Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 470

Archive 465

←

Archive 468

Archive 469

Archive 470

Archive 471

Archive 472

→

Archive 475

Change of My Article Name

I have changed my Article Name by using the " MOVE" option.It has created a new page..right now old & new both pages still exists.How to solve this issue ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandaDulalMaity (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse NandaDulalMaity, there is only one copy of the article: Mrigendra Nath Maity is only a Wikipedia:Redirect to Mrigendra Nath Maiti. Redirects are useful to readers because they resolve misspellings. —teb728 t c 06:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

how best to define terminology...glossary? footnotes?

Hello again, this is regarding the draft, AEDP... One editor suggested the level of vocabulary and terminology may over-reach the average reader. I'm wondering if it will help to add a glossary, or footnotes in orderbto clarify a term (which may seem like jargon, but these are actually non-replicable terms for specific concepts). Also, I plan to submit the lead paragraph and its references before the body of the article. The article itself breaks down the meaning of the lead paragraph point-by-point. How can I give a heads up to the editors that while the lead paragraph could stand on its own, the concepts will be clarified in the body of at the article. I am worried it will be declined for the reasons of jargon and readability as an editor in this teahouse suggested (sorry, I can't remember the name).Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly recommend creating it as a draft, and only moving it to article space once it is acceptable as an article. If you don't, it is likely to get deleted for the reasons you mention (and possibly others too). Maproom (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

To add to the above - a lead paragraph cannot "stand on its own", as it must be a summary of the rest of the article, supported by the references therein. Maproom (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Perm address to my article

I have an article ready to be published but I can't seem to publish it officially. It continues to show as a draft. How can I publish it and obtain a perm URL? Ramirezp (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ramirezp. The best way is to submit if for review, by inserting the template {{subst:submit}} at the top (exactly like that, with the double curly brackets). When somebody reviews it (which may take a week or two) they will either accept it, and transfer it to mainspace for you, or else give you feedback about what in there opinion needs to be improved. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ramirezp. Can you specify exactly which draft you wish to add to the mainspace? I looked at your edit history and it looks like you are currently working on Draft:Xochitl Chávez and Draft:Olivia Cadaval. This is just my opinion, but I feel that both drafts are still not ready to be added as articles. I suggest you continue to submit them via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the suggestions left by reviewers such as Robert McClenon. AfC reviewers tend to be very experienced editors who are well-versed in Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and their suggestions for improving drafts are meant to help you improve yours. I don't advise you try to move these drafts directly to the mainspace yourself as some editors sometimes try to do because such articles are usually quickly nominated for deletion for one reason or another which can be quite the shock when it happens to you. Finally, please be advised that we as editors do not own the articles, etc. we create or edit. Most experienced editors will refrain from editing the draft of another editor out of consideration unless there are some serious policy issues (e.g., copyright violations or BLP violations, etc.) which require immediate attention; however, once a draft is added to the mainspace it is there for anyone to edit at anytime and concerns about the encyclopedic quality of the article generally take precedence over other things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC) ‎

Ramirezp, a few comments:

• I've looked at Draft:Xochitl Chávez, and removed a good deal of it as it appeared to have been copied more or less directly from sources on the internet. Everything you write in Wikipedia must (with a few rare exceptions) be entirely in your own words.
• You've very properly declared your conflict of interest on your user page – thank you! It might be helpful if you were to add the name of the institution to that declaration. I believe you should also add a declaration to the talk page if you edit any article, draft or talk page connected with that institution.
• Draft:Xochitl Chávez needs a good deal of work. As a first step, I suggest stripping out the remaining weblinks in the body text (not the references, but things like Smithsonian Latino Virtual Museum Art and Culture Podcast), as we don't do that; and removing all references that are connected to the subject of the article, such as those from the Smithsonian Latino Center and Smithsonian Latino Virtual Museum. If after that there are enough independent reliable sources to establish that Ms Chávez is notable by our standards, the page has a chance of being accepted. WP:PROF gives the notability criteria for academics.
• Please remember that Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind, in any space including Draft space.

Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

draft declined question

Hello,

i was editing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Easirent and it was declined twice. I tried and entered as much reputable sources as possible but i wonder if i should also include other websites or blog articles. Please help me to understand if the problem is with the referencing of the text or the references. Thank you! Kchatzia (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Kchatzia. The issue with Draft:Easirent is that the two references cited don't sufficiently demonstrate the notability of the subject. On Wikipedia, notability is established if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. A couple of regional newspaper reports (even if the newspaper is a well-known one such as the Echo) aren't really enough to constitute "significant coverage". Ideally, you need to add more sources to the article. Coverage in national newspapers would go a long way towards establishing notability. I would avoid citing blogs, as they are not generally considered reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphan?

Why does wikipedia say my site is an orphan page when i clearly have links from other wiki site pages to it. Sporting Markets (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Tags such as the orphan tag are added and removed manually. As the article is no longer an orphan I have removed the tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

And I've blanked and listed Professional Football Scouts Association because of foundational copyright violations. In any case, it doesn't seem to me that this organisation is notable by our standards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft page

Hello, i am attempting to make a page for a sculptor named Michael Bolus. I have only started today so it is very basic work in progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelBolusStudio/sandbox I would appreciate any comments as to whether the subject may be passed for publication, with further citations etc and i have a technical question At the moment the page is headed by my user name, how do i make it the subjects name? TIA MichaelBolusStudio (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelBolusStudio, and welcome to the Teahouse. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia articles should be written almost 100% based on what independent sources have published about the subject, and those sources should be cited explicitly (but not quoted, except for short, explicit quotes: the articles should summary what the sources say in new words, not repeat it). If you know something, but it has not been published, don't put it in. Ever.

It follows that the very first step in creating an article (after making sure it does not already exist) is to find several reliable published sources that discuss the subject at some length, but are completely independent of the subject - not just published by somebody else, but written indepedently (so not based on interviews or press releases). If you cannot find several such sources, then give up: the subject does not at present meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you can find some, then you can start writing an article, based only on what the sources say. This is all summarised in Your first article, which I encourage you to read straight away.

It's a good move to start it in your sandbox, because if you start writing it in the main article space, it would immediately be subject to scrutiny, and do deletion if it fell short. This way, you can develop it in peace, and when you think it is ready for release, pick the "Submit your draft for review" at the top, and if the reviewer accepts it, they will look after moving it out of your user space to the right name. It is not ready at present, mostly because you have no references at all: please see referencing for beginners.

However, there are a couple of administrative problems that you need to be aware of. First, your user name is not acceptable: user names may not be used by multiple people, or suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation. Accounts must be personal to individuals: you don't have to use your real name (I do, but plenty of people use pseudonyms), but it must be your own personal account. See User names. Secondly, if you are connected with Bolus, then you have a Conflict of interest. This doesn't forbid you from writing the article, but you are discouraged from doing so because you may find it hard to be sufficiently neutral (though the text you have written so far is not particularly promotional, so well done). But you should disclose your conflict of interest if you have a connection; and if you are in any way paid for doing this (eg if you are an employee of Bolus), then you must disclose this under Wikipedia's terms of service: see PAID.

My personal advice is that, as well as reading all the pages I've linked to above, you put this to one side for a while, and get some experience of how Wikipedia works by finding existing articles which need improvement, and working on them: writing a new article is hard. --ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

My short contribution/edit went under a wrong heading.

Wikipedia Page: Development Communication >>> Development Communication Policy Science.

My short write-up should have been a new section "9.9 Development Communication and Gender Equality" under "9. Development Communication Policy Science," but instead my write up was inserted under the heading "9.8 Development Communication in the Information Age." Can you please put my short write-up under the appropriate/correct heading? Thanks much. Potsko101 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You hadn't marked the heading for the new section. I have now done so in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Username change

Hi. I want to know if my username could be changed please?

I am new and did not know it would be such a big deal to change something like that when I signed up. I am currently using my fullname and surname and that is not ideal for extended reasons.

Can it be changed to: Lielies

And if it is changed will everything stay the same or am I going to lose things like my userpage and contributions etc.?

We have been given a Multimedia Honours degree assignment that stretches over the the whole year and would not want to lose everything I have already done and fail the course as everything counts towards your final mark.

Thanks

LlewellynDeJager (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The process is described at Wikipedia:Changing username. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Drafted an article & want to edit it but have some issues

Dears,

I have drafted an article titled "Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan", and copied some text from article titled "Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, now I want to change the text, as per the requirement of the article & want to remove the non- related text but I received the message below from Laberkiste.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Laber□T 13:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone help me please?

RegardsMzl azakheli (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mzl azakheli. Are you saying that you initially copied the whole of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf to Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan, and then set about changing the content to refer to a different party? That's really not an advisable way to do things, because it means that for several days there was an article which you had knowingly created with wrong information. (It would be OK to copy it to your user space, eg User:Mzl azahkeli/Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan and work on it there.

It looks to me as if Laberkiste saw you deleting large chunks of the article, and that looked like vandalism to them, because they didn't realise how you had created it: that is the other reason why you shouldn't do things like this in main space.

In any case, the thing to do now is to have a discussion with Laberkiste on the article's talk page, and agree what needs to be done. If my interpretation above is correct, you shouldn't have any difficult reaching agreement. --ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Note also that rules for attribution and copyright apply to copying within Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

how to tell if the article i copied to my sandbox is in the right place

i am editing my first article. I copied it to my sandbox and added stuff. but now i am not sure it is in the right place in the sandbox because i pasted it and then below it it says "edit below this line" should i move it? also do i put the sign icon in the subject or the body of the post??Lotta Little (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lotta Little. It really doesn't matter where it is in your sandbox, because when you are ready to put it back into the article, you are going to have to copy and paste the section anyway. Copy and paste is not recommended for within Wikipedia, because it can lose history (attribution information). When you want to copy it back, you are going to have to look at the history of Ann Charlotte Bartholomew, and make sure that nobody else has made any changes while you have been working on your own copy; if they have, you need to incorporate their changes into your text (or make a positive decision not to, in which case you should explain your decision in the edit summary or on the talk page). It is very much easier to edit existing articles in place than to take a copy. (Don't worry about breaking something: all previous versions are still there, and it is easy to revert to an older version if necessary). --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed your last question: put it at the end of the body (as you have) not in the header (as you also have). --ColinFine (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your draft mostly looks good for a minor but notable artist a hundred fifty years, and is almost ready for acceptance. Please try to find any more reliable sources about her. The list of other artists who have exhibited is probably not useful and could benefit from deletion (but I am guessing that it is a left-over from the Art and Feminism project). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice that I used an odd phrase "minor but notable", and I stand by it. If anything has been written about an artist who lived a hundred fifty years ago that still survives, she is notable, even if she was minor at the time. Issues about notability usually apply to living persons or existing companies or bands. If anything was written in a serious medium a hundred fifty years ago that is still extent, the subject is notable. In fact, a good rule for notability might be: "Do you expect that, a hundred years from now, there will be a passing mention of this person by scholars or journalists? If so, the person is notable. If not, they probably are not." Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

How to change the main title

Hello! I am an intern for the free port of Ventspils and they suggested I could improve the Wiki page about Free port of Ventspils. Basically the story goes around the port in general and it would be more accurate to name the page - port of Ventspils. The free port organization is just a part of the port. We made the change in Latvian and were hoping we could also do this in English. Hoping for an answer,

Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde: and welcome to the Teahouse. I've started a move discussion at Talk:Free port of Ventspils about moving the page. Anyone is free to contribute to the discussion, and once a consensus is reached, it will either be moved/not moved. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Need more help..

Hello,

I am new and am being paid to write/post articles by friends of friends who are busy! ;)

I had no idea that this was a potential COI, but have had it brought to my attention.

I have read policies about this, but as I have said in a previous post, I have some learning disabilities that make it very difficult to process all the info in front of me.

I can't even figure out how to post or reply to my own talk page.

Is there anyone who might be willing to walk me through what I need to do to disclose my being paid?

Thank you!!!

MelissBelle (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @MelissBelle: The simplest way to disclose your paid editing status is to put a note on your userpage along the lines of "I've been paid by X to create article Y".

Also, you are highly recommended to submit any paid articles via articles for creation, which is the process you used for Julia Flynn Siler. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@josep2302 Thank you, again!

MelissBelle (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ExtendedConfirmed Right

I looked at the user rights log, and lots of people have been promoted to ExtendedConfirmed. What is that? Peter Sam Fan 23:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter SamFan. Wikipedia:Extendedconfirmed says: "The 'extendedconfirmed' user access level is granted automatically to registered editors with 30 days tenure and 500 edits. This user access right allows editors to edit pages with Arbitration 30/500 protection." This was also brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at Special:Log/rights. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have more than 30 days and 500 edits but am not in that group. Maybe it's not automatic? RudolfRed (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: You joined the group the moment you made this edit. The group was introduced a few hours ago and is automatically assigned the first time a qualifying user makes an edit after that time. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The user rights log [1] shows it started being assigned 23:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC). User:Jack Gaines was the first. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Charitable organisations

Hi there,

I am new on Wikipedia .since last few weeks I am trying to add one of the reputed International charitable volunteers organisation ( SMILE Society ,India).I am in the field of volunteering since last 25 years and I found this organization really good and hope they should be included in wiki. I tried to give third party sources ,like websites,books,image etc but still it is not accepted !? If any can guide me?(Kamalaindia (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

Kamalaindia, Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm glad to see your interest in Wikipedia. However, there are two issues here; notability, and conflict of interest. You need to demonstrate that the subject of your article is notable, and the basic threshold for that is our general notability guideline, which requires substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. You have added secondary sources, but none of these actually have very substantial coverage; the book I could access had only two lines, and the other didn't seem much better. The second issue is that of conflict of interest. I'm not sure if you have personal connections to SMILE society, but if you do, you shouldn't edit articles about them. I would recommend reading WP:COI. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your answer. About books I think there are few references already given like lonely planet ,gap year etc. Hope that should work cause I have found pages that been accepted on the basis of these types of ref. If there are any other types of ref might help the article ? Please guide. About myself ,I already wrote earlier that I am a volunteer and I did volunteering with many organisations including SMILE Society . I believe organisation like them should be included in wiki . Looking forward to hear any advice ,guide and suggestions . (Kamalaindia (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

Trying to Update Intro for American Actor/Comedian Steve Rannazzisi

I would like to update the page of American comedian/actor Steve Rannazzisi. A major aspect of his public persona is omitted from the introduction and the entry is incomplete as a result.

Rannazzisi built his career saying he escaped the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11. He didn't. This is something that defines his public persona and should not be buried in the text as it is now.

Rannazzisi's career is inexorably linked to his 9/11 story. He began telling it to comedians immediately after moving to Los Angeles days after the attack. He began telling elaborate versions of the lie publicly starting in 2009.He shared detailed accounts on multiple comedy podcasts and interviews. The New York Times was going to out his false narrative in September 2015, but Rannazzisi admitted it publicly hours before the story ran.

Typing "Steve Rannazzisi" into google returns 172,000 hits, with mulitple mentions of the lie on the first page. "Steve Rannazzisi 9/11" returns nearly 60,000 hits on google. So more than a third of his presence on the internet is tied to the falsehood. Type in "Steve Rannazzisi" and click the "News" feed in google and you'll see scores of articles on the subject.

It is absolutely integral that his connection to a lie he told for 14 years be mentioned prominently in his bio. It belongs in the first paragraph, if not part of the first sentence.

References

187Journalist (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would have helped if you had provided the article link, which is Stephen Rannazzisi. The article as written, and it has not been updated since Friday, does state that his claim is not true. However, from the wording of your entire post, it appears that you are here to Right a Great Wrong, rather than to facilitate the Wikipeida policies of neutral point of view and biographies of living persons. Read the policies and read your post above and consider how best to implement those policies. The article does state that he did not escape from the World Trade Center. What, if anything more, do you think is necessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert,

Thank you for getting back to me. Sorry for all the links I dumped on you, the one for Mr. Rannazzisi's Wikipedia page should be toward the top.

I'm suggesting an update Mr. Rannazzisi's biography intro because it omits something he's well-known for. His prolific lie became national news and to this day people remark about the scandal on his social media accounts.

I have no intention nor desire to subvert Wikipedia. Requesting this update is all about accuracy. A significant percentage of online stories and web mentions about Mr. Rannazzisi demonstrate this one of the two things he is known for. He was on the League and he lied about escaping from the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Updating the intro paragraph of his Wikipedia biography won't right a great wrong or inject opinion into the content. It merely includes a significant chapter of his career.

My suggestion is to tack on a quick sentence to the bio portion. For example:

Stephen Rannazzisi (born July 4, 1978) is an American actor and stand-up comedian who co-starred as fantasy football league player Kevin MacArthur in the FXX comedy series The League . In September 2015, Rannazzisi admitted to lying for 14 years about escaping the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 attacks.

References

187Journalist (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi 187Journalist. The Teahouse is typically a place for editors to come and ask general questions about editing, etc. Detailed discussions about article content such as this are more suited for the relevant article talk page. This makes it much easier for other editors watching the article to be made aware of your concerns and comment as they see fit. Since Rannazzisi is still living, the article about him is subject to WP:BLP; therefore, care needs to be taken regarding adding anything which might be seen as contentious per WP:UNDUE. I also see you have discussed this on your user talk page as well and your edit requests have been declined by very experienced editors. Please be advised that forum shopping in the hope you'll eventually find someone to agree with you is not really considered to be appropriate and might even be seen as disruptive to some. My suggestion is that you take your concerns to the article's talk page to see if there is a consensus for the change your proposing. You can be bold if you wish, but something such as this is likely to be reverted by another editor which means you'll end up on the article's talk page anyway; so, I think it's best to be a bit cautious here. If nobody responds to your post after a fair amount of time, then you might claim you have achieved a silent consensus and make the change. If you're subsequently reverted, follow the steps in WP:DR. For more specific advice regarding this, try asking for assistance at WP:BLPN, but makes sure you carefully read the instructions at the top of the page before posting. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How is this not neutral?

I created a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Finley and it was removed because it was not reading like a neutral encyclopedia. Can someone please give me more substantial pointers on what I need to go better?

Stayhomegal (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stayhomegal. First, I recommend that you read our notability guideline for scholars, which is located at WP:ACADEMIC. It would be very unusual for a PhD candidate to meet that guideline. Your draft refers to her as "Dr." but indicates she is not yet a PhD. Why is that? Since she wrote a book, you may also want to read WP:AUTHOR.

Your draft lacks a range of standard biographical details about the person, except for her tribal affiliation. If this person is actually notable as Wikipedia defines that term, then that information should be readily available. It is up to you to show that she is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the draft Draft:Chris Finley has not been removed, but the submission that it be published as a Wikipedia article has been declined, for the reasons explained in the previous answer. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a minor comment, Stayhomegal, but you have written that Finley is a co-author of this book, but in fact she is a co-editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

internal links

Hello Teahouse I am trying to add an internal link on a sandbox page for a name that has many entries on wikipedia. The specific name i need to refernce is not the one in the insert link box and when i add the correct url in 'target page or url' it tells me that it is an invalid title. What should i do? TIA Greensaulberg (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you problem was with the link to William G Tucker, you perhaps intended William G. Tucker? If your problem is with the various links you have to disambiguation pages, you should replace those links with the article title as given at the top of the relevant article (not a url). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made 3 edits to reflect what I think you intended. You are, of course, welcome to revert any or all of them if I got it wrong. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi David and thanks for helping.

The name i was trying to link to is Philip King (artist) There are many Philip king's on Wikipedia and this one is very hard to find! I have used the article title as suggested. Thanks again! Greensaulberg (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As you've probably realised, the choice of titles for disambiguated articles may not be entirely consistent. Some of those linked from your page are ...(sculptor) whereas this one is ...(artist). Note that he is Phillip King (artist) with a double-l, but there is a link from the disambiguation page Philip King to the other disambiguation page Phillip King. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

children

can children use Wikipedia Rushiv123 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Guidance is available at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:Advice for parents. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations

I've been rewriting an article in which the many citations for sources that are magazine and newspaper articles don't include the titles of the articles as they should (the articles with online links also have the entire citation hyperlinked rather than just the title as it should be). I've looked into a couple of bots, but I can't determine if any of them could add the article titles and fix the linking issue. Is there a bot that will do the trick, or must I fix all 117 citations manually? WikiEditorial101 (talk)

From what I understand you can use refill or its equivalent. If you have any more questions feel free to {{P|Zppix}} me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zppix (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 April 2016‎ (UTC)

I think you might need to explain that in more detail, Zppix, as editors asking questions at the Teahouse are unlikely to know what "refill or its equivalent" is. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point what I am talking about can be found here reFill by Zhaofeng. (Also don't be me and forget to sign :D ) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing messages from top of article

This is regarding the page Stevens Worldwide Van Lines. I have made edits to make the content sound less like an advertisement and more notable, however there are still messages on top of the article that say it was written like an advertisement, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and that a major contributor has a close connection. I was wondering what other work needs to be done in order to have these messages taken down? Ottaway (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Tags at the top of articles are supplied by editors and are removed by editors. (There seems to be a belief by some editors that there may be a bot that removes them. There is not, and one would not be feasible.) If, in your opinion, you have successfully resolved the neutrality problem, you may remove that tag. Be aware that the editor who tagged the article is likely to have it watchlisted. Be ready to discuss the removal of the tag with them if they either revert the tag removal by inserting it or discuss the tag. As to the major contributor tag, that is a little less straightforward. If a significant amount of the text was still written by the major contributor, I would not remove the tag without discussing on the article talk page first, but discussing on an article talk page is often a good idea. I would suggest bold, revert, discuss for the neutrality tag, and discuss and reach consensus for the major contributor tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I just read Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, and I will revise my advice. It appears that you were the original author of the article, on 31 March, and that other editors applied the tags (and another tag, now removed). First, it would be very unwise for you to take it on yourself to remove any tag that was applied to an article that you wrote. Discuss the tags at the talk page. Do you in fact have a conflict of interest? Are you paid or employed by Stevens Van Lines? If so, have you made the required disclosure of Paid Editing? If not, make it now. If you have a COI, you should not be editing the article, but only discussing it, and you certainly should not remove the tag. (Maybe next time I will read the article and its history before assuming good faith and giving a policy-based explanation rather than an article-based opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This web page may help to confirm the CoI. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding infoboxes to Wikipedia entries

I am attempting to add an infobox to a Wikipedia incubator entry - (full page address: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kbp/Moli%C3%A8re_Jean_Baptiste_Poquelin) - that I am editing, however when I preview the changes, I simply get the link and message:

Template:Infobox Écrivain and no more... Clicking on the link gives an error screen with the message:

Template:Infobox Écrivain Error: This page is unprefixed.

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs.

The code for the infobox is as follows:

{{Infobox Écrivain
 | nom                = Molière
 | image              = Molière - Nicolas Mignard (1658).jpg
 | légende            = Molière dans le rôle de César dans ''La Mort de Pompée'', peint par [[Nicolas Mignard]] ([[1658]]). Collection Comédie-Française de Paris.
 | nom de naissance   = Jean-Baptiste Poquelin
 | surnom             = Molière
 | activités          = Comédien, dramaturge et poète
 | date de naissance  = Baptisé le {{date|15|janvier|1622|au théâtre}}
 | lieu de naissance  = [[Rue Saint-Honoré]], [[Paris]] ([[Royaume de France|France]])
 | date de décès      = {{date de décès|17|février|1673|15|janvier|1622}}
 | lieu de décès      = [[Rue de Richelieu]], [[Paris]] ([[Royaume de France|France]])
 | langue             = français
 | mouvement          = [[classicisme]]
 | genre              = [[comédie]], [[comédie-ballet]]
 | distinctions       = 
 | adjectifs dérivés  = 
 | œuvres principales = 
 | complément         = 
 | signature          = 
}}

I can personally see nothing wrong with this code, although I am not very experienced in creating Wikipedia entries. This code has been compared with that in another page with an infobox and there seems to be no significant differences.

I would be grateful for any help or input.

--SFLord (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi SFLord
You appear to be trying to use a French template on the English Wikipedia - try using Template:Infobox writer instead - Arjayay (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Arajay for your reply and suggestion - unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The eventual page will be in a language named Kabiye, however the trade language in that area is French. The following code is for a different page with some keywords in Kabiye and others in English - these will eventually be translated into Kabiye...

{{Wp/kbp/Ɛjaɖɛ | Hɩɖɛ = . | Hɩɖɛ2 = . | Kɩɖaʋ kɩdɛɛka = [[File:Flag of Cameroon.svg|thumb|Kameruuni kɩɖaʋ kɩdɛɛka]] | Ɛjaɖɛ tɛ tampaɣ = [[File:Coat of arms of Cameroon.svg|thumb|Kameruuni ɛjaɖɛ tɛ tampaɣ]] | image_map = [[File:Cameroon-CIA WFB Map.png|thumb|Cameroon-CIA WFB Map]] | official_languages = . | capital = . | government = . | president = . | area_km2 = . | population_estimate = . | population_estimate_year = . | population_density_km2 = . | cctld = . }}

You can find that page at: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kbp/Cam%C3%A9roune

Since there are 2 different infoboxes in use - one of which is not working - I am beginning to suspect that the Écrivain infobox has been deleted. --SFLord (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The OP has changed the wording of his question since you answered it, Arjayay. It now appears that his question applies not to the English Wikipedia but to the Wikimedia incubator in the Kabye language. You need to realise, SFLord, that this Teahouse is for questions regarding the English Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi SFLord
Please don't refactor (re-write) your question after it has been answered as it makes it difficult for people to follow
You appear to be writing an article for the Kabye Wikipedia - Unless there is an equivalent template on the Kabye Wikipedia, I suspect you cannot use any template - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

David and Arajay - thanks for your help, it now seems clear that the template in use does not work and we will have to create a new one... (which does!) or alternatively the Écrivain template has been deleted (which will undoubtedly cause some confusion!). I have placed an identical question on the Incubator Community Portal - as per your advice.

--SFLord (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. You would need to transfer the template - and any templates and modules that it depends on - to the Kabyle Wikipedia first. As far as I know, templates cannot be shared among Wikipedias. --ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: - SFLord is working in the Kabye language, not the Kabyle language which is different. And there is not, as yet, a Kabye Wikipedia. The incubator in which he is working is a test bed for developers. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@SFLord: Code of form {{X|...}} is calling a template called X. See Help:A quick guide to templates. The template must be defined at the wiki where the code is used. Each wiki has different templates. The French Wikipedia is at https://fr.wikipedia.org. The template at fr:Modèle:Infobox Écrivain can only be used at the French Wikipedia. Incubator does not have a template with that name so you see a red link when you try to use the same name there. incubator:Wp/kbp/Caméroune has code of form {{Wp/kbp/Ɛjaɖɛ|...}}. The code works because there is a template at incubator:Template:Wp/kbp/Ɛjaɖɛ The same code fails here at the English Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org because we have no template of that name. There are three potential solutions: 1) Find another useful template which does exist at Incubator (there may not be any). 2) Create a template yourself (this can be difficult). 3) Don't use a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Have learned A LOT today! ...but still more questions..

Well, I now know how to post on talk pages, and that I need to seriously work on my Wiki-skills! I previously agreed to help another person by posting a page, but after today, I am wondering if there is a way to write a completely neutral, integral article? I am a full-time student and mom, and I am not making much but I would be given a small honorarium for writing that frankly, I need. I am positive that the subject's of the articles would also want an unbiased tone, and I am basically being paid for my time. I realize that I am putting it all out there, here but I would rather be honest. I would love any tips for writing neutral, unbiased articles.

I plan on doing some serious reading about this, but again, I do have learning disabilities that make reading the intense, Wikipedia 'how to' articles overwhelming for me and comments help me to absorb them.

Thank you!!! MelissBelle (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh! and I forgot to ask for anyone who is willing to help make my current (and only) article more neutral.

MelissBelle (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MelissBelle. My suggestion to you is to carefully read WP:NOPAY and WP:PAID. Getting paid to write an article might sound like a great chance to make some easy money to you, but unfortunately Wikipedia does not see it the same way and such at attempt is likely going to be highly scrutinized and opposed by other editors. If you feel that the person who wants you to write the article is truly notable per WP:GNG, then try asking for help at Wikipedia:Requested articles. If there's really enough for to be written, someone there will eventually write one. You should understand that doing it yourself is going to be really hard and there's absolutely no guarantee that whatever you come up with will be approved or survive a deletion duscussion. The other person should also be made aware of WP:OWN and WP:LUC because having a Wikipedia article written about you does have a possible downside. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be lots of things so it' important that you and the other person understand that before you start to save time, effort and money. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@marchjuly

Thank you so much for this! I did not even know about the requested articles option. I will try that. I have to say though, this has been ANYTHING but EASY money! At this point, after all of the time Iv'e put in, I'm losing money.

Is there anyway to ensure that my article isn't deleted?

MelissBelle (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with a maybe. Any editor can nominate any article for deletion at any time. An article may be nominated for speedy deletion if certain criteria are satisfied. An article with less serious issues may be prodded for deletion when it's believed that the consensus of any deletion discussion about the article would clearly be to delete. Finally, less clear cases are discussed at AfD. AfD discussions only focus is to determine on whether the subject an article satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. So, the best way to help an article survive on Wikipedia is to ensure that it does not fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion and that it does satisfy WP:GNG. Try to understand that "notability" (as defined here on Wikipedia) is not determined by how well or how poorly an article is written. In other words, editors are encouraged to fix things they can fix before nominating an article for deletion, but notability (or the lack thereof) is not something we can improve/increase through our editing per WP:ARTN. Many well-written articles have been deleted simply because the subject was deemed to be not notable for an article. Similarly, many poorly written articles have been kept because the notability of the subject was well established. All that needs to be shown per WP:NEXIST is that suitable sources which can be used to establish notability do exist. Finally, the main reason I say "maybe" is because Wikipedia guidelines and policies are constantly changing, so there is no 100% guarantee that what is considered acceptable today will also be considered acceptable in the future. The best you can do is to try and comply with the current notability guideline. If you do that, the article has a good chance of surviving any challenge to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly

Again, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this.

This is all making sense to me now...I think I will work on the notability guideline myself, even though it's probably not the best. I don't really know what else to do, as it seems not many are willing to help with that.

Again, thank you.

MelissBelle (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

First article - Can Someone Help Me?

Hey there, I just signed up as a contributor. Created my first page servicemasterbyzaba and received quite some feedback.

I'm not sure where to start, but really want to learn since I'd love to be a Wiki contributor for years to come. I love the cause and have donated money to the Wiki Foundations in the last couple of years.

Hope someone can take a look at the page and send me some positive thoughts / ideas.

My very best, DirkDirkypenburg (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

At this point, since you want positive thoughts, my first suggestion is to move the page from article space, where it is likely to be nominated for deletion, to draft space, where it will be declined with comments and suggestions for improvement. As it stands, the only reason why I am not nominating it for deletion is that you have made a good-faith request for help. Second, if you really want to help Wikipedia in general, and are not just here to get an article about a particular business (or person or band) approved, please be aware that writing new articles is the hardest of Wikipedia tasks, and that editing is less difficult and a good way to learn how Wikipedia works. In particular, if English is your native language, and it appears that it is, then copy-editing articles written by editors whose English is limited is a good way to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To be less positive, I will ask: Are you in any way affiliated with the company? If so, please make the required conflict of interest disclosure, and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse

I want to edit newly created articles and develop them,how can i do ? where can i get newly created artilcles? (Placibo100 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest that you start by improving Anesthetic hazards, which is otherwise in danger of being deleted. I have put some useful links on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The page was deleted. They may ask to have it restored to user space or draft space via Requests for Undeletion. However, since it was declined as largely duplicating another article, they would do well to review their draft and the existing article and add any new information (with sources) to the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't get an image to upload..

Hi there,

I am really new to Wikipedia, but offered to help an author friend create a page for her. It is live, and have been sent comments, but I don't understand all of the jargon, and can't figure out how to reply to them!

I am most confounded by my inability to upload the image she sent me to add to her page. Could anyone help with this, or upload it on my behalf?

I am so green, and unfortunately have some learning disabilities that make absorbing Wikipedia's meaty guidelines overwhelming..would be grateful for any assistance!

Thank you!!!

192.235.5.91 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please log in and tell us the article name. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I logged in and the name of the article is Julia Flynn Siler.

Thank you!!

MelissBelle (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again MelissBelle. The reason you were unable to add the photo to the file is that only files that have been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons can be added to articles. It appears that you were trying to add a photo located on an external website (not the Wikipedia servers) which is something that you cannot do. You can find out more information about this at Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1. One very important thing to understand about images is that not everything you find the Internet is suitable for upload to either Wikipedia or Commoms. Commons only accepts images which are freely licensed or in the public domain (see c:Commons:Licensing for more details). You should try and verify the copyright status of the photo your friend sent you before trying to upload it. If your friend took the photo herself or is the original copyright holder of the photo, then she should consider donating the image to Wikipedia per WP:DCM. If she's not the copyright holder (the photographer generally holds the copyright, not the subject of the photo), then you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holder and their explicit consent in writing to freely license the image for any use by anyone anywhere in the world for any purpose (including commercial) per WP:CONSENT.

Wikipedia does allow certain copyright-protected images to be uploaded as non-free content, but there are restrictions placed on how they may be used. Unfortunately, one of these is that images of living people generally do not satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content policy because in most cases it's possible for a freely licensed photo which is capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose to be taken and uploaded, which would apply in this particular case.

Finally, please try to explain to your friend that the article may be written about her, but it is not "her" article as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Subjects of article are not granted any sort of final editorial control over how the article is edited, but they do have some recourse to resolve issues as explained in WP:BLPCOMPLAINT. Images are no different than textual context in that adding/removing them is often decide through consensus in the absence of serious policy concerns. All images must comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy and those that do not can be removed by any editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly

Thank you for this. I sincerely appreciate all of the extra help. My brain has trouble processing large articles like the ones you linked, but I truly do wish to abide by the guidelines, so your notes are great.

Just to clarify, as I have stated all over Wikipedia at this point, the subject is not a 'friend'-in the literal sense of the word. I have actually never met her in person, but is a friend of a friend. She was to give me a small honorarium for the article, but at this point, I am considering removing it. I had no idea of the COI, as I'm sure she did not either, all I know is that she wanted a 3rd party who did not know her to handle this. I have never written an article before, but it seemed straight-forward and I structured the article similarly to others I had come across.

Live and learn, I guess.

As far as the image, the photo was taken for a magazine and the subject was given permission by the photographer to use it. I'm not sure if that makes a difference..

MelissBelle (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MelissBelle: if the photographer is giving permission then please refer them to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. They need to understand and agree that the licence they are granting gives unrestricted re-use of the photo anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose, not just Wikipedia. The photographer should send their consent to the licence to permissionswikimedia.org. Nthep (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nthep

Thank you!

MelissBelle (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Explicit images in personal user page

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia, and noticed two explicit images in my personal user page last night. I have since removed them, at firs thinking it might be something that happens a lot with people trolling on Wikipedia, but I am wondering if anyone has any insight into what this might be or how this happened? I can't see any edit history in my page. Any help would be much appreciated!Mprofio (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mprofio, welcome to the Teahouse. Your user page is User:Mprofio. There is no sign it has displayed images or been edited by you or anyone else since 30 March. Are you referring to some other page? Special:Contributions/Mprofio shows the edits by your account. Is this about another account? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox and User images

Hello again Teahouse I am trying to upload an image to my sandbox. I have read the article at: Wikipedia:Uploading images However Special:Upload will not allow me use. Do i need special privileges or am i just in the wrong place (Special:Upload,) TIA Greensaulberg (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your account would need to be WP:autoconfirmed, but it was created only yesterday. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

'90 days and 100 edits' i guess that's the requirement ))

OK thanks David, I'll get to work! I have done 3 edits already so....... Greensaulberg (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are being caught by the unusual "90 days and 100 edits" requirement, I would recommend that you try to avoid using the Tor (anonymity network), & then you would be back to the normal 4 days and 10 edits. (You already have 43 edits). --David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi David

I just read about 90 days etc in the 'WP autoconfirmed' link that you sent. I am not aware that i am using @Tor (anonymity network)'. I just get told that i need special privileges when i use 'special upload' to try and upload images. I guess i have to wait another 3 days? Greensaulberg (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If you read WP:autoconfirmed again you'll see that the "90 days and 100 edits" applies to those using IPBE and Tor (anonymity network). --David Biddulph (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The standard threshold is four days and 10 edits, Greensaulberg. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How to summit my draft?

Hello I have just finished my article about the cable ship CS Pacific. How can I summit it?Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0KLB (talk • contribs)

Hi, @M0KLB: and welcome to the Teahouse. In order to submit a draft, you ned to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft- I've done it for you. The current backlog of submission means it may take a week or more to be reviewed.

On a different note, the Teahouse is one of the only placs on Wikipedia where questions should go at the top, not the bottom. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I change the logo on my employer's page?

Hey there, I'm a graphic designer and the logo on the page for the union I work for is out of date. Is this something I can update myself or should I put a request to edit on the talk page due to COI?

The page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Union_of_Public_Employees Marn the Barn Emphatico (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Marn the Barn Emphatico, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for being upfront about your conflict of interest. As you might know, COI editing is strongly discouraged, although not outright prohibited. I would have thought that updating a logo would be seen as pretty routine and uncontroversial, so I think that this is something you can reasonably do yourself. If you do so, you should disclose your connection with the organisation at Talk:Canadian Union of Public Employees, following the instructions at WP:DISCLOSE. If you don't feel comfortable doing this, you can use the {{request edit}} template on the talk page to ask someone else to make the change, though it might take a while to receive a response. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

translation

If there is a page dealing a subject in english but the same sabject does not exist in italian can I translate the english text and editing it in italian? 151.20.170.226 (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the notifications ever "not" notify you?

Sounds like a really stupid question but sometimes i noticed that i get tagged in things and it seems they don't show up. Does it happy occassionaly? Winterysteppe (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If the person who adds the {{ping}} doesn't do so in the same edit in which they sign their message, no notification will be made. You can check in the page history as to whether this was the case. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A missing signature is the most common reason for an attempted ping not working. mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details mentions other possibilities. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)