Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 357

Archive 350

←

Archive 355

Archive 356

Archive 357

Archive 358

Archive 359

Archive 360

Rename, move or create new

Hi,

Recently the company I work for changed their name but many still know us by our old, we have an existing wiki page under the old name. What would be the correct way to create a page for the new name.

I attempted to create a new page based on the new name, and reused some of the content from the old page (company history etc.), but now CorenSearchbot is complaining about duplicate scope and refering to the old page.

It's hard to rewrite the company history enough to not trigger a "duplicate", would it be better to move the old article? How do i make sure it's possible to find the article based on both new and old name?

Hovlandur (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Request a move of the original article to the new title, specifying that a redirect needs to be left in place. As a company employee, your conflict of interest means that you should not attempt to move the article yourself. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hovlandur. You are a new editor deserving of assistance not criticism, and you have openly and honestly declared that you work for the company, which is a great early move to make. I suggest that you declare your conflict of interest on your (currently blank) user page. "Move" is the correct procedure in this specific situation, which is not intuitive. Think of article titles as being discrete entities from article content. When a company (or a celebrity) changes names, and the new name is widely recognized, the article should be moved to the new corresponding article title. The old title will remain as a "redirect", which means that a search for the old article name will yield a link to the new article name. Please do not make substantive edits to the article (other than reverting obvious vandalism) itself, but instead propose edits on the article's talk page, citing reliable, independent sources. A low key approach is best, and please return here to the Teahouse if no one comments on the talk page within a few days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for excellent answers, Cullen and Yunshui, I will go back and make the appropriate actions, I didn't think of conflict of interest would be an issue, but it makes sense. Is there a easy way to delete the article I created?

Hovlandur (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done, I was about to do the move, Hovlandur merging any changed content, but Fuhghettaboutit took care of the matter already. See the page now at Ambita AS. By the way, the article is a bit short and with only a few references. If you can suggest on the talk page (Talk:Ambita AS) any additional independant reliable sources about the company they could be used to expand the article. Any sources in English would be particualrly helpful, as so many editors do not speak Norwegian. DES ^(talk) 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Three questions together

What is sandbox for? In edit summary Users type "rv" and "ce", why? Can I give Wikilove to Users I never interacted with? Count Chimera 12:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Count Chimera:!

A sandbox is a test environment. You can create drafts of articles or content that is not ready to go public. You can practice complicated markup like tables to see how it works. you can leave notes for your self of policies or guidelines or tools that you want to be able to find quickly. see WP:UP

people use abbreviations because they are quicker. "rv" would be for "revert" or "revert vandalism", "ce" would be for "copy edit"

Yes, you can give Wikilove to users for work they have done even if you have not directly interacted before. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi User:Count Chimera - to answer your questions in a 1,2,3 format

1. A sand box is for testing and experimenting in - although many users also use them for starting an article or storing useful information. There are a few restrictions as to what can be included, such as no personal attacks, civility, and copyrights. For more information see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox
2. Rv = revert and ce = copy edit - these and many more can be found in Wikipedia:Glossary
3. No you do not have to have interacted with an editor, but Wikipedia:WikiLove should only be used for things that you really appreciate, not given to, say, everyone who edited a page. - Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating table

Hi all... There is a page about Nepali Comedy duos in Wikipedia and it is not improved well. So I want to add table there. What to write in place of xxx here {{infobox xxx ? It is the page of two Nepali comedian who work as a group... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Noxboy. I guess you are talking about MaHa. {{Infobox comedian}} would appear to be the right choice, but you'll need to include it twice, once for each of the duo. Follow that link to find out what the parameters are that you need. I must say, though, that making an article pretty with an infobox is far less important and urgent than making the article reliable by adding citations to independent reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

how to delete a user page

I want to delete the user page User:King.parker3/Tadeusz A. Jezierski which I created. This page is empty but I see no way to delete the reference to it.King.parker3 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@King.parker3: I've deleted it for you. For future reference any page in your own userspace you want deleting just add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page, this will place the page in a category and an admin will delete it for you. Nthep (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

post to a User page

How do I post to a user page? I see I can add something to a post already there using "edit" but I want to have a separate post; for instance in order to thank someone for their help. The one method I tried did not work.King.parker3 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Messages should be posted on user talk pages; at the top-left of your screen, when you are on a userpage you should see a "Talk" button. Click on this and there should be a button on the right-hand side saying "New section". Click this and you can entire a title for your post in the "Subject/headline" box, and then type the message itself. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Good article status for Solapur

Im desperate for the Solapur article to be recognised as a good article. I love this city and im ready to give 100 more reliable source citations for it. But what is the correct method im confused. Does it need mutual talks with senior editors or something else useful? Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dongar Kathorekar:, great to read that you are improving an article. For an article to be recognised as a good article, it has to have been reviewed by someone who is aware of the standards needed for an article to merit the status. You can find the procedure and nomination page at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. During the review the reviewer may have questions or suggestions to make about the article which you can discuss with them. Nthep (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

To add to what Nthep has said, the exact criteria for good articles can be found at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Taking a very quick glance at Solapur, the ^{[citation needed]} tags in the Tourism section should be addressed before the article is nominated for GA status; you should also try to make sure that every statement in the article has a reliable source and maybe copyedit the article (go through and check the spelling, punctuation and grammar). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

To, Nthep Sir and Bilorv Sir, I am grateful for your advice and help. Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

draft article

Hi there teahouse hosts I have drafted an article and although I think I could move it myself I think it wouldn’t do any harm to run it through peer review first. I think that if I place {{subst:submit}} on the article, a bot should pick up on that and do the rest, is that correct?CV9933 (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @CV9933: Welcome to the Teahouse! All you have to do is place {{subst:submit}} at the very top of the draft and save the page. This will automatically generate a template that will mark the page as pending a review (no bot involvement here). A reviewer should come by and review the article, and either approve it or let you know what needs improving. Note that there is a backlog of drafts awaiting review, so a review could take anywhere from a day to several weeks. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's basically correct, although given the current backlog at Articles of creation (the reviewing venue) you might be waiting quite a while for a review. Assuming you're talking about Draft:Frank Gill (engineer), I can see no glaringly obvious reason not to move it to mainspace; there are improvements that could be made, naturally, but it meets Wikipedia's criteria and would pass an AFC review fairly easily. I'd suggest that you move it to mainspace; any serious issues will be picked up by the New Page Patrollers. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Unfortunately – and it's an issue that should give everyone who cares some pause – while everyone now having an automatic sandbox link and the creation of the draft namespace have their pluses, they have greatly increased creation outside the mainspace. Concomitantly, these types of moves to the mainspace (and not through AfC) have greatly increased—which entirely bypass Special:NewPages (as well as page curation). So drafts like this are unlikely to be seen in the ordinary course by any newpages patroller.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting; I did not know that. As you say, that's slightly concerning. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, that was very enlightening.CV9933 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Create a page

How do you create a pageangelz (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What sort of page? Do you mean an article page? If so, read WP:Your first article and use the article wizard to create the article in draft space and submit it for review. I will also post a welcome message containing links to various policies and guidelines that would be good reading for new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

References and footnotes

Most articles have references, featured articles have footnotes, notes and bibliography. In edit tool, i couldn't find any gadget that helps inserting footnotes. Inserting footnotes is not easy. Can an article have reference, notes and footnotes together? Count Chimera 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Count Chimera, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of ways to format citations. See this page, and Help:Footnotes for more detail. It is indeed possible to have references, notes and footnotes all in the same article, and indeed to have more kinds of sourcing than that -- charts and tables can have their own separate notes, for example. But most articles do not need that level of complexity. For most articles, when you enter or edit a fact, you should (normally) have a source that supports that fact. Right after the fact, or at the end of the sentence, insert the following markup: <ref>Source information here</ref>. At the end of the article, in a Notes or References section (I prefer the former, many editors don't) include {{reflist}}. Replace "Source information here" with enough information to allow a reader or editor to find the source. For a book, title, author, publication date, and page number. ISBN if possible. For a magazine or newspaper, name of periodical, date, title of article, author, page number(s). For an online source, title and url, date and author and publisher if available. You can use a citation template or not. That is the basic process and should be enough to start with -- if everyone did that much all would be much better. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There is also information at WP:REFB for help at the intro level.

The "Insert Citation" button on the editing toolbar above the exit box is very helpful, particularly if you are researching via googlebooks (the "Book" subtool) or major online newspapers (the "News" subtool). Just paste the URL in the box and hit the green button. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions

1.How to revert changes in page? 2.What to do to those users who do vandalism? 3.What is category about? 4.How to find coordinates of a place? 5.What are the basic tags needed in Wikipedia for editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

1. See Help:Reverting: from the history of a page, you can undo a user's changes if they are unconstructive.
2. Warnings can be issued to users who do not seem to be making constructive changes, and administrators can block users if they perform consistently unhelpful actions.
3. A category is a group of articles which fall under a common topic. They are used for navigational purposes.
4. I'm not quite sure what you mean; on Wikipedia, co-ordinates are often displayed in geographic articles' upper right-hand corners (e.g. Caldas da Rainha).
5. You might find Help:Wiki markup and Help:Cheatsheet useful.

Please ask if you want any more detail on any of these topics, or have any further questions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Noxboy:, for getting co-ordinates of place that you wanted, you can use websites like Wikimapia, there are also county specific website for coordinates like Indiamapia. You just have to type name of place and write Wikimapia in front of it on google and search it, you will get coordinates of the place. That coordinates you can add in article. --Human3015 knock knock • 08:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirect or New Article

Hi,

If a company is due to rebrand. Does a new article need to be created and then redirected to the new name or do you just need to set up a redirect, to the new name?

Thanks

Plestan (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Plestan. One topic, one article. So, you would create a redirect from the new name pointing to the existing article, or possibly, move the existing article to the new name (which will leave a redirect behind) if the new name starts to be used frequently in reliable English language sources following the change. See the common names policy, which includes the guidance, "if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lost "page curation" tool

I patrolled new pages for couple of days but suddenly I'm not seeing that page curation tool when I'm visiting new pages or un-reviewed pages. How its happened? I have not done any mistake while patrolling new pages earlier, not got any warning or notification. How I can see that page curation tool again? Human3015 knock knock • 07:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Human3015. Click on any article found at Special:NewPages. Once there look to the list of links on the left hand side of the interface (underneath the Wikipedia Globe). See the list under tools? The last link there (or near the bottom if you have certain settings on) should say "Curate this article". Clicking on that should reanimate the toolbar. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I never knew it, you made it very simple. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

HotCat

I have activated HC from gadgets. Still can't find where HotCat is located?Silver Samurai 12:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

At the bottom of every article, you'll see a Categories list with a small +⁺ indicator next to it - that's HotCat. See Wikipedia:HotCat for instructions on how to use it. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

missing content

I created a comprehensive article on a company history but for some reason what I wrote does not show up when the page is viewed. When I go to edit mode all the content is there, but when saved and viewed, over half of it is missing. It was fine before, but I just noticed it this morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taito_of_Brazil LMParadis (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi LMParadis. For whatever reason you had placed a number of citations ending with "</ref><ref". The code is just <ref> ... </ref> or for a named citation, <ref name="Intuitive Name"> ... </ref> for a first use, and then, for a later use of that same citation: <ref name="Intuitive Name" />. By the way, citations go outside of punctuation, so all periods, commas, etc. are placed before the code. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried to use the subsequent use of the same reference string that you mention but it came back with an error.

LMParadis (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey again. LMParadis. You posted only the secondary use of the name without defining it first. The first time you use a named reference, you have to provide the full citation but add the name definer to it. The code you used was for the second time you use the same reference after already providing the name. Let's be concrete. What you did was take the existing citation text:

<ref>{{cite web | url= http://augustocampos.net/taito-brasil/ | title=The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985 | accessdate=29 June 2015}}</ref>

and change it to:

<ref name="The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985" />

What you needed to do instead was take that existing citation and add the name to it. So the first use would become (changes underlined and bolded):

<ref name="The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985">{{cite web | url= http://augustocampos.net/taito-brasil/ | title=The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985 | accessdate=29 June 2015}}</ref>

With that you would have you've defined that citation's name name, and the next time you wanted to use the same citation you would just type:

<ref name="The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985" />

However, I would keep use a much shorter name, maybe "curious history".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. that works great

LMParadis (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Redundant navbox

Perhaps long time ago, {{Dosage forms}} and {{Routes of administration}} are two distinct but related navboxes, such that many medical articles have both of them. However the latter is now a redirect to the former one, which caused about 90 acticles contain a duplicate navbox. I can't manually remove the code by myself. Can anyone help?--Quest for Truth (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Quest for Truth, I'm pitching in. I've done about 20 and can do more. Thanks for finding this. A question - I'm new to the concept of categories, but I noticed that some (but not all) these articles are placed in both a "Dosage forms" and "Routes of Administration" category. Separate issue, right? Or is it an issue at all? Will it need to be addressed or can the categories be left as is? Thanks. Kekki1978 (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kekki1978 for helping. Categorization is another issue. Since I'm an outsider of the medical profession, I can't rule out the possibility of an article fitting the two categories. So it's better to handle the categories on a case-by-case basis. It might be better to ask more wikipedians to look at this issue. --Quest for Truth (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Quest for Truth. The {{Routes of administration}} template has been removed from the 90 or so articles that your query listed. A bit of history behind the two templates was discussed on the talk page of yet a third template ({{Routes of administration by organ system}}, which also now redirects to {{Dosage forms}}), so I'm making a note there about the the redirects, duplications, and removal of the duplicates. Thanks for finding these duplications. Kekki1978 (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to confirm, the redirect {{Routes of administration by organ system}} is now orphaned, presumably thanks to the efforts of the above editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC).

Article on Kabooliwala.com

Hi I am trying to write an article on kabooliwala.com a online e cmmerce portal managed by us. Please help be creating an article for it. This is first e commerce portal from Kerala StateRajesh.madhavan (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rajesh.madhavan, read WP:PROMOTION, you may not create article on this website. At least you should have independent sources stating importance or notability of the website. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you have some independent sources [1], but your article Kabooliwala.com has been deleted for 3 times today. I think you should discuss this matter with admins who deleted your article. But you should provide more independent sources. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As Human3015 says, material on Wikipedia cannot be intended to promote a company: we have a neutral point of view. If your company is notable, which is required for inclusion on Wikipedia, then someone else may create an unbiased article on the subject. If you are sure the company is notable (it needs to have had coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources), you may submit an Articles for Creation draft and it should be reviewed within a month or so; if it meets our guidelines, it will be accepted as an article. Unfortunately, if it doesn't meet notability guidelines then we cannot have an article on it here. You should also read our Conflict of Interest policy. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Bilorv, I think article is notable enough, two of India's leading newspapers have given news about it, [2], [3]. They even projected it as competitors to Flipkart, Amazon, Snapdeal etc. I think we have many articles which have only one or two unreliable sources but we kept that many times, but his article has at least two highly reliable sources which shows that website if notable and national media gave coverage to it. Moreover, we can find many sources for it local news papers of Kerala state. --Human3015 knock knock • 11:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The first two times the article was created, it was highly promotional in tone. The next time it was created, the only reference provided was the URL of the website itself. The next two times it was created, it contained the same promotional wording from the blogspot. If there are references to demonstrate notability, they should be included in a draft of the article. I suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation.Deb (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Human3015, both those newspaper articles are simply quoting people from the company and its partners (probably from press releases) so neither of them counts as an independent source. Hello, Rajesh.madhavan. Deb's advice is good: if you want to write this article, I recommend you follow it. I have a further suggestion as well: find articles that, unlike the ones Human3015 pointed to, are actually pieces of writing about Kabooliwala by people who have nothing at all to do with Kabooliwala. If you cannot find such sources, then give up: it is impossible to write an acceptable article about Kabooliwala at the moment (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that it is not "notable").

If you can find independent sources, then forget everything that you know about the portal - everything - and write the article entirely from what those sources say (don't just copy their words, or it will be a copyright violation: it needs to be new text, but everything in it must come from those sources). If you have been able to create a substantial article, you may flesh it out with some uncontroversial factual material (such as dates and places) from the business's own published sources such as its website. But most of the article must be based on independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I have prepared a biographical article in my sandbox for Frank Harrison (born 2013) with no middle initial that I know of.

There is already an entry for Frank G Harrison (born 1940) with redirect from Frank Harrison.

How can I create a new page for Frank Harrison (born 2013)?

Many thanks Kllwiki (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kllwiki and welcome to the Teahouse. Just to clarify, the article in your sandbox states that "your" Frank Harrison was born in 1913 and died in 2013, so I assume the above year is a typo? w.carter-Talk 17:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Born 1913. Kllwiki (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You will need an administrator to help you with the move. You can use the template {{Admin help}} to ask one to come help. That being said, there is a long quote currently in the article whose purpose is not quite clear at the moment. You may want to either give it more context or rewrite in your own words. Apart from that, nice article. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and kind words. I'll fix up that quote then ask for assistance from an administrator. Kllwiki (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Should I resubmit the article after Editing as suggested by the reviewer?

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

I have edited the above draft page that I have created a while back. The edits involved few suggestions by Eugene (ELee), who has reviewed the article and declined it with comments.

Now that I have edited and addressed the concerns, should I resubmit it? or Is there an easy way to forward it to Eugene to make sure all the concerns were addressed?

Thanks ChennaiWiki (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ChennaiWiki. You can do either or both. I see that you have already resubmitted it; but there is no harm in drawing ELee's attention. One way is to ping him (as I have just done: there are different ways of doing it, but I used {{U|ELee}}), so he will get a message directing him to this thread. Alternatively you could put a message on his talk page User Talk:ELee; but I suggest there's probably no point in that now that I have pinged him. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

ChennaiWiki, ColinFine - Actually it is preferable not to repeatedly solicit the attention of the same reviewer, it's better to have a different person do the next review. This is so that the article does not become skewed by the biases of one reviewer. Some reviewers are also better (or weaker) at different aspects of the review workflow. A variety of reviewers makes for a better article when it is accepted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Joseph W. Papin

Matthew Vanitas has been helping me make corrections to my article. I believe that I have added the important information that validates its. Since he is on vacation until August will someone else take a look to see if it is good to go? Thanks so much, JanineJaninepapin (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Janinepapin. I'm sorry, but in my view the answer is no. You have 27 citations - but the majority of them are to Papin's own work. You could have a hundred or a thousand of these, and they still wouldn't contribute to establishing notability. The Chicago Tribune is the right sort of thing, as it is a piece of writing by an unconnected third party, which is about Papin: but I don't think it says enough about him to establish notability on its own. I thought the Syracuse catalogue might do it; but it does not appear to contain any writing about him except by himself. As MatthewVanitas has been telling you, you need to find places where people unconnected with Papin wrote pieces about him and got them published. Without those, he does not meet the criteria for notability.

Another way to look at this is by considering the content. You write "Joseph Papin specialized in reportorial art – on-the-scene drawing – the artist as reporter." Without an independent source for this statement, it must count as original research, which is not accepted in Wikipedia. Similarly, later, 'Joe Papin started as artist working his way through Ohio State University, made training films for the Army Signal Corps, and represented himself as a freelance artist for thirteen years, “thereby receiving another sort of education and just frequently enough some nice commissions, books to illustrate[15], and challenges to grow on.”' Aside from the fact that this contains an unattributed and unsourced quotation, the whole sentence is in fact unsourced (pointing at an example of a book he illustrated is not providing a sources for the information). So without substantial independent writing about him, there is almost nothing which can legitimately go in the article: which is effectively a restatement of the requirement of notability.--ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Collin, Thanks for the insight. I will certainly change the bio. I did put in direct quotes from Newspaper articles about him in that first paragraph and cited them. They are valid aren't they? ( "Joseph Papin is a reporter who has never touched a word processor. His pen interprets a story with images rather than words."[4] "Joe Papin is a reporter. He works for one of the largest newspapers in United States—the Daily News—and has covered some of the most historic moments in recent American history. His professional title is artist. The tools of his journalistic trade are not the notepad and typewriter, rather an assortment of pens and a sketchpad...Papin has been drawing scenes of life—the grand and the commonplace—for the Daily News, not through the humor of the comics nor the commentary of the editorial page, but from a straightforward, objective viewpoint."[5] Those statements are from Newspaper articles about him. I will only put in quotes from articles and interviews that were about him if that is the case. What about the News-Mafia connection? The news story was picked up the United Press International. But I also cited several newspapers articles that were about the commotion his work caused at the mob trials. Quoting from the paper and citing the writer is the correct way to establish whether or not he is "notable", am I right? There are several T.V. and Radio Interviews that I am currently gathering the information from. I will continue to work on this. Thank you for your patience and help. Janinepapin (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Janinepapin. I noticed that your username is similar to the name of your draft (Draft:Joseph W. Papin). Is this purely coincidental or are you connected to Joesph Papin in some way? If you are connected to Papin, then you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly the section titled "Writing about yourself and your work". COI editing is something Wikipedia highly discourages; It's not expressly prohibited, but it is something that is tricky, even for experienced editors, to pull-off successfully. This is because it can be hard to write about something in a neutral manner when you're closely connected to it. If the name similarities are purely coincidental, then you might want to consider changing your username to something else to avoid any misunderstandings or confusion if you intend to continue working on the draft after if it becomes an article because other editors might mistakenly assume that you are connected to Papin in some way due to your similar names. As long as this is only a draft, you'll probably find most editors are willing give you a little leeway regarding possible COI and let you continue to work on the draft. If, however, the draft eventually gets upgraded to article-status, you might find editing the article a bit more difficult and other editors more scrutinizing of any edits you try to make. I'm not trying to scare you off editing, but since you're fairly new to Wikipedia and this draft is pretty much the only article you've been working on, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly for your information. I appreciate your help. Jrptwins (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem Jrptwins. I see that your username has been changed. That's fine, but please be aware that simply changing your username does not automatically mean that you no longer have a conflict of interest. As I said above, if the the similarity between your old username and Joseph W. Papin was purely coincidental, everything should be fine. However, if you are connected to Papin in anyway, e.g., a relative, a representative of his estate, a close friend, etc., then you may have a potential conflict of interest. If the latter is the case, then take a look at Wikipedia: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to find out what kind of edits are generally considered acceptable for COI editors. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a question for any experienced editor from Teahouse. Is it necessary (or good) to quote directly from a reference source or is it enough just to put the source. If it is not a live link, it would be the only way to see the content, but perhaps that is not necessary? I think in an effort to cite old newspapers articles I might have gone overboard. Thanks for your advice.Jrptwins (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is my page viewed as an advertisement?

I have just created a page for the company FRIMO, but it keeps getting tagged for speedy deletion because it is too much like an advertisement. I'm not sure how to make it less "subjective". Can anyone help? Oconna78 (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Oconna78. Your article is filled with unreferenced promotional advertising statements like "FRIMO became one of the world’s largest suppliers of production technologies for manufacturing high quality plastic components for the automotive industry through the takeover of competitor Heidel. In 2004, the companies in the FRIMO Group were awarded with the SPE Award seven times, with five first and two second prizes." Who says they are one of the world's largest in that field and who says that being the world's largest in that field is significant and not trivial? Who says that the SPE Award is a significant award worth discussing in an encyclopedia article? Your article relies on PR Web references. Experienced Wikipedia editors know that PR Web just regurgitates press releases and is utterly worthless for establishing notability on Wikipedia. The article must be built on summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Press releases excluded. Everything else should be removed from the article, especially any statement that an uninvolved editor would consider promotional. Every single thing. If nothing is left, then we should not have an article about this company, and the article should then be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've re-edited and added sources. Do you still find it promotional? If so, every Wikipedia article about a company should be deleted. There are so many other company articles that do not get deleted that have the same kind of information.Oconna78 (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Oconna78. The first eleven sentences of the "Company History" section are unreferenced: if it were moved to article space in that state, anybody could (and arguably should) delete them as unreferenced. Furthermore, if we look at the actual wording:

• "The foundations for the company FRIMO were laid in 1962." That is not objective fact, but opinion or interpretation (who can say at which point in its creation "the foundations" for a company were laid?). It does not belong in a Wikipedia article, unless, possibly, it is quoted from a reliable source, independent of the company - but in my view, even in that case it would probably not be an appropriate tone for an encyclopaedia article.
• "Fritsche Möllmann GmbH & Co. KG was founded in Bohmte in the district of Osnabrück, Germany ..." This is reported as a straightforward fact, and provided it is cited to a published reliable source, certainly belongs in the article. Because it is uncontroversial factual data, this could even be cited to a non-independent source such as the company's own website. It must still be cited, though.
• "...and managed to establish itself on the market ... " This is advertising puff, and should never appear in a Wikipedia article.
• "...as a supplier of foam molds for PU processing and model construction." Again, objective fact, and OK as long as it is cited to a reliable published source.
• "In 1969, due to constant expansion and growth in staff numbers, the company moved to its current location of Lotte, Germany." Again, a mixture of verifiable factual information (the move, the date, the location) which is fine as long as it is cited, and a claimed motivation, which is information of a very different kind, and should not appear unless the company has explicitly and publicly explained that this is the reason for the move.

I won't go any further, but I hope that this illustrates what a reviewer would be looking for. It is undoubtedly the case that there exist articles in Wikipedia which are no better than your draft; but that is a reason to improve them (or delete them if they cannot be improved), not to accept another inadequate article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Oconna78, please be aware that we delete hundreds of non-compliant articles every day. But we have nearly 5 million articles and weeding the bad ones out is a lifetime job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Is adding to a list considered a minor edit ?

Hello,

I'm wondering if say adding another book to the list of works by an author, or similar actions, is considered a "minor" edit ? To my mind, it would be. I'm new, but I have made a few such such edits and labeled them "m. However, when I've looked at article edit histories, I've noticed that "m" is not used very often so I began to wonder. Physalis longifolia (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Physalis longifolia. Adding an item to a list is not a minor edit. A minor edit is correcting a typographical editor or adding missing punctuation. Minor edits do not change content. So, please be careful about marking edits as minor. Please see WP:MINOR for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There are a few editors who habitually mark all of their edits as minor. This is considered disruptive editing. It results in frequent warnings. It is not normally considered sufficiently serious to warrant a block, but it may result in a longer block when the editor gets into an edit-war. Please don't become one. As Cullen328 said, changing the content of a page, such as adding to a list, is not a minor edit. Thank you for asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So what should I do, if anything, about the entries that I have already made ? 143.235.254.194 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you, first, posted this question in the wrong section. I have moved it. It also appears that you forgot to log in before posting it. The number of such edits that you made is small, and you are a new inexperienced editor. There is no need, in my opinion, to worry about a few new mistakes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So what should I do about the entries that I have already made -- undo them and then redo them ? 143.235.254.194 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Physalis longifolia, there is no need to take any action on these old edits. Simply follow the guideline in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete i page

How do I recommend this article (Marine Engineering and Research Institute, MUMBAI) for deletion? As I find that, the above mentioned article is duplicate of Marine Engineering and Research Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasprabhu933 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Srinivasprabhu933, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I converted Marine Engineering and Research Institute, MUMBAI into a redirect (link) to Marine Engineering and Research Institute. It could have been nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion (AFD), but this is a simpler and quicker method. And if there was any useful information in the redirected article, it can still be found via the page history. It seems that we have had these duplicate articles since 2011, thank you for spotting this. DES ^(talk) 22:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much.srini (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Podcast interview

Hi, this may not be the right place to ask this question, I apologise.

I make a podcast called 'Random Article', in which I find the topic for each episode by using the wikipedia random article function. I'm currently making an episode about the article Syndesmica, and I can see that the article has been recently edited. I'd like to contact the person who edited it and interview them. What would be the best way to contact them? Chmjasper (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chmjasper. Go to the editor's talk page and leave them a message. Enter "User talk: editorname" into the search box, substituting the actual editor name. If the editor has email enabled, which is optional, there will be an "email this user" link active on the left menu when you are on their talk page. Some editors pay a bit more attention to emails than talk page messages. Those are the two main ways to reach out to another editor, though there are various types of alerts and pings, like the way I just notified you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

to quote or not to quote, that is my question

I have a question for any experienced editor from Teahouse. Is it necessary (or good) to quote directly from a reference source or is it enough just to put the source. If it is not a live link, it would be the only way to see the content, but perhaps that is not necessary? I think in an effort to cite old newspapers articles I might have gone overboard. Thanks for your advice.Jrptwins (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jrptwins. In general, we summarize or loosely paraphrase the sources we reference. However, the original source material may include a very pithy and incisive phrase or sentence or two, which is worth quoting directly. The decision of when and how often to quote a source is a matter of editorial judgment. Ask yourself, "Why am I quoting instead of summarizing?" If a summary is as effective, then do not quote. If a quote seems clearly useful in conveying knowledge to the reader, then add it, either enclosing it in quotation marks, or setting it off as a block quote, so that any reader realizes that it is a direct quote and not your words. And always reference every quote, 100% of the time, at the end of the quote. In conclusion, "moderation in all things" (attributed to the Roman playwright Terence) is a good approach to quotes and all things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Jrptwins and welcome to the Teahouse. When a source is offline, and a short quote from the source indicates the meat of how the source supports the stated fact, you may, but need not, include such a quote as part of the citation. If using citation templates, the quote= parameter exists for this purpose.

If you refer to making a direct quote, as opposed to a paraphrase, in the article itself, it is a judgement call, and depends on the purpose of the reference. When it is to include an expression of opnion, such as a review of a book or film, or an endorsement of or attack upon a person, then a fully attributed and cited direct quote is often best, if it is not too long. Try not to use very long quotes, trim to the essentials for the purpose, but not so as to change the meaning of the original writer or speaker being quoted. Always cite and attribute any quotes.

So I'm sorry, but the only general answer is, "it depends", but it is almost never required. DES ^(talk) 03:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I am slowly but surely learning! Jrptwins (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Alignment in Infobox

Hi, I am trying to correct the allignment in Infobox - to put Website just below the religion in the Infobox for this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Bijapurkar I tried different ways, even with having a look on other pages with right alignment. Its still the same. How to do it ? Thanks!!! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Vivek.bekhabar: The reason is because you're using the person infobox template, and this template puts the website in the middle. That template is protected (so only admins can edit it), so you'd have to ask at Template talk:Infobox person for it to be changed.

Also, which other pages have the website in the correct alignment? I guess they must be using a different template, which doesn't put the website in the centre of the infobox. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Joseph2302: Thanks for the reply! I was unaware of the same template and thought that their should be proper alignment. I referred this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment ...So, its OK if infobox remains as it is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Bijapurkar ?? Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Userbox problem

Hello, I don't know how to arrange my userboxes so they aren't all overlapping. Thanks, Rubbish computer 01:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Rubbish computer. I'm going to make this easier for you to understand. To prevent userboxes from overlapping you can use table cellpadding as I've demonstrated below. Cheers! -- Chamith (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

{| style= <!--style (if you want any)-->
|-
|{{userbox template}}
|{{userbox template}}
|-
|{{userbox template}}
|-
|{{userbox template}}
|}

or you can use the following method,

{{Userboxtop|<!--title-->}}
  {{userbox template}}
  {{userbox template}}
  {{userbox template}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

@ChamithN: Sorry but I have no idea what any of this means, I've copied the methods here out and the userboxes are still all over the place. Rubbish computer 09:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rubbish. It was the {{Multicol|800px}} that caused the boxes to overlap. I have substituted that with the template that ChamithN suggested above, the {{Userboxbottom}}, and the boxes seem to behave now. Revert it if you don't want it. The other ting that was suggested, was using "Tables". You can read about that here: Help:Table/Introduction to tables. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want them in a single column, you just remove the {{multicol break}} that you had placed between the userbox templates. w.carter-Talk 10:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: Thanks. Rubbish computer 11:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Rollback rights

I don't have rollback rights. In spite of that I can see the rollback button for consecutive edits made by another user: probably due to Twinkle. Twinkle has various functions. Those who can use Twinkle; do they get any extra facility by using Stiki and Huggle? I can't use them as I don't have rollback rights. Still I want to know what extra works they do, from users who use them.Silver Samurai 07:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Silver Samurai. Whilst Twinkle effectively gives you rollback (which is why you can see a rollback option), STiki and Huggle (and Igloo, which I really like but everybody seems to forget!) offer substantially more in the way of anti-vandalism tools, by filtering and flagging elements of the Recent Changes feed and giving you multiple action and reporting options. However, these are considered to be fairly powerful tools as a result, and so access to them is restricted to users who have demonstrated extensive experience and good judgement in fighting vandalism. As a result, the original Rollback feature, whilst largely redundant as a tool thanks to Twinkle, is often used as a benchmark to demonstrate a readiness to use these advanced tools. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Stiki, Huggle and igloo are only for Vandalism! I don't need them for Wikilove messages and article creation. With Twinkle, we can nominate a page for deletion, give talkback, also warn users, even report them to Administrators, revert vandalism and disruptive editing. Twinkle does almost everything to fight Vandalism. These tools look unnecessary to me; with due respect to those who created them. Silver Samurai 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've not used Huggle or igloo, but I use STiki sometimes and I wouldn't call it unnecessary. Twinkle is just a tool I use that's handy when it comes to speeding up tasks I was already about to do (e.g. reverting vandalism and warning the user); STiki is something I use that gives me something new to do. It presents edits which it thinks might be vandalism, and the user needs to categorise them. So it helps revert edits which Cluebot thinks might be vandalism but isn't too sure, and edits on obscure pages which won't turn up on any active user's watchlist. (To use STiki, you need either 1000 edits, rollback permission (NOT Twinkle) or a very good reason to make an exception.) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're happy using Twinkle, that's great! It's certainly more varied in what it can do; as you say, Huggle, STiki and Igloo are pretty much only for anti-vandalism. They are excellent tools for this, effectively making one into a human ClueBotNG, but they can't send Wikilove, tag articles, mark pages for deletion etc. Really, I would only consider aiming to use these if you are a particularly fervent anti-vandalism patroller, with a lot of experience. You can, or course, find out more about each tool at WP:STIKI, WP:HUGGLE or WP:IGLOO. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally off topic, but @Yunshui: what are the benefits to using Igloo over my current preference of Huggle? Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never used Huggle personally; though I understand it's at least somewhat similar. The advantage, for me at least, is that Igloo is totally browser-based, with no need to download anything. Yunshui ^雲_水 17:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How to propose for deletion

WP:Articles for deletion appears to contain no instructions as to how to nominate an article for deletion, as I would like to do with Office management software, and I haven't got time to read that page in more detail. Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article does contain instructions although it's fairly far down the article — see WP:AFDHOWTO. I've nominated the page for you: it can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office management software. Please provide your reasoning for deletion there. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle does such nominations semi-automatically. DES ^(talk) 18:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: @DESiegel: Thank you. I have now provided a reason. Rubbish computer 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm I on the right track?

Can a editor take a look at the article I am working on and tell me if I am going in the right direction in correcting what was wrong with the article? I needed to cite third parties and establish "notability". I believe I have done that. There are news journals that I am still searching for that wrote about his work that I will continue to add, but I really would love someone's experienced two cents at this time. Thank you in advance to whoever that might be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joseph_W._PapinJrptwins (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jrptwins and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a very brief look at your Draft, and there are a couple of things that stands out immediately. The article has to be what we call "Wikified", that is it has to be adjusted to the format used in similar articles. I think you should take a look at articles about other artists such as Dick Rockwell and Leo Hershfield where you might find clues as to how such an article should be written. Further there should not be any urls (that is links outside the Wikipedia) in the text itself as there are in the "Books Illustrated" section. Please make references of those instead. The "Career" section is a mighty big block of text. Try to cut it up into smaller sections to make it easier to read. These are my first obsevations. I'm sure other editors will add their own to this post. Best, w.carter-Talk 15:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Jrptwins, and welcome back. I think you are on the right track with Draft:Joseph W. Papin. Here are some further sugestions:

• the "life facts" should not be a series of sentance fragments. Either make them full prose sentances in a proper paragraph, or move them into an ingobox, probably {{infobox person}} or both.
• "Employment" should not be a bulletted list, but rather running prose, just as with "life facts". A citation or two would be useful here.
• "Career" should be divided into multiple paragraphs, the large block of text is unwieldy and puts off a reader.
• Does the phrase "the artist as reporter" come from the Meglin book? If so, make that more explicit. If not, where does it come from? Such a phrase is an evaluation or opnion, and should be cited to a source who said this of Papin. If no one said it of Papin, the draft should not.
• You give a quote, but you need to explicitly say who is being quoted, in addition to the citation. ("Joe Papin is a reporter. He works for one of the largest newspapers in United States—the Daily News—and has covered some of the most historic moments in recent American history. His professional title is artist. The tools of his journalistic trade are not the notepad and typewriter, rather an assortment of pens and a sketchpad...Papin has been drawing scenes of life—the grand and the commonplace...from a straightforward, objective viewpoint.") This is particularly true since the quote expresses opnions.
• A citation should back a speciifc phrase or sentance, or at most a paragraph, not an entrie section. If the same source backs mltipel items in a list, repeat it with a nnmed ref.
• A citation should go to a specific source, not a general web page that must be searched, and not a query string. If a site offers a "permalink" option for more stable links, use it. For example the cite to "http://www.nyguild.org/" is of no value without an indication of what specific page on that site to see. A citation must always be as specific as possible.

There are more, but thjese are a start. i hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 16:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I believe I have done all (or most!) of what was suggested. Any other suggestions would be welcome. Also, at the point when I hopefully "get it right" how do I resubmit the article or do the powers that be just get back to looking at it when they can?Jrptwins (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You have already (re)submitted it, Jrptwins so it is already in the queue for a volunteeer reveiwer to look over. But yiou can keep working on it while you wait. i ahve made some further sugestions at Draft talk:Joseph W. Papin. And yes, quotes need to be both cited and explicitly attributed in the article text. See my resposne on my talk page to your question about that. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Renaming or moving an article

I have an article under review with the short Title 'Peter Hore' I want it to come up under the title 'Peter Hore (historian, biographer and obituarist)' I've created a disambiguation link to that name from the main Peter Hore page. How can I rename my page to 'Peter Hore (historian, biographer and obituarist)'?

Imbwiki (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Imbwiki:- Well, you shouldn;t. see WP:DAB for the naming guidelines - we choose the broadest descriptor that distinguishes one Peter Horne from the others, not a laundry list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read that. But if the page isn't named 'Peter Hore (historian, biographer and obituarist), how will the disambiguation link to it.

During drafting I lost the copy with that title and somehow submitted the earlier draft with the simple title "Peter Hore". There is already a unique page with that title which is another person.

So what I want to do is re-name my page to distinguish it from others, just like another Peter Hore page is named - Peter Hore (professor) to distinguish it from the first Peter Hore page.

Can't it be renamed once the review is finished?

Imbwiki (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Imbwiki: right now there are only two Peter Hores, so no disambiguation page is needed. I don't know whether the Peter Hore you wrote about is more notable and more likely to be a search target (which would justify just his name and not a descriptor after it), but for now, the title of the article is fine.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Vchimpanzee.

I'll just it continue through review process and see how it works.

Imbwiki (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)