Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 395

Archive 390

←

Archive 393

Archive 394

Archive 395

Archive 396

Archive 397

→

Archive 400

Where do I go to ask for a new template to be created?

Where do I propose a new template?

I have an idea that I think would be very helpful to everybody who reads Talk page sections which have links to sections on fast-moving pages that soon become archived, leaving the original links red, and no clue in which archive the actual item is on. This is especially problematic in links that are old to pages with hundreds of archives. In case this is the right place, I'll just describe an example:

{{link archive |page=User talk:Jimbo Wales |section=Wikimedia project index pages |anchor=WM proj Indexes |next=196}}

This would render as: WM proj Indexes^{(ar 196)}

The idea is that this would put up a working, blue link to the desired section, with a superscript (ar nnn) link which shows up as red, because the archive doesn't exist yet, but it's the one the user predicts, i.e., most probably one greater than the highest archive number in use currently. Once the next archive is created, the link would simply render as a "normal" blue link (assuming the guess was right) with the parenthetical part no longer needed. (The one-up numbering scheme isn't fool-proof, I know, but would work well enough most of the time to make it a useful template.)

As such, this would work conversely to {{Interlanguage link}}, which does things the other way round, with a main page red link, and a blue superscript link to a foreign WP article which disappears once the English article is created.

If this isn't the right place, please let me know where to post this. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mathglot. I love that idea. I think you could make it easier for people to place by having it automatically recognize some things such as the page it's placed on using something like {{FULLPAGENAME}}, so there would be no need for a page parameter. Anyway, Wikipedia:Requested templates comes to mind. I worry it doesn't look too active from the history, though that may be a result of a relatively low number of requests, rather than the number of template wizards watching and acting on requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Fuhghettaboutit, I'll try that. I didn't know about {{FULLPAGENAME}} so I checked it out and unless I'm mistaken, it appears that it wouldn't be useful for this template, as it expands to the page it's on, whereas normally I might want to link from my Talk page, or some article talk page, to Teahouse, for example, or some other page undergoing frequent archival, in which case {{FULLPAGENAME}} won't help, unless I'm missing something? Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It might be useful in something like (mock documentation) "if the page-parameter is left out, then it assumes the link you are placing is to an archive of the same page you are posting on".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this whole idea is that pages are not always archived in a predictable fashion. If a thread keeps being discussed, it may not be archived as soon as a later thread that peters out, and it may not get the "next" archive number. I think this would happen a significant number of times, and would actually make the situation worse, as the only thing worse than no link to an archived thread is a link that this supposed to work but is wrong. Moreover this will happen most often on particularly active pages. Now if the archiving bot could be made to update such links, that might be worthwhile, but that would be a much larger task. 00:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that archiving isn't always predictable, but will it really be worse than no link? Seeing that red link with '196' in it, will mean the user searching for the archive knows that it's no earlier than 196, and likely within a few numbers of that. A few tries on the address bar in the browser, or following a 'next' archive link if there is one, should quickly land the fish, no? As things stand now, you'd have to search everything. Or if you really think it's unworkable this way, maybe the superscript should be a search link instead, and launch a delimited archive search in a new browser tab, starting at 196 and going up from there? The current situation seems worse to me. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that once archive 196 is created it won't be a red link, it will be blue, even if the particular thread isn't in that archive. (Section links still work and are blue even if the specified section doesn't exist.) I generally feel that wrong info that looks as if it might be correct is indeed significantly worse than no info at all. DES ^(talk) 13:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Note there is a bot fixing links to archived sections in at least some cases,[1] maybe if it's the bot which archived the page (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot III). Getting a bot to do this more widely would be better than users having to add a template with complicated and uncertain parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

how to edit

````Omnictionarian21 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Help:Editing of help?--ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Replace an existing article?

There is a brief article in Wikipedia bearing the name of a well-known psychoanalyst, Henry Z'vi Lothane, but which is actually about only one of the areas of his research ("dramatology"). In fact the article itself was recently formed by merging two smaller articles, one very brief on Lothane and a second brief one on dramatology, each basically a paragraph. I have drafted an extensive article on the whole of Lothane's work as well as on his life. I would like to propose that the article I have written bear the name "Henry Z'vi Lothane" since it actually deals with his whole body of work, and that the existing article be re-titled "dramatology," since that is more properly what it discusses. Can anyone tell me how and to whom I should propose that change? Should I propose it along with the submission of my article or should this change be proposed separately? Thanks!

whitjrWhitjr (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are proposing replacing the entire contents of the existing article Henry Zvi Lothane by your draft, currently at User:Whitjr/sandbox. You should discuss this at the talk page of the existing article. Maproom (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Whitjr: In addition to the above, your draft is based almost entirely upon your interpretations and commentaries sourced to Lothane's own works not what other people have written about him. Your draft is not ready to move to main space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Help

Mmmmmm, just moved my draft article and my name is still in the title. Did I do something wrong? The title is Systemic Operational Design. ????? Guy Duczynski (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Guy and welcome to the Teahouse! You didn't do anything "wrong", you left your user name as part of the title when you moved the page. However, the article as it stands is not ready for the main article space. You need to establish the notability of the topic by adding references to independent sources that show there is widespread coverage in reliable sources. You might find this guide useful. In the mean time I have moved the article back to your user space. Cheers,  Philg88 <sup>♦talk</sup> 05:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Guy Duczynski, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your work-in-progress to Draft:Systemic operational design because while, as Philg88 said, it is not ready for mainspace, you did say you wanted other users' input, and draft space is a better place for that than your sandbox is. I agree that adding inline citations to reliable secondary sources is the number one area you should focus on improving. Feel free to ask if you have any more specific questions about improving your draft or inviting others' input. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 05:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add those references and resubmit. So do I take my name off the title myself?

Hi Guy Duczynski - as User:GrammarFascist stated above - it has been moved to Draft:Systemic operational design so your name is no longer in the title.
However, I notice the name "Duczynski, G" appears in both the References and the External link section of that article. Assuming this is you, please read our guidance on conflict of interest and avoid using our articles to plug your books. - Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The section WP:SELFCITE is particularly relevant. Note that it doesn't say you can't cite yourself, but that you should only do so within reason, if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies and is not excessive. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Translating an article from English Wikipedia into other languages?

Arttalk1984 and I were discussing an article which Arttalk1984 created and which has finally passed AfC review, and Arttalk1984 asked me about getting the article translated from English to other languages. I know English Wikipedia has a place to request help with translating articles to English from the Wikipedia articles that already exist in other languages, and I imagine that most of the other-language Wikipedias probably have something similar. But is there anyplace at English Wikipedia to make such translation-from-English requests, for someone who doesn't necessarily having any facility with the target language themselves and thus would have difficulty using the request area at, for example, Arabic Wikipedia? —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 18:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There is this Wikipedia:Translate us. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! That page links to Category:Available translators in Wikipedia, which does indeed list both users who translate articles from other Wikipedias into English and users who translate English Wikipedia articles into other languages. Thanks, TRPoD! —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 20:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Citing references when they come from a private chat (Privacy question)

Hi!

Recently I've created this Wikipedia page for an EP, "The Worst Case Scenario" by the band "Stereo Skyline". First page I'm creating from scratch :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Case_Scenario

I got a warning saying that my article lacked any source, which I was not surprised much. I do know how to add these sources, but I'm concerned about privacy issues to get started adding these sources.

I stated that "100 physical copies of the EP were ever produced" which makes the CD close to impossible to find, so is any information on that record. I actually got that information directly from members of the band using Facebook private messaging.

All of these infos were mentionned during the long chat I had with 2 different band members:

- [...] released on July 20th 2006; - Stereo Skyline stated that 100 physical copies of the EP were ever produced; - Credits > Claude Zdanow - Drums Recording (Stated in album liner notes. Official album artwork, originally not on the Internet, was also shared by a member of the band during a 1-1 Facebook chat); - "If These Walls Could Talk, You'd Be In So Much Trouble Right Now" was later re-recorded in 2007, along with the un-released songs "Baby, You Win", "Fast Times" and "Black and Blue".

I sure understand that my article does not have any source as of yet, but what if the band members did not wanted me sharing these sources on Wikipedia? Am I supposed to quote parts of our private chat with their personal Facebook accounts? Providing a JPEG screenshot in the article source? I sure would ask for permission first, but I'm concerned about their privacy by sharing our 1-1 chat we had (While this is the only source to confirm these details).

Alternatively, I would be willing to share parts of our conversation here, and remove it (Using a Dropbox upload?) after it gets approval, but I doubt that would be sufficient. I should check out with the band members first?

Thank you for helping out.

GameX2 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @GameX2: and welcome to the Teahouse!

Private chats with Wikipedia editors are never* appropriate sources for article content. We only use material that can be verified as having been previously published by a reliable source. (*OK, so if your private chat was discussed and published by a reporter from a mainstream newspaper, the content from your chat might be usable) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying really quickly, I appreciate it.

Well I had these 2 chats with members of the band, original members back in 2006, from their personal Facebook accounts. It goes without saying that the EP being really old/rare, no article, virtually nothing was ever published on it (So no "verifiable" source, without believing what the band members told me).

Taking your statement in consideration, I should remove the release date of "July 20th 2006" right away. It is confirmed that the EP was release in "Summer 2006", but the bassist told me "I think July 20th", which is a possibility, but far from verifiable (Besides, they're no way for me to know the exact release date, which is not mentionned in the artwork either. I can't expect band members to remember an exact release date from an EP that was released close to 10 years ago as well. All I know is "I think July 20th", which is definitely not verified and should be removed, will do).

I assume I could keep the "Credits" section untouched, since it is mentionned in the artwork liner notes.

The "Trivia" part on the re-recorded can also be verified, considering 2 versions of the song exist. Possibly I could modify that line, removing "2007" to make it verified.

I will modify my article accordingly, thank you. Best I could do regarding the "100 copies pressed" is to get an email from the producer, Nick Zinnanti, confirming that quantity (Which was confirmed by 2 different band members on Facebook, probably true, but possibly not verifiable I suppose). Might not bother with sending an email and remove such statement from the article (Which I do believe, but obviously, I can only believe the band members and no one else, which doesn't seem valid for Wikipedia).

Thanks, will modify that article a bit.

GameX2 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, GameX2. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be referenced to a reliable published source. Personal recollections, emails, forums, social media, even iMDB and Wikipedia itself (because they are largely user-generated) may never be used as sources, because a reader next week or next month or next year has no way of determining whether they are correct. (Even if your information comes directly from the producer, it might get changed (by somebody else who remembers differently, or by mistake, or even maliciously) and a reader has no way of going and checking which version is right. It doesn't have to available on-line (though it's more convenient if it is) but as long as it has been published and a reader can in principle get hold of it (eg by ordering it through a public or university library) that's OK. But if it has not been published, it should not go in the article. Period. --ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, that's fully understandable.

In that case, the only thing that can get fully verified, is that the EP was released in 2006 (Month and day unknown officially), along with the original band lineup tracklist and producer, which are mentionned in the artwork liner notes. But that would be it.

Ironicly, the official artwork is not on the Internet either, so are the liner notes as well (Google only shows up a fanmade artwork). Unless I upload them anywhere, I would remain the only "source" for that, considering even the artwork or liner notes are nowhere to be found.

Obviously I was trying to help by adding information on this, considering it's nowhere on the Internet, but it's no big deal and understandable that the article got deleted (I don't feel bad or anything, Colin mentionned it really well. There would be no way to verify much stuff, since nothing was published. That's OK).

Thank you for your time, I appreciate.

GameX2 (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Before there is a stand alone article about the subject, the subject must meet some standard requirements- that third party reliably published sources have discussed the subject in a significant manner] or alternatively for music WP:NSONG. If all we can verify about a song or album is that it exists, it doesnt merit a stand alone article, merely reference in the article about the creator. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi GameX2. Just to note that sources don't have to be available online for them to be used to support material in Wikipedia articles. They need to be published, but not necessarily online. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

and books.google.com has old issues of Spin and Billboard and some other music magazines from the paper only age of publishing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixing issues with a page

Hi! I'm trying to edit the NeoCell Wikipedia page, to fix the issues on it. First, it says it needs verification, but there are already several citations on it. Next, it says their needs to meet the general notability guideline. I can change a few lines to make this, but I want to make sure it will pass that. Lastly, it says it's an orphan page, but their are several links to related articles throughout the other page. What can I do to make this an all around better page? Thank you! This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoCell EileenTree (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @EileenTree:, and welcome to the Teahouse!

What Wikipedia is looking for is third party sources with a reputation for fact checking that have covered the subject in a significant manner. Passing mentions, or puffpiece repackagings of press releases do not count. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, EileenTree. It is not possible to fix notability in an article by changing the text. The only way is what TRPoD said - by finding substantial coverage by people unconnected with the subject and published in reliable places - that is actually what the jargon word "notability" means in Wikipedia-land. An orphan is a page with no links to it from other pages. --ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi EileenTree, ColinFine's point is often ignored or misunderstood - please see the essay No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Invited to teahouse by a bot

If you look at my talk page, you'll see that I was invited by the user Soni, but (I think) via a bot. This has caused some questions in my mind.

If a bot invited me (on behalf of Soni), then does Soni even know I exist? How is the best way to reply to Soni? For example, do I reply to the invite on my own talk page, or go to Soni's talk page and add a comment? If on my own page, would Soni somehow be notified of my reply, and if so, would it actually go to the bot?

And finally, this comment/reply method of editing the page seems weird to me. I would think there would be a more "message board" kind of functionality with proper threads and reply box, but that isn't the case. Am I just not getting it yet, or do most people feel the same? Thanks! Worker9 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hell, Worker9, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I am an actual human host, making an individual response.

Yes the invitation was automatically delivered via a script (bot) It uses a set of criteria to find users likely to benefit by a Teahouse invite, and invites up to 100 users per day, as can be seen at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database_reports/Automated_invites page. That page says "Currently, all automated invites are signed by a Teahouse host." I think the host whose name is used is randomly selected from the list of experienced editors who have registered as Hosts. By so registering they agree to have invitations sent in their names. (Previously hosts were expected to send such invites manually, but it often didn't get done.)

This "comment/reply" format is the method used on almost all Wikipedia talk / discussion pages. It is more like an email or USENET exchange than a web "forum". There is a proposed replacement that would be more forum-like, but it has had problems handling the many features and functionalities that are sometimes needed on Wikipedia discussion pages, and I do not look to see it implemented any time soon. This method does have some advantages, in that it is the same one used to edit actual Wikipedia articles and other non-talk pages.

In any case you are here now. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works or how to accomplish some result in editing it, please do ask here. Also, feel free to read the questions posted by others and the responses. You may find some of them helpful. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi, and thanks for the response. As far as replying to the thread (like I am now) so that you know I have replied, how best do I do that? In this case, I'm trying the "reply to" template with your user name, assuming it will send you a notification of this message. Thanks again. Worker9 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Worker9. Yes, that worked. There are several templates which can be used to notify another editor of a comment on a talk page. These include {{U}}, {{ping}}, and {{reply to}}. They have slightly different formatting, but they all do basically the same thing, create a link to a user page. For the matter of that it can be done without using a template: [[User:Example]] would render as User:Example and would notify Example (if there were such a user). All of these will only work as part of a signed edit, however -- going back and adding them to an existing edit, or going back and adding a signature to an edit that contains one of these will not trigger the notification. See Wikipedia:Notifications for more detail. Also one can notify another editor by placing {{tb}} on that editor's user talk page -- this was created before notifications were implemented, but is still used.

However, in many cases one may assume that if another editor is interested s/he will put the page on his or her watchlist, or just visit the page to check it. For instance, i visit the Teahouse fairly often, and so will generally see anything that mentions me or responds to my comments even if no one triggers a notification for me. But using a notification is a good way to alert another editor. Some editors find them annoying, and ask others not to ping them, but that is not too common. I hope that is helpful. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is great info. Thank you. Worker9 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

semi related discussion on inactive hosts

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge#Inactive hosts and bot signatures. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@DES and Jayron32: Hello and Thank you very much for your help. I am a bit overwhelmed with so much information. I'll be more careful. Lumeigpo (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:FEI2015/Ingmar de vos

Hello, For the second time, the above draft was rejected. I must admit to be quite lost as I do not know what to do to improve the page. I have added outside sources to prove who Ingmar De Vos is but this doesn't seem to be sufficient.

Also, one of the comment I have is that the sources (do you means References) should not include wiki references .... How can I move them under a "See Also" section as recommended.

I really need help to get through this issue. Thanks in advance, Nicole FEI2015 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

To create a "Seel also" section enter

==See also==

on a blank line and then populate it with the things that ought to be in there

Those things where you have wikilinked already and have redundant faux citations to Wikipedia: I have handled some f those for you. You can follow my example and do the rest. Fiddle Faddle 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @FEI2015: What you need to do is establish that reliable sources ( not Wikipedia or blogs) that are independent of/no ties to the subject (ie not FEI), have found the subject someone that they wanted to cover in a significant manner.. This would be things like major newspapers, or magazines or books from traditional publishing houses. If those sources do not exist, then we cannot write an encyclopedia article about the subject that follows our content policies of verifiable claims and not creating analysis or commentary ourselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Fiddle and TRPoD,

thanks for your comments. @Fiddle: can you tell me which changes you did please. @TRPoD: we have added links from external and independent from the FEI, although some are from Horse Magazines (but they do not belong to the FEI). Nicole FEI2015 (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Timtrent and TheRedPenOfDoom, I am pinging you because FEI2015 needs more information. And she posted to the wrong section. I hope it's okay that I corrected this for you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Format

I noticed that you guys recently changed the page format, and everything is visible on the pages now. You don't have open and close the sections anymore. But for some reason I can't edit anymore, is there a good reason why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, I don't see the edit button anymore, or even the options on the side of the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kalope, welcome to the Teahouse. Some mobile users are currently reporting such problems with the mobile interface. The desktop interface is not affected. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki page flagged again for promotional content

Dear Wiki -

Somewhere around March 2015, our company's wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_and_Resources_Institute) was flagged as having promotional content. To resolve it, certain corrective changes were made to conform to Wikipedia's standards. The re-written article was approved, until recently, when the article has been flagged once again as having promotional content.

This comes as a surprise, as we have not made any recent changes on page which warranted the change of the promotional content flag suddenly.

Can Wiki please help and guide us in identifying the issue(s) which we are missing in handling the flag correctly, so that it is no longer flagged as being promotional?

It would be very helpful if you can please point out specific instances in the Wiki page which is being deemed as promotional so that necessary action can be taken from our side to resolve the same.

For your reference, this is the Wiki page being referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_and_Resources_Institute

Thanks in Advance!!

Neeshu30 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Neeshu30. The first paragraph of the article includes the words, "with a focus on formulating local- and national-level strategies for shaping global solutions to critical issues." That is vague, promotional language filled with meaningless buzzwords. That kind of language belongs in a marketing brochure, not in a neutral encyclopedia article.

Since you speak of "our company", you clearly have a conflict of interest regarding this article. Editors with a conflict of interest almost always have a very hard time editing neutrally or detecting promotional content which is quite obvious to uninvolved editors. You should not be editing the article directly, but should instead propose well-referenced changes on the article's talk page. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 06:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Neeshu30, I think you have also perhaps misunderstood how Wikipedia works when you say that "The re-written article was approved, until recently, when the article has been flagged once again as having promotional content". Edits to Wikipedia articles aren't "approved" in any real sense, they just stand until another editor comes along and changes them or, as in this case, decides to flag the content as problematic in some way. As there are millions of articles on the English Wikipedia and rather fewer active editors, it can take time for these things to be picked up on. That doesn't mean that article content is "approved" by anyone in the meantime though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks wiki for your guidance.Neeshu30 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

APOLOGY - I apologize for offending this Group's processes on Teahouse. I was advised to go to the Teahouse from the Wikimedia Support Team, and I see that I misunderstood the angle of approach and the platform for the Teahouse.

Please realize I do not understand the Wikipedia maze. We never asked to be on Wikipedia, and I do not want to contribute to Wikipedia. We were being attacked with accusations of vindictive tabloid rumors from over 25 years ago that has brought me to an attempt to learn a new language. Violence, especially committed against women are some of the worst crimes because the fallout is so devastating upon a society, and to be falsely accused is highly offensive. Consequently, I feel forced to participate in Wikipedia that makes the learning curve more difficult along with making mistakes.

I tried emails and the talk page, and only the attacker commented. I wondered why this person was so insistent with pushing inaccuracies. Then I saw his sandbox page, so I put the slides together to show a COI outlining the insistent interest in the attack on us. It could be said that I am doing the same by attacking back. I sent emails to the Wikipedia info address and finally got a response advising me to go to the Teahouse. With his above response I am hopeful he is sincere and this will become resolved.

Please accept my apology for not understanding the guidance I was given, and for offending your Teahouse processes. I am sorry. Wikiipedia-posting (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cricket templates

How to create [[national cricket team|]] template for Ranji Trophy teams?srini (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Srinivasprabhu933. Please read Template:National cricket teams, which explains how the template works. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 03:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, Thank you vy much, but it seems my question was not very clear, I want to create a template similar to {{cr|IND}} which appear as India, for the team playing the current Ranji Trophy, so that the crest of the corresponding cricket association and the respective region appears together. srini (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ask Question Button bug

There's a bug in ask question button on this page which I want to report. When we post a question with this button using smartphone it gets posted at the bottom of page. Please rectify it. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Pankaj. (I thought I replied to this last night, at the bottom of the page). There is probably not one single person who reads this page who is capable of rectifying it: you are asking at the wrong place. WP:Village pump (technical) is the place to ask this sort of question. My memory is that this is a known bug which has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the archives of the Village Pump, so I may be wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft rejected again

When I created this article, it was deleted on the grounds of notability. After the appeal it was restored as a draft with a mention that media and books are good enough source for notability. After that I have tried to improve the article following suggestions from teahouse and added many additional reliable sources to lay emphasis on notability. Can anyone please explain me that why is this article still not notable? Just to mention do a simple Google search for the name of the person and you will get flood of results from multiple sources. The article is Draft:Vishuddhasagar. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pankaj. I think you'll need to ask the editor Onel5969 why they declined the draft. On a quick look, it appears to me to be satisfactorily referenced; but I have not looked at the sources. Perhaps Onel5949 has done so and thinks they are not adequate. --ColinFine (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember that to establish notability, generally a minimum of two (and preferably at least three) sources must cover the subject of the proposed article in depth, such as by devoting an entire magazine or newspaper article, or television segment, to the subject. Interviews with the subject of an article do not count towards establishing notability because they focus on what the subject says about themselves. And the sources that publish these in-depth looks at the subject must qualify as reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition. Lots of brief mentions don't "add up" to one longer piece, either, because they aren't in-depth either alone or taken together.

I have taken a look at the sources listed for you, although I am not an AfC reviewer like Onel5969.

1. I don't understand Hindi, but this appears to be at least partly an interview and thus might not count towards notability.
2. This is simply a one-sentence synopsis of the show, not an in-depth discussion of it.
3. I can't tell what this is, other than it mentioning a misspelling of the subject's name.
4. From what I can tell using Google Translate, this source may contribute to notability; the automatic translation is not good enough for me to be sure of this, however.
5. This article makes only two brief mentions of Vishuddhasagar, and thus does not contribute to proving his notability.
6. This brief mention of Sri Vishuddha Sagar Maharaj does not contribute to proving his notability.
7. "Singh 2007" does not appear in the References list; an incomplete citation cannot contribute to notability.
8. Neither "Vishuddhasagar" nor "Vishuddha" yields any results when searching inside the book, so it can't help establish his notability.

Seven of the nine remaining sources are written by the subject of the article and cannot therefore contribute to establishing notability. I hope this has given you a better understanding of the standards AfC reviewers use when evaluating drafts. If you can find more independent sources that discuss Vishuddhasagar in depth, that will help establish his notability for Wikipedia purposes. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 09:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of the above editors for responding. First, like ColinFine, on an initial scan of the article, it looks well-sourced. However, when you look at the individual sources, there is not enough there to show notability. GrammarFascist's analysis is very good. In addition to his comment's, I would add that the first two sources do not appear to be from reliable sources, and the large pdf was difficult to evaluate. Remember whenever providing a source with a number of pages, to let readers know which pages refer to the subject of your article. 2-3 in-depth articles about the subject are usually enough to show notability, if they are from reliable, mainstream sources. Hope this helps. Ciao. Onel5969 <sup>TT me</sup> 14:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

I got a notification that i'm being investigated for sockpuppettry and its funny because i think they're trying to relate me with Srinu523 and we tend to have same names and same interests. So my question is how do i go about it? It seems to be an honest misunderstanding and i'm ready to to provide any help required. srini (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, srini, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While I have never been involved in a sockpuppetry investigation at Wikipedia, whether as accused, accuser, investigator or spectator, I think the advice to simply be as honest and forthcoming as possible is unlikely to steer you wrong. Good luck, and feel free to come back if you have any more specific questions. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 14:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi,srini it hasn't even been opened properly as it's not listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and they just added the investigation request on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Srinu523. Plus they have not given any evidence/diffs anyway. Unless you are a sock-puppet I would not worry about it, the page has an edit request open on it I'm sure someone will sort it out one way or another. KylieTastic (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My user page doesn't exist?

My user name is in red and when I click on it it says that there's no user page with this name, but I can still log in and create artices, I'm wondering how can I make my user page active? thank you ZaidiAsmaa (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Click the link, start adding stuff, and then save it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To add a bit more detail to RudolfRed's explanation, you can create your user page by just clicking on the link and writing whatever you want to put, but you don't have to. A user page usually contains some information about the user—so you might say "Hello, my name is __ and I'm interested in editing pages about __". Or you can put anything that will help you when editing: maybe a to do list or some useful links. User pages are entirely optional and lots of very experienced users choose not to have one, but many people like having one. If you do decide to create one, it might be worth reading the "This guideline in a nutshell" box on Wikipedia:User pages, or skimming through the page so you know what you can and can't include on your user page (this section lists what is not allowed). In general, anything that's related to Wikipedia is allowed and limited amounts of unrelated material about yourself are too.

On a separate matter, thank you for using the ~~~~ code to sign your posts, but it is not necessary to do this in the names of section headers (the box that says "Subject/headline"), only at the very end of your message. — Bilorv<sub>(talk)</sub><sup>(c)(e)</sup> 15:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

How to add more info to an existing person infobox

There is already an infobox on the Chaim Perelman page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AFm_Perelman) but it just contains an image and name. How can I add more fields to this existing box?Oregondigital (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no infobox on the Chaïm Perelman page just a photo with a caption. I suggest you copy the blank text from Template:Infobox philosopher onto the page, fill in the relevant data, and move the image into the infobox. Do not worry about, or delete, lines you can't fill in - someone else may be able to fill them in later. Please don't try to add or alter lines as only the parameters in the existing template will show. - Arjayay (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Entry keeps getting rejected

Hello,

We have had several rejections for an entry for Nature's Art Village (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nature's_Art_Village) and I'm hoping someone can help us by pointing out what needs to be fixed for the submission to be accepted.

The first rejection notice stated that the entry read too much like an advertisement, so we made changes to remove promotional language from the entry. The second rejection stated that the entry failed to show notability through secondary sources. We then added links to articles in several local and regional news publications to back up the content. We then got another rejection stating that the entry read too much like and advertisement. This is a bit frustrating since we see other area attractions like Crystal Mall, Mystic Aquarium and Mystic Seaport who have entries with fewer references to secondary sources.

Would someone be able to help us by explaining which language is problematic? Many thanks for your help!

-Chelsea

CNN519 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@CNN519: - who is "we"/"us" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CNN519. It is highly problematic to include detailed promotional language describing how wonderful your various attractions are. Language such as "Guests can dig for gems and bring them home in a souvenir bucket" belong in your brochures and on your website, not in a neutral encyclopedia article. And detailed descriptions of your various food concessions, including hours of operation "rain or shine", plus lists of the various menu items served, is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is promotional content, pure and simple. Why should an encyclopedia report that you serve root beer floats?

A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent, reliable sources say about the topic. It should not be based on what a company or organization says about itself, except the most basic uncontroversial facts. We are looking for significant coverage of the topic. A reference to an article about a "dinosaur trail" that simply reports that your attraction is one of many on that list does not establish notability, as it is not significant coverage.

I will not comment on the shopping mall article since I have no interest in malls. But it is not a good idea to try to compare your business to Mystic Seaport or Mystic Aquarium. We judge the notability of a topic based on the coverage in reliable sources as a whole, not the sources present in the article currently. When I search the New York Times archive, I see dozens of articles over the years about the seaport and the aquarium, and none about the Nature's Art Village. Many books have been written about Mystic Seaport going back decades, and it is widely considered a world class maritime museum. Four ships at the seaport are National Historic Landmarks. Yes, both of those articles should be expanded and better referenced, but the topics are indisputably notable. Millions of articles can be improved. When I search for reliable source coverage of Nature's Art Village, my initial results are scanty. It is your job to convince uninvolved editors that Nature's Art Village is notable. You have not yet done so.

My recommendation to you is to do a radical rewrite of your draft, eliminating any trace or hint of promotionalism. Prune it way back. Include only information which is discussed in independent, reliable sources. Eliminate low quality references, and emphasize high quality references. Quality is far more important than quantity when it comes to references. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 01:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Chelsea. I would like to add something to Cullen's excellent answer. Everything about your language on this page, as well as in your draft, says to me "These people are here for the purpose of promoting their product". That purpose is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in what has already been independently published about a subject, and if nothing substantial has been published (in reliable places) then there cannot be an article. If (hypothetically) it happened that there were several reliable sources and they were all or nearly all heavily critical of your establishment, then there might well be a Wikipedia article - which would cover the criticism and little else.

My advice to you is to cross out every single thing in your draft which is not directly supported by an independent source. If when you have done that you still have some material in your draft, then you can add back in some uncontroversial factual information which is support only by non-independent sources, such as the place's own website (dates, locations, for example. Opening times should not go in as they are simply not enyclopaedic). In my opinion the individual attractions should not go in unless they are mentioned by the independent sources, though some might feel that a non-independent source is enough for them. The concessions absolutely do not belong in the article in my opinion, and they are one of the things that make it promotional, independent of the language. (If an independent review singled out one of them for special mention, then it might be appropriate to mention it in the article). --ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Chelsea / CNN519. I would add to the important information the other Teahouse volunteers shared above several also-important points.

• First, Wikipedia has a one user, one username policy. That's why you were asked about your use of "we" rather than "I" earlier. If more than one person at your organization wants to edit Wikipedia, they must each have their own username.
• If you are working on this Wikipedia article as part of your job, Wikipedia's TOS requires you to disclose that you are a paid editor. Ideally you would do this both on your own user page and on the talk page of the draft article you have created.
• I know that the AfC review process can be frustrating; one of the things I do at Wikipedia is help newer editors who have had difficulty meeting the standards required by AfC reviewers, so I see the process from your "side" (though I hope everyone is on the "side" of making Wikipedia better). Even though it may not always seem like it, all Wikipedia articles are held to the same standards. I would focus on comparing your draft to the standards, rather than to other articles. You can keep working on your draft and resubmitting it, and if your organization is legitimately notable by the Wikipedia definition and the draft is edited so that it adheres to all other Wikipedia policies, it will eventually become an article. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 18:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have received a notification for speedy deletion

I am trying to create a profile for a research journal. I have received a warning message that it is promotional. This is first time I am creating a page on wiki. Do you have any suggestions how I may avoid this warning? The page I am creating is about Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and technology Mukhtiar unar (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mukhtiar unar, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will leave it to others to help you with writing style (and note that DESiegel has removed the speedy deletion nomination anyway), but just to note that a key policy of Wikipedia is that subjects need to be notable in order to merit articles. In the sense that notability is defined on Wikipedia, this means that the subject generally requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. There is some specific advice on the notability of scholarly journals at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). You'll see that that page suggests that journals need to be considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area, frequently cited by other reliable sources, or have a historic purpose or a significant history. Can I ask whether you think this is the case for Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Should I create an article for a government engineeer found dead under mysterious circumstances

An Engineer working with Indian Railways was found dead. As reported by his family, he was under constant pressure from some local scrap dealers and mafia for unlawful activities. Is this worthy of a new wikipedia article.Ravi.shekhar00 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ravi.shekhar00, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is worth having a read of WP:ONEEVENT on this. The way I see it the answer is no, involvement in one event such as this does not establish notability, unless the person's death comes to have some longer-term significance (and even in that case, an article about the event rather than the person would be more appropriate). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is also addressed in WP:NOTNEWS - there are lots of things that happen that are merely events and not encyclopedic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My first article is about to be deleted

It seems I probably jumped in and tried to write my first article Tracy Thorn: Solo: Songs and Collaborations 1982 - 2015 without reading all the rules but I'm still unsure what the problems with it are as I don't consider it be promotional blurb, more a factual account of a new album. Also I made a typo in the title (Tracy should have an "e" as in Tracey and I can't see how to edit that Micksheff (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Micksheff, User:Mz7 has already removed the speedy deletion notice from Solo: Songs and Collaborations 1982 - 2015 as they believe "the article is not unambiguously promotional, see talk page"
I suggest you wait for them to finish their edits to the article before seeing if you can add any additional information. - Arjayay (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Micksheff, welcome to the Teahouse! As Arjayay mentioned, I would actually agree with you; I didn't think the content you wrote was wholly promotional enough to qualify for speedy deletion. Note, however, that this does not prevent your article from being deleted by other processes. A good page to read before writing your first article is Wikipedia:Your first article—the page does a pretty good job at explaining our expectations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means that we should only cover topics which are encyclopedic in nature. The Wikipedia community has discussed what constitutes "encyclopedic content", and we've come up with a set of guidelines called "notability". The single most important factor which decides a topic's notability is its sources.

Generally, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In clearer terms, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only writes about what reliable sources have written about. Reliable sources include things like newspapers, reputable websites, magazines, published books, academic journals, etc. "Independent" means that sources which come from or are affiliated with the subject matter, such as Thorn's official website, don't contribute much to notability. If independent, reliable sources do not exist or do not discuss a topic in meaningful detail, it is likely Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on that topic. To improve the article, I recommend you continue to do research to find reliable sources which discuss Thorn's upcoming compilation album in detail. I've added a couple tweaks to the formatting of the page and a source myself. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Micksheff, and let me also welcome you to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia). It looks to me, from reviewing the article as it currently exists, as though the album at least will be notable in the future... but it's possible it is not yet notable now. The Exclaim! and Pitchfork articles you have cited are generally speaking the right kind for establishing notability (reliable sources and more than mere mentions of the subject) but some editors may consider them to be not long enough to count as in-depth treatment of the subject. If other such sources don't exist yet, they can be added to the article once they're published. In the meantime it might become necessary to move the article to the Drafts area of Wikipedia for further development, but we'll see what consensus develops. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback and welcome messages. It is my intention to add further information including details about its reception and reviews and its commercial success but it isn't likely to be reviewed for a couple of weeks yet so maybe moving it to the Drafts area is an option. To be honest I wasn't aware there was a Drafts area, can I move it myself or does it have to be done by admin. Alternatively if you are happy for it to stay where it is on the promise that it will be enhanced soon that would be great. For future reference can you let me know how I write an article in the Draft area? Micksheff (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Micksheff. Any autoconfirmed user can move a page, including moving it to draft-space. However you aren't autoconfirmed yet, it takes a minimum of 4 days and 10 edits, and your account isn't yet 4 days old. I will move the article to draft for you. In future, you can create an article in draft just by starting the name with "Draft:" or you can use the article wizard. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:Solo: Songs and Collaborations 1982 - 2015, Micksheff. Please do continue to inprove it there. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Kadam (clan)

Hello kind Teahouse Host. A long while ago, I copyedited Kadam (clan) and so, it was on my watch list. I notice this morning there is all sorts of weirdness going on with the editing just now. There might even be an edit war but it is difficult to tell. Is it possible an administrator might be able to create some stability at the article? I'm not sure what route to take. Many thanks, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Myrtlegroggins. It appears that one editor made a massive and unexplained set of changes. I don't know the subject area well enough to know if these are improvements or not. They aren't obvious vandalism, at least not to one who doesn't know the subject. I have removed improper formatting (mostly boldface where it doesn't belong) and formatting things that purport to be quotes and citations as such. I suggest discussion on Talk:Kadam (clan) if you disagree with the changes. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response. I don't know the subject area either. I'll see if I can find any references. Regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

All Star Mr & Mrs

Hi! I had a small question about vandalism. I help edit the page for the British game show All Star Mr & Mrs. A new series has started and it was confirmed that Martina Navratilova and her wife would be the first lesbian couple to appear on the programme, which is still sourced on the page. She appeared on the first episode this Wednesday. For the past few weeks, since the show actually was confirmed to air on ITV, I've noticed that there is an unregistered user who continually changes Martina's name for Maria Menounos and her boyfriend Kevin. It's happened as lately as earlier today a couple days after the airing of the episode, but this user keeps on reverting the name whether it's sourced or not. I don't know if the person is homophobic or not. I've heard people elsewhere criticising the gay couples saying, "it's Mr & Mrs, not Mr & Mr". But it's getting annoying, as this user is unregistered and adamant on reverting it every two days. (I know of the 3 revert rule). BTW, I am a casual user who just likes to contribute to my favorite programmes and has a busy life . I don't really fee the need to regjster, but I edit correctly learning from the other registered users for other British programmes. It jst seems like this unregistered user might be knowingly vandalising the page. Am I correct in reverting the edit evey few days when he makes his reversion? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks66.130.12.185 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC) samusek2

Hello, IP user. What you can do is to put warnings on the user's talk page, starting with the gentle {{uw-vandalism1}} and getting progressively more severe warnings if they continue. Eventually, you can report them at WP:AIV. I have put a level 2 warning on their talk page (I used WP:Twinkle to do this easily, but that is only available to users who have accounts; you can edit their talk page manually.) Please remember to assume good faith - I agree that the user is being disruptive, but we have no idea what their motive is, and shouldn't assume that we do know.

On a different point, please format the references in the article to be more helpful. At the very least, if you are using bare URL's, don't put them in brackets unless you are going to apply some display text. So

[http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week40/all-star-mr-mrs]

displays as

[2],

whereas

http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week40/all-star-mr-mrs

displays as the rather more useful

http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week40/all-star-mr-mrs.

Even better, use one of the citation templates such as {{cite web}}. See Referencing for beginners for how to do this. --ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, ColinFine, However, I saw that you put the warning on my account talk page. I can edit Wikipedia from two households and you can see my warning from both IP Addresses. It's the other unregistered user who reverts Martina for Maria. The user below, Grammarfascist, sent a warning to that user. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks greatly for the good advice and will try to remember that in future. Wikipedia does seem to be a tad confusing sometimes. 66.130.12.185 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)samusek2

Apologies: yes, I put the warning on the wrong page, and have now removed it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, IP user at 66.130.12.185. Thanks for helping protect Wikipedia from vandalism. Yes, you are correct to revert vandalism when you find some. You should be careful to assume good faith and consider the possibility that another user has made their edit in good faith, as a general rule, but the case you describe does certainly sound likely to be vandalism.

I see that the repeated replacement of Martina Navratilova's name with Maria Menounos's goes back to mid-September. These changes have been made by a variety of IP addresses, however, so I don't know how effective an IP block would even be, if an administrator were to consider one appropriate. In the meantime, please continue to check on the page as you are able. I will also add it to my watchlist, but I am terrible at keeping up with my watchlist. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 08:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have placed the {{subst:Welcome-anon-unconstructive}} welcome message, which warns against unconstructive edits, on the pages of the IP users who have made the Navratilova > Menounos change. (I think I got them all.) You could use this template in future instead of typing an entirely custom message, IP user. Thanks again for reverting the incorrect information. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 09:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)