Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 489

Archive 485

←

Archive 487

Archive 488

Archive 489

Archive 490

Archive 491

→

Archive 495

Commons pictures in sandbox

I know I can't use copyrighted images in my sandbox but can I use pictures from commons there?*Treker (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello *Treker. Yes, you can use images from Commons anywhere, for any purpose, without payment or asking for permission. "Anywhere" includes your sandbox. Attribution is all that is required and clicking on the image provides that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks a bunch.*Treker (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rustam Emomali

I have a question about how to deal with a draft. There is a well-sourced draft Draft:Rustam Emomali. The individual appears to be notable, and my first inclination would be to accept. However, a previous article with the same title Rustam Emomali was recently speedily deleted as WP:G11. Should I just use my judgment and accept the existing draft (once the bottom banner is removed), or do I need to have the deleted version undeleted to my user space so that I can compare them? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon. I agree that this person appears notable, at least in part because he holds a general officer rank in his country's military services. Though the article has some problems, I do not see it as overtly promotional or an obvious advertisement. So, I recommend that you accept it and let the chips fall where they may. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As per your advice I went ahead and moved it to article space. At 28 he hardly is the military figure that the military history guidelines had in mind in designating generals as ipso facto notable, but members of royal families are usually considered notable, and the Emomalis appear to be a self-appointed royal family in Tajikstan. As a reviewer my primary job is to ensure that the article should be in the encyclopedia rather than tagged for deletion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

When did IP addresses were disallowed from directly creating articles in the mainspace?

I was reading some of the page history and had noticed that IP addresses created articles. When was that changed? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

December 2005. You can read the original announcement here. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

New article has same name as old article about someone else that was deleted 10 years ago as Not Notable

My question is about the article Doug Steele. It was recently added, as Doug Steele was elected to the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly in the general election last month. However, in the Talk page there is a discussion from 10 years ago which led to the deletion of a previous article about someone named Doug Steele, who apparently started a Hard Rock Café in Moscow.

I don't think that the discussion about the deletion of the old article, about someone completely different, should stay on the Talk page, but I don't know what would be the best approach. Should the new Doug Steele article be re-named (e.g. Doug Steele (politician))? Would that get rid of the deletion discussion from the other article? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Rehouse, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. I removed that irrelevant notice from the talk page. The Doug Steele in question surely meets our notability guideline for politicians, as an elected member of a provincial legislature. Forget that old message and focus instead on expanding the article based on summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about him. The current article is pitifully brief. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. To add to Cullen328's response, Wikipedia:Article titles gives guidance on appropriate choice of article titles, and wanting to avoid using a name that was previously used for a different subject shouldn't be a consideration. I don't think having that template on the talk page was a problem - people would soon realise that the previous article was about a different person when they clicked on the link to the deletion discussion - but nor do I think we really need to keep it there. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting it. I think it would be confusing and cluttery to have a discussion note about something that's not related to the current topic. Glad it's gone. I assume that the reason the article is so short is that he was just elected for the first time in the general election last month, so not much is known about him yet. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, here is a newspaper article containing biographical information about Steele that can be used to expand the biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Weird glitch

I noticed that on the Lydia Canaan article the Further reading section was in the wrong place, so I moved it and reinserted it between the References and External links sections, but after I made that edit there is this weird glitch now—the books from Further reading have now doubled, with a phantom version of them being mirrored in the External links section. So odd, I've never had that happen before and I can't seem to work around or get rid of it no matter what I do. Thanks in advance! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WikiEditorial101. That's happening because there is an inline citation inside <ref>...</ref> tags at the end of each of the items listed as further reading, duplicating their content. Remove those, and the duplicates will be gone. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, neither of those sources should be listed as further reading, because they are compilations of Wikipedia articles. See our article on their publisher, Books LLC. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I'll remove them altogether. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Can a painting of a person be used in a BLP article?

I know someone who paints images of famous people, and who would be willing to upload one of his paintings to the Wikimedia Commons. The question is, can a painting of a famous person be used as an image in that person's BLP? The article in question already has an image of the person, but can a painting also be included in the article? The painting itself is an original artwork, not a replica of any known photograph. Lupine453 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why not, if the artist doesn't mind releasing it to Commons. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in principle. As long as the image is respectful there is no problem in terms of WP:BLP. But there is a question of relevance of the image in light of WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. Images should illustrate points made in the article. What point could such a painting illustrate?

More pressing is the need for original artwork in articles that don't have any photos at all. Such a list has been compiled here Wikipedia:Donated artwork/List of articles needing images (courtesy of Anna Frodesiak). It would be great if your friend could contribute to those articles having images as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Lupine453. We have no freely licensed photo of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and his biography is now illustrated with a computer graphics sketch. Would your friend be willing to paint a portrait of him? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There's one photo: File:KJU.jpg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I see no reason to discriminate on the basis of whether it's a photo, drawing, painting, whatever. Besides copyright, the question is which particular image best serves the purpose. When I make a photo that I think better illustrates the subject than the existing picture, I insert mine. Sometimes another editor disagrees and restores the earlier image or finds a third one. I never dispute such a judgment, since as the maker of the picture I assume I'm biased. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Is the limit for peer review 1 per editor or can I nominate multiple and review other users' peer review nominations (like in DYK)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dunkleosteus77. You can only have one open peer review request at a time. You can request a peer review for a second article only when the peer review for the first article is closed. However, there isn't a quid pro quo requirement at peer review like there is at DYK, so there's no requirement to review other peer review nominations, but it's encouraged. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Apostrophe issue with a wikipedia page title.

Is it possible to change the display name of the page 'St Stanislaus College (Bathurst)' to a more correct name, 'St Stanislaus' College, Bathurst, NSW'? I tried to do this by using DISPLAYTITLE etc but my attempts were rejectedBunyip Walsh (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that DISPLAYTITLE is just for tweaking the italicisation etc. of the title, not the actual characters in it. Anyway, I have moved the article to St Stanislaus' College (Bathurst). Maproom (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Help fix url= value error

I am trying to figure out how to fix this error:

[{{{url}}} "{{{title}}}"] Check |url= value

On this article: The Battle of Los Angeles (album)

In section 6.1 Charts/Album: The Battle of Los Angeles (album)#Album

footnote #26, which is currently written as:

{{Album chart|UK|23|artist=Rage Against the Machine|<ref>{{cite web|title=OFFICIAL ALBUMS CHART - THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES|url=http://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/the%20battle%20of%20los%20angeles/|website=Official Charts|publisher=Official Charts Company|accessdate=28 May 2016}}</ref>}}

I read Help:CS1 errors#bad url

But I cannot figure out what is wrong as the link works and it does not seem to violate any of the rules specified in the help section.

Thank you!

Mark - Mark D Worthen PsyD 20:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I found a solution, although I am not sure it is the best one. I read the info about Template:Album chart, and used Template:Album_chart#Manual_referencing, so the footnote is now written as:

{{Album chart|UK|23|artist=Rage Against the Machine|M|title=OFFICIAL ALBUMS CHART - THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES|url=http://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/the%20battle%20of%20los%20angeles/|work=Official Charts|accessdate=28 May 2016}}

Please let me know if there is a better solution.

Thanks! - Mark - Mark D Worthen PsyD 21:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Markworthen: as you have worked out this is something to do with {{Album chart}} - which I have to say doesn't have the easiest set of instructions I've ever read. Changing your text to {{Album chart|UK|23|artist=Rage Against the Machine|album=The Battle of Los Angeles|accessdate=28 May 2016}} seems to have worked but feel free to revert that edit if not. Nthep (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2 questions

How to make our name at wikipedia look beautiful and colourful e.g.Cullen328,s name at wikipedia looks Green with pink power (328). Tell me i also want to do this simply.

Q 2:What is the meaning of m, when we open editing changes section, at the top of summary. Yes ji (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not SHOUT. Your signature is shouting. In the future, if you shout, we might not answer. I think that you are referring to the indication that an edit is a Minor edit. Please do not shout. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I,m sorry i removed, please answer me ---Robert McClenon ---Yes ji (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks about my custom signature, Yes ji. I did not customize my signature until I had thousands of productive edits to the encyclopedia. A good reputation here is based solely on productive work to improve the encyclopedia, not on small things like custom signatures. But if you want a custom signature, then please refer to WP:Signature tutorial. As for the m in edit histories, that designates a minor edit, such as correcting an obvious typographical error. Any edit that any other editor might reasonably disagree with is not a minor edit. If there is a shadow of a doubt, do not flag an edit as "minor". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks user:Cullen328--Yes ji (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Cullen328, you told me, but when i custumize my signature with HTML it displays as normal words like this:‌<‌sp‌an ‌style‌="style"‌‌>----</‌span>etc. But i want to custumise, with different colours etc-----please help--Yes ji (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yes ji: [[user:Yes ji|<span style="color:red">TEXT</span>]] try this. - Invisible(Talk) 09:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, user:Invisible Guy thanks, i changed, my signature, THANKS-- Mujtaba 09:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Create a small article about: Arity/Prolog32

Dear Wikipedia-Team,

My name is Luis Ribeiro and I am a student in Technical University of Vienna. I have a home work, that is to write an article with around 200-250 Words about Arity/Prolog32, developed by Peter Gabel, Paul Weiss, and Jim Greene. I have around 10 references (articles, books, research projects,...). This is my first article. I read the Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and I saw the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CwiZIsaM7s.

I did my research and I checked that there is no document written about it in wikipedia. I would like to know your opinion and advice when writing about this language.

Because it is a very small text, I will talk about who develop it, what it has, what it differentiates from prolog or/and Arity/Prolog, when it was used(by articles and researches).

With best regards,

Luis Ribeiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by E1025561student.tuwien.ac.at (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Luis, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your plan sounds very good. It's great to know that you've done research and located references, as well as familiarized yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because without seeing those references it's really hard to tell if notability is met, I suggest that you write your article using the Articles for creation process. That way you will get useful comments on it, and it will be reviewed before its moved to the article space. The key difference is that by publishing directly in article space one takes the risk of the article being deleted (there are several reasons why this could happen, and new editors are not always mindful about them). As an Articles for creation draft the article will not be deleted, even if there are problems. It's particularly useful in this situation, as you will have something to show your teacher regardless of whether the article is accepted or not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finnusertop,

thank you very much for your opinion and advice.

Best Regards, Luis Ribeiro E1025561student.tuwien.ac.at (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Expanding "The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids"

Hi! I am Peterye2005. About 2 months ago, I created a page called The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids, which is a stub. I have a question about expanding it. It is a book only with facts about hockey and the Stanley Cup. Am I allowed to include some of the facts in the book or all of the facts, or am I not allowed to include any facts which are in the book? Are there any other ways to expand it? Peterye2005 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Peterye2005, and welcome to the Teahouse. There might be copyright concerns raised by including too much of the content of the book. However, my primary concern is that the topic might not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. In order for a topic to be considered notable, our rules require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. In this case, such coverage might include reviews of the book published in major newspapers or on specialist ice hockey or children's book websites. Does such coverage exist? If so, it would demonstrate notability but also provide material with which to expand the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion after contested PROD?

I stumbled on ProcessOn by browsing random articles, and I fail to see any indication of notability or importance. Furthermore there seems to be a certain lack of interest in this service since the page has not been expanded past three sentence in the year since it was created.

So I was considering requesting speedy deletion under criteria A7, but I saw that there had been a contested PROD started on the same day the page was created. As I understand it, PROD is only for uncontested cases and thus can't be re-used. But can one still start a speedy deletion when there is a contested PROD in the history, or should this be handled differently? Thank you. Mlkj (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mlkj, welcome to the Teahouse. I do not believe that the ProcessOn article in particular falls under A7, since that speedy-deletion criterion can only be applied to articles about people, organizations, individual animals, and content on the web – it doesn't apply to software. Consider WP:AFD instead. To answer your question, however, you are free to tag a page for speedy deletion at any time regardless of a previous contested PROD. Personally, I would look at the reason it was contested, if one exists, before doing so, in case your issue was already addressed. Mz7 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this fell under "content on the web", but now that you mention it that probably only refers to static content, not web applications. Since it was contested on grounds of being significant, then I'm just going to wait and see if it improves. Thank you for the clarifications! Mlkj (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mlkj: Hmm, you might actually be right. I was under the impression this was a software you download from the Internet but you have as a standalone application, perhaps an extension to a web browser. If you run it in your web browser as web content, that may be enough for A7. But I'm not sure. Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have AFD'd it as having no references and so making no claim of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Article where nothing is sourced

I found an article which has no citations/footnotes. But it does have sections which list sources under the headings: Writings By (the subject), Books and Articles About, External Links, Miscellaneous Writings by, and Articles About. I don't know how to go about editing this. I assume some of these sources have been used for the article, but without footnotes I can't tell. It's tempting to write the whole thing over, but I assume that's improper and disallowed.
--Vmavanti (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vmavanti, and welcome to the Teahouse. First off, you can tag the problem with {{No footnotes}}. Second, understand that inline citations are, strictly speaking, not always required (see WP:MINREF). However they are recommended. It's difficult to say if you should rewrite the whole article without having seen the condition it's in; it's useful to provide a link if you're talking about a specific article. Even rewriting is allowed, if you suggest it on the talk page and it's unopposed. When inline citations are missing, an almost word-by-word approach is of course needed to check source text integrity, and can in practice result in a rewrite. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. Take a look. R. H. Ives Gammell
--Vmavanti (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Incorrect Information Jadyn Wong

How do I remove incorrect information that not only do users continue to add to Jadyn Wong's page. Even with attempts to remove it, the information continues to be added back and not the same information (ie. birth date and year) which only speaks to the inconsistency of facts. Information has not source, no citation, etc.?

76.174.186.65 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.

Checkingtheweb (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There have been no edits to Jadyn Wong in over two months. The poorly referenced date of birth is not in the article, and the matter has been discussed at length on the article's talk page, which is the proper place to resolve such disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

can i make an article for a local resturant?

It is very popular in my city, a tradition to go there2601:88:8200:7D12:935:99D7:F7C7:DED7 (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2601:88:8200:7D12:935:99D7:F7C7:DED7 (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

See the notability policy and the policy on reliable sources. Has the restaurant been covered by independent sources, such as magazines and restaurant reviews, preferably from a regional or other larger than local perspective? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Robert McClenon here. There are local newspapers which will publish a review of every local pizza stand and taqueria, and this sort of localized run-of-the-mill coverage does not establish notability. I wrote Whoa Nellie Deli about a small town restaurant which has been reviewed by several national newspapers and magazines. That is the kind of coverage that establishes notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop this lady from writing her own articles

Stacey Jordan 2601:88:8200:7D12:935:99D7:F7C7:DED7 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The editor who first wrote that article has been inactive since February, 2014, so I see no need for any action at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi 2601:88:8200:7D12:935:99D7:F7C7:DED7. If you feel there are problems with the article, then you can be bold and try to fix them yourself. Just try and make sure your edits are in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Be particularly careful that none of your edits violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Just make sure to leave an edit sum or talk page post explaining your edits. If you feel that the article has problems but you're not sure how to fix them yourself, then try asking for assistance at Talk:Stacey Jordan per WP:CONACHIEVE. If you feel the article is beyond fixing, then you may nominate it for deletion per WP:AFD, but you should make sure it cannot be fixed at all first. Also, be advised that frivolous AFD nominations tend to not be viewed favorably by the Wikipedia community so it's best to have a very good reason strongly based in policy if you decide to take such a step. For what its worth and after only a quick glance, I think the article could possibly be improved in a few ways, but I do not feel these are issues serious enough to warrant deletion. Finally, Wikipedia does highly discourage people from creating articles about themselves per WP:AUTOBIO or about persons/things they are connected to per WP:COI, but such editing is not expressly prohibited and not necessarily a reason for immediate deletion. If and article can be fixed, we try to fix it first per WP:PRESERVE and only delete as a last resort. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting tools

As I didn't get rollback permission, I'm looking for a tool that can be used to revert edits without any permission.(excluding twinkle), any help? - Invisible(Talk) 13:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Invisible Guy. Are you aware that you can easily undo one (or several consecutive) edits using the "undo" button in a page's history? See WP:UNDO on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Thanks for reply, but that is little slow, and boring way :( - Invisible(Talk) 13:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I need a tool like huggle - Invisible(Talk) 13:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I like that it's slow - rollback is too easy to use by mistake, in my opinion. Still, I understand that undoing edits manually isn't the most efficient way to deal with mass vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh, Invisible Guy, you have 300+ edits to the article mainspace. I've left a note at WP:RFP/R about re-evaluation. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Invisible(Talk) 02:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What about reverting? I also would like to find a way to undo several edits at once, because sometimes a vandal will make 5 nonsense edits to the same page in a row. Is there a way to check off the edits you want undone and revert them all at once without rollback or Huggle? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: same problem! I didn't get that permission, so I'm going with Twinkle, It lags alot :| - Invisible(Talk) 05:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly, my suggestion would be the same as that I made to Invisible Guy. You can use the radio buttons and "compare selected revisions" on a page history to see all of the consecutive edits and then use the undo option. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Signature Problem...

I don't really care about this but my signature looks a little boring (→The Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C)). I want to use color in it, like User:Nakon's signature, but I'm not too familiar with WP coding. Could anyone please help me? →The Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings The Pancake of Heaven! and Welcome to the Teahouse! The Signature tutorial gives many good examples and is the best way to learn about signatures. For even more the Signatures article goes even deeper into sig usage. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want signature like Nakon,The Pancake of Heaven!. Copy this text⬇.

[[User:The Pancake of Heaven!|<span style="color:#C50;">'''The Pancake of Heaven!'''</span>]]

-- Mujtaba 12:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yes ji: thanks! Although I'm using →The Pancakeof Heaven! currently, maybe I'll try that in the future. →The Pancakeof Heaven! 12:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Odwalla carrot juice

Could you find out why Coco Cola has suddenly stopped selling Odwalla carrot juice? It was sold at Whole Foods and Fresh Market and very delicious. There has to be a good reason why it is suddenly missing from the shelves. Please research this, There must have been a health reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.74.116.97 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 172.74.116.97, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. You might have better luck asking your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

CREATING A WIKI FOR ACTOR I'M REVIEWING BY THE NAME OF IAN STYLEZZ

I was creating a info page for Actor Ian Stylezz that I have been following but I keep getting a Speedy Deletion email. I don't know the specifics that I am doing wrong. PLEASE help me. This is getting very tiresome and I'm losing motivation with Wikipedia WbPubEnt (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@WbPubEnt: Welcome to the Teahouse. All articles are to meet the general notability guideline, meaning they must have significant coverage in reliable sources (such as a newspaper or magazine). Zappa24Mati 00:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi WbPubEnt, welcome to the Teahouse. New articles on Wikipedia need to satisfy some minimum community expectations in order to be accepted. The page Wikipedia:Your first article does a pretty good job of explaining these expectations, and I would encourage you to give it a read if you are interested in creating new articles. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written dispassionately and from a neutral point of view. Wording like "Stylezz has graced the television of millions" sounds like you are trying to promote Stylezz – we want to write about Stylezz, not for Stylezz.

As an encyclopedia, we have standards for what subjects are appropriate to include as articles and what subjects are inappropriate – on Wikipedia, being "worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia" is called being "notable". Notability can be determined by a number of different criteria, but in general, a subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, we need to see evidence that reliable sources have extensively covered a subject – Wikipedia only writes about what reliable sources have written about. For actors specifically, you can show notability if the actor:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

If Ian Stylezz satisfies one of the above criteria, they are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but you need to demonstrate this through your article, referring to reliable sources that verify the content you are writing. Otherwise, Stylezz may not be notable enough for Wikipedia yet, so you may need to start an article about someone or something else. I would encourage you to start off by editing existing articles to get a feel for how things are done around here before starting your first article. If you need help, feel free to ask at this Teahouse. Mz7 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Finally someone who is trying to communicate to others in an affective, non-computerized manner....thanks Mz7. I am going to try again with the corrections, writing ABOUT Stylezz versus FOR Stylezz. WbPubEnt (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a semi-urgent suggestion, and a question. The semi-urgent suggestion is that, if you really want to create an article about Ian Stylezz, you should move the article to Draft:Ian Stylezz. This is semi-urgent for you because it has, for the second time, been tagged for speedy deletion. If you move it to draft space, you will be able to submit it to Articles for Creation for review and have it declined rather than deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The question is straightforward. Are you working for Ian Stylezz? When an editor is very determined to create an article about a particular person, there are two typical reasons. Either the editor is working for the subject, which is conflict of interest editing and must be disclosed, and may require the paid editing disclosure, or they are simply an enthusiastic fan of a (possibly otherwise little-known) person. Which is it? Are you working for Ian Stylezz, or are you simply his number one fan? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Normally an enthusiastic fan, on being asked about paid editing, will say that they are an enthusiastic fan, especially if they are asked in a neutral tone, as I just did. I think that we have undisclosed paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

AFCH

I tried several drafts with opened JS, enabled gadget and I am a participant of the AFC, but it still doesn't work. 333-blue 05:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 333-blue. If you want to be an AFC reviewer, then it is up to you to be familiar with the proper use of all the associated software tools. They all have documentation and associated talk pages. When you ask a question as an AFC reviewer, you need to be crystal clear and unambiguous, and provide a link or a diff, clearly showing the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't make a pic, and I would just like to know why, I have been reviewing for 2 months, this is my first time to meet this weird problem. 333-blue 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but so far, you have failed to explain clearly what the actual problem is, 333-blue. Be specific. If no one can understand your vaguely expressed problem, then how can any of us help you solve it? Put yourself in our shoes, and be very specific in framing your questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As Cullen328 writes, you need to be clearer and more specific. I for one can't understand your question. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The AFCH seems to be broken, it doesn't work (and eventually appear) on any draft pages. 333-blue 06:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the "AFCH" and what the heck does that mean? Do you expect Teahouse hosts to understand four vague initials on a project with over five million articles? We are not mindreaders. Which draft page are you having trouble with? Why can't you provide links so we can take a closer look? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

All draft articles, the Yet Another AFC Helper Script doesn't even appear in the draft pages. 333-blue 06:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

By the AFCH, he means the AFCH Helper Script. This is a script that is used by the AFC reviewers, and it enables an AFCH tab on the screen when viewing a document that has been submitted to AFC for review. The tab in turn enables the automated Accept and Decline of a draft and the ability to insert Comments in the draft. That feature, the ability to accept or decline a draft by a tool, isn't working. The feature is obvious to an AFC reviewer; he is just explaining the problem in language that is self-explanatory to another AFC reviewer. This means that it is not feasible to accept or decline a draft, because the record of reviews of the draft is maintained in the draft by coded comments. (If you look inside a draft, you will see the coded comments that are used by the script, and you will then understand that these coded comments are only meant to be used by the script.) The script is down. It needs developer attention. That is what he is trying to say. Think of some other tool, such as Twinkle, going down. The failure has shut down a particular volunteer function, AFC review. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@333-blue You are asking at the Teahouse about a project-specific custom script. The correct place for queries about the AFCH is WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. The short answer is that there is a problem with the script itself, it's not working for anybody, it should be back in a while. I'm a bit concerned that someone who is suposedly experienced enough to do AFC reviews would think that the Teahouse is the apropriate place to get this type of help - this place specializes in helping newbies, with basic newbie issues. Advanced custom script help is way outside of the scope of this venue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like this problem has the potential to cause quite a backlog, so I hope it is up and running again soon. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they've now asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. Hope it gets fixed soon though, it massively speeds up accepting AfC submissions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be working now. Not only does the script speed up accepting AFC submissions, it also makes it possible to decline AFC submissions. The script is the only feasible way to decline AFC submissions, because the coding for declines is just not meant for use by humans. Since most AFC submissions are declined, the AFC process was, to all purposes, completely down. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Not completely down, but significantly disadvantaged. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Reviewing manually has a link to an archived version of the reviewing instructions that explains how to review and decline manually without the script, in the event of script failure. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like that someone has fixed it. 22:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 333-blue (talk • contribs)

Asking Questions About Things That Don’t Work

I would like to defend User:333-blue against the harsher criticisms of their bug report here, recognizing that the way in which they asked about the script failure here at this Teahouse was suboptimal, puzzling experienced editors who are not also AFC reviewers. It is often very difficult to know how to get help with respect to automated systems, even for systems that have been developed professionally and are maintained professionally. There may be multiple procedures for help, and it may be difficult even for a knowledgeable person to know which procedure is appropriate. Getting help in Wikipedia is complicated by the fact that it has a professionally supported infrastructure but is mostly a volunteer project, and that there isn’t always a single well-defined point of contact. Also, for general editing questions, Wikipedia has both the Help Desk and the Teahouse, and there are features of which the volunteers at the Help Desk and the Teahouse have little knowledge. This Teahouse wasn’t the best place for User:333-blue to ask about the AFCH script, but experienced editors should not be quick to criticize an editor for asking for help in the wrong place when it is often difficult to know where to ask for help. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add that when I do AFC review, I come across User:333-blue fairly often, always doing excellent reviewing work. Given that AfC does send draft creators with questions to the Teahouse, and that other AfC reviewers (and other people trying to help newcomers) frequently come here for help, I don't think it's unreasonable that 333-blue's first instinct was to come here and assume some of the hosts had knowledge of the AfC process and tools. Also, thanks to the generally good quality of the scripts here, editors can easily gain enough experience to work at AfC without ever having to report a script which is down. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

How to get a draft of a new article reviewed

Hi Friendly Teahouse Editors! I have been working on draft of a new article on someone I believe is notable (his name is Rev. Dr. Paul Smith). I believe that writing {{subset:submit}} at the top of the draft is the way to ask someone to review it, but I'm not sure whether I did that correctly. I know it may take days to get a response, but I just wanted to be sure I had put in that code correctly. I think you can find the draft using my username, Alfhild-anthro... Thank you!Alfhild-anthro (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alfhild-anthro: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! You got the code almost right: in order to submit a draft, place {{subst:submit}} in the draft. (There shouldn't be an e in subst.) You will know that the draft is correctly submitted if you see a big yellow box on the page with "Review waiting" at the top of the box.

I've taken the liberty of submitting Draft:Rev. Dr. Paul Smith for you; there's a bit of a backlog at Articles for Creation so it may be two or three weeks before an experienced reviewer is able to assess the draft. In the meantime, however, you are welcome to continue working on the draft or contributing elsewhere on Wikipedia. And feel free to stop by the Teahouse again if you ever have any questions about editing Wikipedia! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!Alfhild-anthro (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

How to add something to a list?

I noticed that "16 Wishes" 2010 is not on the "Disney Channel Original Movies List" page. How do I put it on there or can you do it? Please and thank you. Kristinam517 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kristinam517. According to our article 16 Wishes, that movie was not a "Disney Channel Original Movie" because it was a joint American-Canadian production. Therefore, it does not belong on that list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

How to report an incident or issue with another editor

I'm having issues with another editor User:2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:D08E:5D69:D263:EB23‎.

We don't agree about certain content in an article. They insist on adding in dubiously sourced information to the article Rick Rude‎ concernig his death which I don't find to be relevant or worth mentioning since it is nohting more than a locker room rumor which is very common in proffesional wresling.

I've tried to start a converation with them on their talk page but they just removed it and called it harassment. Instead of engaging in a discussion about it they have refered to me as a vandal and troll several times and ignored my points and arguments.

How do I get this solved somehow?*Treker (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I implore anyone who responds to examine the situation and see that Treker is the problem here. He is blanking a section of cited text for WP:JDLI reasons; another user previously did the same, and the text was restored by a senior user with various user rights ([1]). 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:D08E:5D69:D263:EB23 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of if it was added back by a senior editor I don't agree that it is content that is worth including. Their word is not law.

I feel that you have not assumed good faith in this situation. You almost instantly treaded me as a vandal, even when I tried to explain on your talkpage why I belive it shouldn't be included in the article. I'm sorry if I came of as impolite, I have a short temper and sometimes act rash, I admit that, but what I said was not meant to harass you and you did not do a very good job of keeping it civil either.

If other editor agree that the content should stay I will acept that and admit that I was wrong, but I hope that the next time you behave more reasonable as well and not immediately dismiss me or anyone as a "troll" or "vandal" if they dissagre with you about article content. That will never lead to anything good and is pretty insulting to anyone who is genuinely trying to contribute like us.

Also, please don't refer to me as a "he."*Treker (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like poorly-sourced gossip to me. I suggest you two engage in discussion on the talk page. Repeatedly reverting each other isn't going to end well for either of you. Wikipedia has a policy against this: the three revert rule, which says that you can be blocked without further warning once you revert more than three times within 24 hours on the same article. You're both already over it. Best thing to do now is to go to Talk:Rick Rude and determine a consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Both editors have already been warned for 3RR. The unregistered editor is very strongly cautioned that using the word "vandalism" in an edit summary in order to "win" a content dispute is not a winning strategy. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, and a personal attack in an edit summary is a serious violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Article reads more like ad

In copyediting Keith Haring I went to check a reference to The Art Newspaper. The latter article reads like a promotional piece directly quoted from somewhere, and has no citations for the body of the article. Here's the lede :

THE ART NEWSPAPER and its network

Founded in 1990, The Art Newspaper is an online and paper publication based in London and New York. It provides an unrivalled news service about the art world, fed by its network of sister editions, which together have around 50 correspondents working in over 30 countries, with editorial offices in London, Turin, New York, Paris, Moscow, Beijing and Athens.

I tagged it with Template: Puffery, but is there a more appropriate tag to use? --Thnidu (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes there is: {{Advert}} – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Two drafts on one person, Draft: Dale Armin Johnson

I reviewed Draft:Dale armin johnson (which has been previously declined). I tried to correct its capitalization by moving it, but found that Draft:Dale Armin Johnson already existed. I declined it as duplicating an existing submission. I noted that since two editors are both working on drafts on this person, that seems suggestive that he is notable and should have an article, and advised them to work on the correctly capitalized draft to get it approved. User:Surya57947 then wrote to my talk page:

Hello Robert, I am surya and i am trying to create an article about Dale Armin Johnson and it got rejected because another writer is also working on it and could you please suggest me on how to improve my article and get it listed on Wikipedia. Thank you!

My advice is to look over the two drafts and to see what is in your draft that isn’t in the other draft, include it, and find a source for it. Do other experienced editors have advice on working to integrate two drafts on one person? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The two drafts are almost identical, so I suspect puppetry rather than two people independently working on a draft about the same person. The claim is that this person was involved in producing the films Oculus and Pawn Sacrifice. The reference for the first is a press release that does not even mention Johnson, and other people are listed as producers of both films. There are often many people involved in the production side of films, and most of them are not notable. Where is the significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times article devotes one sentence to Johnson, and then quotes him for three sentences. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The version at Draft:Dale Armin Johnson is now almost identical to Draft:Dale armin johnson, which I declined. I have my doubts about notability right now; as Cullen328 mentions, there seems to be very little in-depth coverage of the subject in good-quality sources. (Perhaps that will change as The Lost City of Z nears completion, but that remains to be seen.) I left a few comments on Draft:Dale armin johnson, but I'm not sure whether the editor has seen them. /wiae /tlk 13:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Additive manufacturing and 3D Printing

I reviewed Draft:Additive manufacturing and declined it as already existing at 3D Printing, for which Additive manufacturing is a redirect. User:NCMSRAREParts then wrote to my talk page:

Why did you move this page which has the backing of the SME and the their Additive Manufacturing working committee? The OFFICIAL title, Additive Manufacturing, NOT 3D Printing which is favored by marketing and Wall Street types, NOT technologists. Content is intended to reflect consistency with global standards orgs and will be continued to be updated by this organization's representatives consisting of machine makers, materials industry, users, and service providers. This group was in the final edit process and was ready to launch without worthwhile help from Wiki representatives over the course of the last 3 years. We welcome your welcome your help not your hindrance.

First, the author writes as “We”. That implies that they are writing on behalf of a group. In Wikipedia, there is a rule of one person, one account. “We” (Wikipedia) do not allow corporate or trade association accounts.

Second, I did not rename the article. The existing article has existed and evolved for twelve years. The existing article has multiple names by which it can be accessed, which is the purpose of redirects, a very important feature of Wikipedia. If anyone thinks that the primary name should be Additive manufacturing, they may request a move via the requested moves process, but that will be of little real importance since both names will work. I do see that the draft was twice at Wikipedia: Additive manufacturing, and both times was moved to Draft: Additive manufacturing, because drafts should not be in Wikipedia space, which is not for draft articles, but for policies, guidelines, and essays about using and editing Wikipedia itself.

Third, I find the tone of the comments by NCMSRAEParts less than helpful as trying to assert article ownership, but that is only my opinion. Do other experienced editors have other opinions?

There already is an article which has existed for twelve years. We appreciate any additions to it, or improvements to it. Discussions about the article should be at its talk page, which currently is Talk: 3D Printing.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:Article titles, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". "3D Printing" is overwhelmingly the most common term used in the full range of reliable sources discussing this topic, and so, in my opinion, the article should remain at that title, despite what NCMSRAEParts thinks about the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the commonly used name of the process is "3D Printing". I would be interested in any comments on the tone of the post by NCMSRAEParts. If there are none by any of the other editors here, I will restate that their tone appears to be confrontational rather than collaborative, and will again ask whether they are one person or a trade association. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

NCMSRAEParts needs to understand that

• Wikipedia is under no obligation to help the organisation he represents.
• We care nothing for the interests of the "SME", whatever that is.

SME = Subject Matter Expert. (We do care for the opinions of experts if the experts edit Wikipedia or can be quoted via reliable sources.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should not be used for promotion, and attempts to so use it will continue to meet with "hindrance" and worse.

Maproom (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if additive manufacturing were the common name, NCMSRAREParts, then the solution would be to move the 3D printing article to that title, rather than re-writing a new article from scratch. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The actual user name is NCMSRAREParts. No user exists with the other name. Considering also that this user has been using ncms.org as a reference in their draft article, this username seems problematic to me. shoy (reactions) 14:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

How to check on an article draft in review

I'm trying to add and update Wiki articles related to the microbiology. However, I'm a total wiki-neophyte and learning the ropes. I submitted a couple new articles as drafts. How do I check their status and get feedback? Thank you in advance.Wallacewasbetter (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wallacewasbetter, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the "Contributions" link in the top right of the screen, you will see your contribution history. From there, click on the names of the draft articles, and you will see a template on each giving its current review status. There is a bit of a backlog of drafts, so it might take a while for you to receive feedback. I have posted a welcome message, including some helpful links, on your user talk page to help you learn the ropes. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Wallacewasbetter – There is the WikiProject Microbiology that you might be interested in. A WikiProject is a place where editors with common interests hang out & work with articles on a particular topic. Welcome aboard & happy editing. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Meadow Park (Borehamwood) Stadium

Hi, Meadow Park (Borehamwood) is an article about a football stadium linked to by 250+ articles. A user Borehamwood residents changed it to about the park area in general which appears not to be Notable. That account was blocked as per user name policy, they then came back as Angry birdies who continues to ignore comments and polices so the article was locked. They then commented on the talk page Talk:Meadow Park (Borehamwood) clearly not understanding that the park in general is WP:NN; that they can't just change the nature/subject of an article; they had no references; they showed no concern over the 250+ links from football related articles; they made no attempt to create a separate article on the park by AFC or otherwise.

I realised I maybe had not been as clear as I could have been, so thought I would re-visit:

They are correct that the football ground is just part of the park and the way some football stadiums are refereed to as the area name could be confusing, so my questions are:

• Should this be renamed, to avoid confusion (and further such trouble in the future)?
• If so what too? Meadow Park football stadium (Borehamwood), Meadow Park stadium (Borehamwood), Meadow Park football stadium, Meadow Park football ground, etc? I can't find any precedent and have no interest in the topic myself.
• If it was renamed is there a tool to easily re-point the 250+ links?

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• KylieTastic In my opinion, the park isn't notable in its own right- found nothing on a quick Google search, and those additions were completely unencyclopedic. If the park was notable, then probably add the information about the general park to the existing article. Meadow Park football stadium and Meadow Park football ground would be inappropriate moves, since there are multiple grounds called Meadow Park. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• In case it isn't clear, I mean something like Priory Park, Chichester, which mentions the park as a whole in the lead, and then has sections on the sports teams that play there. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)