote anything. So if you are going make such an article, It might be deleted soon afterwards. Hg andVenus 05:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

New Page Patrol confusion

This sometimes comes up when I am new-page patrolling. I find a page is promotional, and then mark it for speedy deletion. Few minutes later the author of the article comes up with his defence that he has changed the text to make it look like it is not promotional. I now look at the article and find that all the text that makes the article promotional is gone. What should I do? Hg andVenus 05:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again HgandVenus. If the problem that led you to tag an article has been resolved, then simply remove that tag. I recommend adding the article to your watch list, to help ensure that promotional language isn't added back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Help Take 2!

Thanks everyone for your feedback and help so far...

In my previous post Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 211 NathanWubs you mentioned having mentioned that the post in my profile about working for the firm was an issue... That statement was actually suggested to me by another wiki editor saying it was needed. I am new, so I just did that. I didn't want anyone to think I was trying to hide that I worked here because of my username. I have read and understand the conflict of interest policies and several people have mentioned it to me which is why I was seeking help writing the article or with help finding someone I can hand it over to. I am not trying to break any rules, just get the help. I do feel that the story of our firm is worth noting or I wouldn't spend the time working on it. I don't think people will hire our firm because of a wiki posting. I do think the history of our firm is interesting and worth noting.

Anne Delong that long list you are referring to was also suggested as an edit by another editor. They said I needed to support the statement that the firm was community and civic minded by pointing to the organizations we were volunteering and supporting financially. Those are not clients. Those are all our charities or organizations we support either with time or money. I thought it was overkill personally. Plus it took me forever to find a list of all of them. Those are all current, I am sure there are more historically that I do not have record of. That person suggested I link to all their pages or sites. I didn't just because I wasn't sure it even added value to the article. I was hoping to get clarification from someone else on that.

The person who helped me at first was an attorney who happened to be a user on wiki. I can't seem to get in touch with him now. He isn't answering any of my talk messages. He was the one who suggested I look at how other law firms wrote theirs and click on edit to see how they formatted the references and links etc. So basically that is what I have done so far. Anne Delong Where do I find WT:Wikiproject law you referenced in the deleted post I made?

I am definitely not married to this article and am so grateful for all your help guidance and assistance. If there is anyone interested in helping me with specific edits to the article, I would be so appreciative. I realize there are no deadlines and this is a working draft, so I am good with however long it takes and how ever many revisions. I have learned so much already and have so much more to learn. Thanks again all! EpiphanyVP (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, EpiphanyVP, I'm afraid that you have received bad advice from the user who told you to add links to the web pages of various charities, etc. If you had, they would just have been removed. Wikipedia reviewers don't care at all if a firm is civic-minded; it's usually the firms themselves that want to look good by touting their good works on their web site. A firm that has been in the news for being grasping, nasty, and just plain mean may be just as notable! Wikipedia reviewers look for news reports, magazine article, books, etc., written about a firm (and not just the positive reports). Sometimes reports of community involvement get in the news, and that can contribute to notability. One more thing: Have you noticed that your article-to-be has its own talk page? If you want to get into a detailed discussion of what should and shouldn't be in the article, etc., you can always post it there, and then invite other editors to comment. That way the discussion is all in one place instead of a little here and there, and it won't be unexpectedly "archived", as may happen on a help page which is designed for quick Q&A. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WT:Wikiproject law is a WP:redlink because Wikipedia page titles are case-sensitive. I think you intended to go to WT:WikiProject Law. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Delong This is good to know. I will go ahead and get rid of those. Where is my article-to-be talk page? I am not sure if I am aware of that or not? Also I went to wikiproject law and they said that page doesn't exist. EpiphanyVP (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, EpiphanyVP. Your draft article's talk page is at Draft talk:Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C. - however, nobody has yet created it, so the link appears red. (You can also get to it by picking 'Talk' at the top of the draft article). I have changed the link in your previous post to Anne Delong's user page, rather than the non-existent article called Anne Delong. --ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Licensing an image

Hi! I have uploaded an image to accompany an article that I recently created. The trouble is that I need to provide a license statement. The image I've used was provided by the owner of the image and has not been registered for any copyright. It is meant to be available in the public domain. I have marked the option that states that I will send the statement shortly, and I don't want my image to be deleted. How should I proceed here? I haven't been able to find a web source that will just let me register an image as in the public domain.Semanti007 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Semanti007 and welcome to the Teahouse. You've followed the right path with the OTRS email and the image should be safe until one of the OTRS volunteers has processed it. I don't know what the current request queue is like over there, but you should receive a response soon.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semanti007, did you actually sand an e-mail statement to the OTRS team? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Vanjagenije Umm, no I didn't. I just said I would later. I am not sure what I need to send since the image isn't copyrighted at all. Semanti007(talk) 19:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semanti, it is copyrighted. In virtually all countries, including India, copyright is established at the moment the image is created - registration isn't necessary. So the image is copyrighted and the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo (Indian Copyright Act 1957 section 2(d)(iv)), not the subject. So here we need permission from the person who took he photo before it can be used. Nthep (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a personal image. It was taken by someone from the subject's family-- probably her children or husband. What happens in this case? Whom do I ask permission from? And if copyright is automatically established, where do I obtain a license statement from?Semanti007 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The photographer is the copyright owner and is thus the person who needs to give the permission, I believe there is an example format for such a permission/licensing statement somewhere at Commons, unfortunately I don't have the ability to search for it right now - hope someone else can step in and do so soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Personal" images are copyrighted, Semanti007. When you say the photo was "probably" taken by her husband or children, you are telling us that you are uncertain who the copyright holder is. Unless you can verify this with certainty, and unless that person releases that photo under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then the conclusion is clear: this photo cannot be used on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I CAN verify who the copyright holder is by getting in touch with the subject. Or even source another image, the copyright holder of which I am already certain about. My question is, HOW does one do that-- release the image under an acceptable Creative Commons license? The Creative Commons site clearly says that it does not track or register any details. While copyright may automatically be established the moment the image was taken, HOW does one release the image and provide permission for the same?Semanti007 (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very easy and I do it all the time for photos that I have taken. I simply go to Wikimedia Commons and upload the photo using their helpful wizard, verifying that I am the photographer and that I release my photo under a Creative Commons license. I don't know what you are saying about "track or register". Of course, they keep very careful track the license status of every one of the images they host. So the photographers of the images in question can do exactly as I have done many times before - upload the images they wish to donate to Wikimedia Commons, where they can then be used by anybody, for any purpose, anywhere, as long as attribution is provided. That's how it works most commonly, although.email permission through OTRS is a slower alternative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

To add to Cullen's last point, the process he describes is fine if it is your own photo you are uploading. If you are uploading a photo where the copyright belongs to someone else then the copyright holder needs to follow the procedure laid out at WP:CONSENT and send Wikipedia an email stating which image they are talking about and tellng Wikipedia which licence they are granting permission under. There is a specimen email at WP:CONSENT which you or the copyright holder can cut and paste into an email (this is the process Dodger67 referred to a few posts above). Nthep (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! 117.196.102.117 (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Do any of you guys know the "this user is busy in real life" template?

I was previously collaborating with some editors, but I've become very busy in real life. I know this template exists, I've seen it before, but now cannot find it. Would any of you know by chance? Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 13:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

When the guys don't know, the gals might. {{Busy}}--Anne F. Figy (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Take your pick, there is a wide array of various "busy" templates...

Is not an exhaustive list, but should cover any thing that you may want. There is also {{WikibreakSwitch}} which allows you to quickly change wikibreak templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Mixed Reviews, but same result - Article Rejected!

Hi, I've been regularly editing & re-editing an article, but I seem to be getting mixed reviews from different users, and it gets rejected by other users for the corrections I make based on one of the user...so one says that 'there in not enough inline citation' and rejects it, and when I make all the inline citations, another user rejects it on the grounds of 'too much inline citation'...any help on getting this approved would be most appreciated!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamal_Fakhro

Warm regards Kal Kalkpmg (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That was actually a lousy reason to reject the article. Citekill is not a policy or a guideline nor is it per MOS. It is just an essay.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As this person is actually a leading member of the legislature of Bahrain as claimed, then I believe that he meets our WP:POLITICIAN notability guideline, and that the draft article should be approved forthwith. If there is something that I am not seeing, I invite Hasteur to comment here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Kalkpmg and sorry about the frustrating time you seem to be having. I've made a couple of minor edits to the lede of your draft but overall the article looks fine. Jamal is certainly notable and warrants coverage. As a first step I suggest that you move all the references in the lede to the article body (if they are not already there). Per this guideline they are not required so long as the facts stated are backed up with references in the article body. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WTH? What does that user mean by "too much references"? In this case, our 4 million+ pages will be reduced to 2.9mil. It's ridiculous. That is counted as normal, compared to Taylor Swift, which has 503 references, and YouTube, which has 290 references. Hasteur is just underestimating you and rejecting your article on purpose (at least I think). If the reviewer was me, I will already accept it, as it meet our criteria for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. I agree that it is a lousy reason to reject your article. Cheers! --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 07:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey (Nahnah4—Mark Miller—Philg88—Kalkpmg—Anne Delong), before you go out to crucify me you might want to take a step back and read what I linked (WP:CITEKILL). What I was specifically declining on is the way that the article in question looks now. 3 citations for "Managing partner of KPMG", 5 citations for "Founding Board Member for Pearl Initative", and the cluster of 4 references to the Footer title. In addition I observe that several of the references are the organizations that several of the "references" are links directly to KPMG or to Pearl Initative which he is a board member for which disqualifies them from being valid independent reliable sources. Also, I just realized it, but Kalkpmg has a Conflict of interest that they they need to declare based on their username. As such going over this submission with a very fine toothed comb to ensure Neutral Point of View (the remedy against WP:COI) is in order here. Hasteur (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Hasteur, didn't mean to crucify you at all...actually the aim was quite the opposite...I was looking for a bit more guidance in terms of why it was constantly being rejected. It even got rejected by a guy in the past because it said Jamal was the 'First Vice President' and he rejected it on the grounds that how could I say he was the 'First' without even realizing that that was a part of the official title, as they have 'First VP', 'Second VP' as official titles...also my COI issue is also quite the opposite...my aim to ensure that the info mentioned is appropriate, and accurate, as we've had issues in the past with people randomly editing articles to add personal/ emotional issues around key people rather than fact based...so I try and preserve data to only reflect facts. I hope that makes sense...Kalkpmg (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved response to section for which it was intended— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, what you gave as the primary reason in the decline is indeed one of the problems with the article, but it is not the main problem. Among the reasons you give above, all of which are correct, I think the main problem is the over-promotional tone from the COI. Kalkpmg. the first step is to remove the section "Art connoisseur" and condense the other sections into 2 sections: Business career, and Political career. Shorten the lede, moving necessary refs to the main sections. Then remove adjectives of praise, all statements of how important something is--if its important enough to have a WP article, a link is sufficient, and eliminate the use of bold face, except for the first mention of his name. As a matter of style, refer to him either by his last name alone after the first use, not the first name. Promotional writing tells the reader what the subject wants to tell about himself; encyclopedic writing tell the reader what a general reader might want to know. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My draft article needs a logo - how can I add it?

I'm editing a draft page about a nonprofit organisation. I have full permission to use the logo for this purpose - but as a logo I can't reasonably make it a wiki commons image. And because it's a draft article I cannot upload it as non-free - the file upload wizard tells me 'Please upload this file only if it is going to be used in an _actual_ article.'. Which, of course, is exactly the point of uploading it. And of course I don't really want to make the article public before I have the correct image in place. Seems to be a catch-22. What have I missed?

SLR Ellison (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Slrellison, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article can survive a few minutes in article space without a logo - or a few months for that matter. Just create the page and then download the image. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it probably can ... it just seems an odd restriction if the image is legit.

Ay well. Wait it out, it is, then.

SLR Ellison (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

mmm... should have said - the article (draft:Eurachem) is in the article review queue. That seemed a good idea at the time, as I'm new to page creation. But I wanted the draft to have the correct image so reviewers didn't castigate me for the wrong pic, and that's where I bumped into the catch-20-something.

Still, your words remain true. If there's no simple fix, leaving it logo-free for now may have to do.

SLR Ellison (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Slrellison, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assure you that no reviewer will "castigate" you about the lack of a non-free logo in a draft article. This is routine business for experienced editors. We work on draft articles until they are ready for main space. Once they are in main space, we immediately add the appropriate non-free images, and categorize the articles. This is the normal flow of work, well understood by editors who have a few article creations to their credit. Think of it this way: use of a non-free image is an acceptable infringement of copyright under the legal principle of Fair use to improve an encyclopedia article. But that is not justified in a draft that in many, many cases will never become an actual encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Cullen: thanks- I'd kind of worked out the logic but the confirmation is very welcome.

SLR Ellison (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ask a question and become confused

Hello,

Can someone please assist? I have an editor who mentioned that a square should not be on the left side of my article? I am confused as I see other pages with this square, specifically ones that are referenced within the article. The editor Vchimpanzee has tagged the article. I have made edits but would like assistance from someone else. What specifically is wrong with the article? Please help edit as I would like the tags removed if the article is okAdBCWi14 (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee seems to be referring to the bullet that was in front of the paragraph. I agree that there shouldn't be bullet points in the lead, but the fix was trivial. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullet. That's the word I was looking for. You use that for lists, and one item is not a list. I don't know that there are guidelines that would prevent it, but it just looked strange to me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and if by "Tagged" you mean put notices on the page, I did not add those, but other editors have given you advice abut how to fix them.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ask a question become confused - part 2

Hello again,

The article to be reviewed is Canadian Registered Safety Professional. An editor Vchimpanzee stated that he has never seen a left square on the page? The other associations referenced within the article have this same square - so I don't have a clue what he is talking about. He has asked me to adjust areas within the article which I have done, so I don't know why the square is now a problem. Can someone please assist as I would like the tags removed? I am following the same format as other associations in wiki & they do not have tags, so what am I doing incorrectly? If there is a better way, tell me so I can change exactly. If portions are to be removed tell me so I can change exactly. Thanks in advance70.50.230.65 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@AdBCWi14: Hey AdBCWi14. It appears Vchimpanzee is referring in his edit summary to the display of the infobox ({{Infobox organization}}) in the article. I have moved it to the top of the page (but below the maintenance tags) as that is where it normally appears. I too am confused about what Vchimpanzee is referring to as displaying on the left side of the page. AFAICT it is and was at all times since added to the page on the right side of the page (where it appears by default). However, I have seen very odd formatting displays/errors, sometimes specific to the browser being used, when there is an interaction between images, tables of content, infoboxes, templates and so on in proximity to one another. So, it's possible there was something like that going on here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:, if you look at the topic below, the square I was referring to is a "bullet".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

All articles require significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I don't see this information - most of the references are to items produced by, or directly relating to, the organization, the others do not give significant coverage.
The article states it is about a certification, but the infobox is about the organization issuing the certificate (which we don't have an article on), and later paragraphs are also about the organization, not the certification.
The article is mainly several sets of bullet-points, whereas we want articles written in prose, and reads partially like "a how" to guide, which contravenes WP:NOTHOWTO. I suspect more significant coverage, and additional information, can be found for the organization, rather than a certificate it issues, and wonder if you should make the main article about the organization, and make the certification a sub-section of that. - Arjayay (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This person has started about half a dozen topics so it's hard to know what advice has already been given. In addition to the one immediately below this one, there are this, this, and this, and the first question I answered. If we look at all those, then we can see all the advice given on this one topic.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

test messageAdBCWi14 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I still cannot get to the Canadian Registered Safety Professional question thread? there is no Join discussion indicator on it as this one has - what am I doing wrong?AdBCWi14 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Do I need to cite if I know the company I'm writing on

I'm going to submit an article on a PR company with whom I'm familiar. I've done non-paying interviews with their clients. Do I need to cite this, and if so, where? Deesm (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based off published sources, not merely personal interviews. If the interviews are published by a WP:Reliable source, they could be used. And as always, remain cognizant of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Hope this helps. Chris857 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Deesm: Welcome to the Teahouse. What you are talking about is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The only information that is allowed is something that you can read somewhere and you do need to say where you got it. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners for referencing help and this policy page for more on why original research is not allowed. Whispering 20:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Whispering, yes thanks for the feedback. All of my citations are third party and can be found online including some newspaper, .pdf citations, and association sources. I just didn't need to know if I should make known that I'm familiar with the company. I'm not using any original info. 162.200.153.229 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Deesm: You might want to read the policy on conflicts of interest as well, but if you keep your article's wording neutral I don't think there will be a issue. Whispering 15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'll re-read it. The article is definitely neutral in tone. 162.200.153.229 (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper sources are generally acceptable, but only if they are not based upon the firms own PR for itself. pdf citations depend where they are from--they need to be published by a reliable source, which is a source using proper editorial review and completely independent of the firm. The sources also need to be actual substantial discussions, not mere inclusion on a list, Tributes and the like in "association sources" are sometimes OK, but sometimes not. I think I also need to warn you that articles on PR firms and others in the business of advertising and promotion are checked very carefully to make sure they are not themselves written in a promotional tone. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What? PR companies might write in a promotional tone? Yes, if any company could be guilty of that then it would be a PR firm. Btw, I've gone in and edited a few other PR companies. One was just a stub and I added info to that. I'm surprised a stub could get published. Do stubs get published often? Deesm (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)