Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 494

Archive 490

←

Archive 492

Archive 493

Archive 494

Archive 495

Archive 496

→

Archive 500

Draft: Perge and Bee bread

I reviewed User:Ica2000/sandbox. I moved it to Draft: Perge, the title given by its author, User:Ica2000, but declined it because we already have an article section on Bee bread. I also took issue with the last paragraph, which began "We have used the bee bread in different recipes", because the use of the first person in Wikipedia is not permitted. User:Ica2000 then wrote on my talk page:

Hi,
Ill get straight to it, if you dont mind: I wrote a page about Perge, bee bread. I checked it grammatically and it all seemed fine, until it got rejected from publishing, because of the already "existing" page Bee bread (which you cant find if you just type bee bread). If you type bee bread, you get a page on Wikipedia about bee pollen and on that Wikipedia is only one sentence about bee bread. If you go on the link that says bee bread, you just get a page that is a link to bee pollen (nothing wrote on it, except the link). In my opinion there is a lot to write about bee bread and so I would like to make a whole page about it.

I see that the offending language in the last paragraph has been changed. It seems to me that the real question is how to expand the coverage of bee bread. There is currently a single paragraph in an article. The author would like to contribute more. The question seems to be whether the section on Bee bread in Bee pollen should be expanded, or whether a separate article is in order. I would suggest that whether to split the article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, Talk: Bee pollen. Do other experienced editors have other thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ica2000, I agree with Robert McClenon that the topic ought to be discussed in the existing article about Bee pollen unless interested editors there come to a consensus that the article should be split. I have two other concerns: The draft makes medical claims, and Wikipedia is very strict about the sourcing for such claims. Please read and comply with our guideline on reliable sources for medical claims. The other concern I have is that some of the references are not in English. Let me be clear that non-English sources are acceptable if they are otherwise reliable, and are especially welcome in articles related to countries where English is not the native language. However, the English language literature about bees is vast, and in my opinion, English language sources are preferred in articles about bees and their products, unless there is a very good reason to rely on non-English sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

The reason why I think that page about Perge, bee bread should be published is because of the amount of information there is to tell about bee bread and the wide use of bee bread. I know that you might think that the quantity of sources for bee bread is small, but that’s because it’s not as common as bee pollen. It’s a special product made from fermentation of pollen and honey, and not just pollen. (Honey is made from nectar) And also it isn’t that similar to pollen. It’s a total different product that after the fermentation contains different substances. And finally I would like to add that bee bread is also one of the most used bee products in the world. Thanks for your time and understanding.

(P.C. I'm new so i don't know how to join the discussion on the on the created Talk:Bee Pollen and Bee bread) Ica2000 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Just go to Talk:Bee pollen and press the New Section tab, which will permit you to create a new section and give it a title. If you have any further questions about how to discuss at a talk page, you can read talk page guidelines, although that is about etiquette and not about mechanics, and, if you still have questions about the mechanics, you can ask them here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I edit at insect related articles (especially when they intersect with WP:MEDRS). There is a lot of WP:FRINGE material related to honey, pollen, royal jelly, bee bread, etc., so I really don't expect many of these ideas to stick. I do agree with others though that the section would need to be expanded at the article itself before even considering a split. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

-My opinion is just that bee bread is a big subject that needs its own page. It wouldn't be a good "support" information on the Bee Pollen, because of huge amount of information you can tell about it. And also the fact that there is a page about honey and nectar (honey is made from nectar), why wouldn't there be a page about bee bread and pollen (Pollen and bee bread are more different in structure that honey and nectar). Please come and discuss my subject at Talk: Bee pollen. The Title of the page is Bee pollen and bee bread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ica2000 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Tynong North serial killings

Does murder of six women lack notability? There is discussion going on that this article will be deleted through AFD in future.

I find, one of my article 1929 Netta Fornario murder actually lacks notability.

These editors think that all my articles lack notability. They miserably failed once in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laetitia Toureaux. In the Fringe theory noticeboard, their latest argumentis that I am creating problems for them by creating this page Tynong North serial killings. Is it required for editors to be as good as featured article contributors? X-Men XtremE 03:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, X-Men Xtreme. I believe that these murders are notable and deserving of a Wikipedia article. That being said, the current version is weak and inadequate. I encourage you to take productive criticism to heart, and work to improve the articles you have created in recent days before creating new articles. Do not fight with editors who express concerns about the quality of your articles. Address their concerns by productive editing instead. This will go a long way toward avoiding conflict. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Cullen328: I have to write according to available reliable sources. I tried to find more sources available online. They are accusing me of creating stub articles. I don't have any goal that I will intentionally create stub articles. I can get plenty of unreliable sources to develop the articles, but we need reliable sources only. And I can't read European languages (Google books can't be translated online). X-Men XtremE 04:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some editors who claim that other editors create stub articles, or do other things that are sometimes appropriate. Some editors don't like stub articles. Actually, no one likes stub articles, but a stub article is appropriate if two conditions are met, first, the topic is notable, but, second, not much information is available. An example would be if a single newspaper article states that a player played Major League Baseball in 1909. The person is notable under baseball notability guidelines, but there might not be any other information readily available. That is an obvious case where the stub should be kept. In many cases, however, and this is where the critics are coming in, if an article is a stub, it may indicate that the topic isn't notable. Common sense is needed about stub articles, as about most issues in Wikipedia. Some editors don't have common sense, and so we have to leave that to the community as a whole. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

X-Men Xtreme, take a look at reference #4 in the article in question, from the Herald Sun. That source includes additional information which you have not yet summarized in the article. Some of the prose is weak as well, and needs copy editing. Work diligently to improve your existing articles. There should be plenty of English language sources available about serial killings in Australia. For example, have you tried Googling the names of the victims? So, I am not sure why you are mentioning other languages in this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

How to find all articles that have references to a certain site?

I have a question for you knowledgable people.

For my radio program on pre-Rock 'n Roll African American music, Wikipedia is an invaluable source of information for me. I occasionally edit or create articles in that field of interest.

An often cited resource is the website of the Red Saunders Research Foundation, a group of very knowledgable people when it comes to the postwar Chicago Rhythm & Blues and Jazz scene. Dozens of articles have references with links to their site. Unfortunately all these links are dead now; due to a change in the web server, the hostname of the link needs to be updated.

I gladly volunteer to correct these links; but how to identify the pages?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Koenkamphuys (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Koenkamphuys! Special:LinkSearch is what you want. Enter the root website address and you'll get back a list of pages referencing that site. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thank you.

Koenkamphuys (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Do copied pages get deleted?

I made a page on Hank the Cowdog tv show, and it got removed. Triana2 (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Triana2. The discussion that led to deletion of the article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank the cowdog (tv series). You must be sure that any article you write for Wikipedia is properly referenced. Please read Your first article, and follow the good advice and instructions there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Writing Page About Non-Profit

So there's this non-profit I know, and a lot of their information is already on their page. Why can't I copy/paste to a Wikipedia page for them? Also, why does building a page take so long? What exactly is plagiarism in this context? Youngphilanthropy (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Youngphilanthropy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. The non-profit's website is not independent, and we are not a web host for their content. Also, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and our content can be freely shared. Therefore, our content must be, freely licensed original writing, with the exception of brief, cited quotations. "Plagairism" is lengthy copying of words written by others, which we do not allow. It is not easy to write an article because we have quality standards. Please read Your cirst article which addresses these issues in greater detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Where else might one find sources on a Non-Profit that has frequently made waves but is not so much in the publicity department? Youngphilanthropy (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Youngphilanthropy. If the organization has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. It is that simple. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, it's definitely received A LOT of Press Coverage and A LOT of Citation and Sourcing. Just not coverage of its management. More coverage of what it's doing. And I thought you have to start out with its management Youngphilanthropy (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If the organization has received a lot of significant coverage in the press which goes beyond passing mentions, then I suggest that you assemble the very best of those sources, and summarize what they say about the group, Youngphilanthropy. Six solid sources are better than twenty mediocre sources. The solid sources show that the group is notable. The group's website can be included at the end as an external link but should not be a major source of content in the body of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Change username

Isn't there a way to change a username?WikiPacifi64 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi WikiPacifi64, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Changing username. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiPacifi64, Place your request here: HERE–– مجتبیٰ (Talk!) 00:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Selected to play

If there is news about a sportsman/sportswoman, that he/she is selected to play for the National team, but has not played yet, then are they notable? X-Men Xtreme (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, X-Men Xtreme. The general consensus is that such an athlete becomes notable once they compete in their first game for a National or equivalent fully professional team. Heavy and widespread press coverage before then can also create notability, but this is not automatic and requires consensus among interested editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Authors

I'm referencing a journal but it has so many authors. Do I have to include all of their names or can I just use "et al." or "and colleagues" instead?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dunkleosteus77. My understanding is that journals rank the authors based on the importance of their contributions. Accordingly, I recommend that you cite the three or four lead authors, and then add "et al. " Interested readers can click on the URL to see the full list of authors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dunkleosteus77. I agree. Cite the first three or four (I do three usually) then add "et al." Cullen328, the journals don't determine author order, the authors do. It may not be in order of importance. It is often alphabetical, and the lead author in some fields will traditionally be at the end. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, StarryGrandma. I try to learn something new each day, and I thank you for today's nugget. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

delete my photo

how can i delete a photo i uploaded ? Ianasaman (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ianasaman (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ianasaman. More information would be useful. Which photo? Why do you want to delete a photo that you freely uploaded previously? In general terms, if you are the copyright holder for a photo, and you uploaded it under an applicable Creative Commons license, then you cannot delete it. Your upload is irrevocable. Carefully read the licensing language before uploading any photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks

Ianasaman (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

About rewarding

Is there any reward for new editors?Or do I just post it by myself when it goes to a specific of edit?Cause I don't really understand what does it mean in the award page...... THX!!! lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 07:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi lysvincent
As it states at Wikipedia:Service awards "There is no process for receiving these awards; you just determine the grade to which you are entitled, then display it on your user page."
So, in your case, with 369 edits since 14 April you can award yourself the "Novice Editor (or Burba) Award" - Arjayay (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Arjayay
Am i just have to display the whole thing it mention in the "Novice Editor (or Burba) Award" on to my page? lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 07:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, lysvincent Just choose which one of the symbols you wish to use, and copy the template under that symbol - so if you want the service badge copy {{Novice Editor}} onto your user page, or if you want the Userbox copy {{Novice Editor Userbox}} - Arjayay (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay:I saw that other users has a bunch box named history, how can i create those box, example like User:Onel5969?Also, where can i find the box that's provided?For example , I like Pizza, how can i type this onto my page?Lastly, how can i know my total number of edits?Where do you find it?lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 08:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

lysvincent - Obviously. you can type "I like pizza" directly onto your user page, but I suspect you are referring to user-boxes - the rectangles with symbols in that many people use. The index of these is at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery, but I have no idea if there is one about Pizza.
If you like the way someone has laid out their page, you can look at, or even copy, the code that they have used by clicking "edit" on that page, but do not alter someone else's user page.
Finally, you can see the number of edits, and the date of the first edit, of any editor, including yourself, by hovering over the users signature (You may need to have pop-ups enabled in "Preferences" for this to work) - Alternatively, at the bottom of your "Contributions" page click on "Edit count" - although confusingly, this may give a slightly different number - Arjayay (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Update - there are lots of options for pizza lovers at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food - Arjayay (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay:THX A LOT!! lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 08:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I created an article U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed but other editors keep deleting it.

I created an article U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed but other editors keep deleting it. I would like know what am I doing wrong and how can I fix it. Any help would be great. Thank youAawork100 (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The reasons for the deletions have been explained to you, repeatedly and at some length, on your talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The deletion of U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed is discussed on another user talk page, User talk:Aliahmed100. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And on User Talk:Anarchyte. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

In an edit summary, you refer to U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed as your client. Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required disclosures. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Are User:Aliahmed100 and User:Aawork100 two different people, or one person using two accounts? If the latter, please decide which account to use, and abandon the other one. (If two different people, is one client hiring two paid editors?) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Aliahmed and Aaworks100 both are my accounts, I am not getting paid to write this article, as I know Mr Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed personally I thought of writing this article, as my article was deleted I was told that I can create the same article with another account therefore I created another account, I just want some help. As I think I am providing sufficient amount of content then why my article is being deleted. It is not an advert I was asked to add more links and I did so. Please can any one of the experienced editors edit my article for me so that it will not be deleted. Thank you Aawork100 (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a good reason you are using two accounts, Aawork100? Please see Wikipedia:Username policy#Using multiple accounts. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you are not being paid to edit the article, why did you refer to U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed as your client? (If you didn't understand that that would be the implication of that comment in English, then we can pass it off as a language issue.) Robert McClenon

(talk) 14:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for understanding (Robert McClenon) I just finished my graduation, I did not know such words make that much of an impact, I just want do some productive work. As I was writing an article on Mr Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed and I told him about it, I taught the term client was appropriate, but I did not realise it will appear as if I was taking money from him. Sir could you please help me with the article. I have been fallowing all the advises given to me, I removed details about his collage as they told it appears as advert then they asked me to provide with more related review able web links and I did. I wanted to mentioned about his achievements and the positions he holds, but I do not have any news paper articles and web links proof them and now they are accuses me of taking money for the article. This is my first article and I wish to write more in future.Aawork100 (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The current profile of U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed

Director Zulfi Developers

Member Zonal Coordination committee Rehabilitation Council of India

Member MLA Housing Co-operative Society Legislative Home, Vidhanasoudha Bangalore

Founder & Chairman U.T.Naseem Fareed Education Memorial Trust

Director U.T. Zulfi Cochlear Implant Foundation

Joint Secretary Karnataka Unaided Private College Association

Joint Secretary Karnataka Muslim Minority Private College Association

Please let me know if I can add them to my article.Aawork100 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aawork100. It is unfortunate that, like many new editors, you have plunged straight into one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia: creating a new article. I always advise people to spend a considerable time first working on improving existing articles, so that they learn not only how to edit, but also how Wikipedia works, and what are its principles and policies.

What you need to understand here, I think, is that a Wikipedia article is not written from what you know: your knowledge of the subject may be helpful to organise and express the content, but the content - every single bit of it - must come from reliable published sources; and most of it must come from sources which have no connection with the subject. This is because we are an encyclopaedia: we are not a business directory. Our articles are neutral encyclopaedic articles about the subject, not "profiles". Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees or associates say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them, in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers).

So, some of those appointments might be appropriate for the article, as long as they are confirmed by published sources (which they probably are, because I guess they are on the websites of the organisations mentioned) and the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that they are relevant and appropriate. I can only suggest what might affect that consensus; but I think the question is one of proportion: a list such as that should not be a major part of the article. If you can find substantial independent articles about Ahmed, so that you can write a significant amount of impeccably sourced text about him, then a list of seven appointment might well be proportionate. If, however, you can only write a paragraph of independently sourced text about him, then such a list would be disproportionate (and actually, the consensus might be that he was not notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and so there shouldn't even be an article at all.)

So, what you need to do to get the article accepted is to find those independent reliably published sources which discuss him in depth (no blogs, no social media, nothing published by him or any of his associates of institutions, nothing which is based on an interview by him or a press release, but places where somebody unconnected with him has thought it interesting or important to write about him), and then, forgetting what you know about him, write text based entirely on those sources. If that lets you write a substantial article, then you can add some uncontroversial factual information based on non-independent sources (such as those appointments).

Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine for the advise, I will try my level best to write the article and find more reliable sources. I truly appreciate your time and advise thank you so much. Aawork100 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

self bio page

i have added my name as a suggestion for biography page under India. its been 2 years with no response. can i know whats the reason and if theres an update ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_nationality&oldid=599137289#India

mangesh Ghogre Mangeshghogre (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here, and no-one has chosen to start work on your biography. But it's a better candidate than most of those on the list. You have provided numerous references, which is a great help. I may start work on a draft myself sometime. Maproom (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Notibility guess

Hello All,

Thanks in advance for your time. I have drafted in my sandbox an article for a regional arts organization called Twin City Stage. (history article note: page was delete once per my request, because I was new and didn't really understand anything yet.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip.mark.powell/Twin_City_Stage

It is not complete yet, nor is the history fully cited yet. My major concern, as I have been reading the documents about Wiki practices has to do with one of notability. I don't want to waste anyone's time with work that is likely to be rejected. So, if people are willing to provide some feedback here on the likelihood of this topic of notability for this article, that would be great.

I see many articles on Wiki that are similar to this one, i.e older community theatre (when searching for Little Theatre on Wiki), however I am new and don't fully understand things, so an opinion would be great. Does the organization have national notability? In my opinion, no. Does it have regional and state notability? Certainly. I'm just not certain if that is enough. I would love to have someone risk an opinion before I fully cite and polish the article for submission. Thanks in advance.

Philip.mark.powell (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Philip.mark.powell and welcome to the Teahouse. We have many articles on community theatres, but standards for articles are tighter now. You will need references independent of the theater. Regional notability is fine. First, take out the "Shows by Season". It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Many theater companies have that on their web page so see if it can be added there. Find newspaper articles and local history to serve as references. They don't need to be online. Don't play down the previous name, Little Theatre of Winston-Salem. That is an important part of its history. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the honest, constructive feedback. I do how a question about the "Shows by Season" section though, from my perspective this is an important part of the history, and demonstrates its continuous operation over 81 years. How is this different from the listing of a television's show list? Again, just trying to understand.

However, I will admit, unlike anything else in the article, I have the original newspaper sources for all this information and more, however the COMPLETE list of shows, is something I have pieced together from the monthyly board records from 1935 to the present, I don't believe it has ever been published anywhere, even on the organization's website. As I understand it this is called "original work" which is not allowed, even though I know it to be true and have sourced it through archives, and more recently through internet sources. I guess I could dig through the microfiche, but if it wouldn't be allowed, don't want to spend weeks at the Library. I guess the question I have related to that is, are there any circumstances where including a list of shows by season would be allowed, that you can envision?

Also, could you elaborate on the phrase of "not playing down the previous name of the organization?" I want to do a good job. Thanks.

Again, just trying to learn and understand, I appreciate your honesty and help.Philip.mark.powell (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Philip.mark.powell Wikipedia is many encyclopedias, for science, arts, history, popular culture. The standards are different from area to area. A major theater may have a list of productions as a spin-off article from the main article (see Guthrie Theater production history) but a small theater will not. Television reaches millions of people per episode, so standards are different there. I realize you have done a lot of work putting the list together and it would be nice to see it on the theater's website. Many theater websites have a "Past Seasons" page.

About the name. I didn't realize until the end of the article that the name had changed as late as 2009. Put that information at the top of the article too, what the original name was and that it changed in 2009. Many of your references will be using that name. See Template:cite news for how to write references for newspaper articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind feedback. I will delete the seasons by show entry and try to set it up as an external link hosted by the organizations website. I am sure I will have some further questions as I progress. Thank you.Philip.mark.powell (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

a blog

I fond this blog online and wanted to know more about it but found nothing. So i kept seaching and finally found out some information. Is it okay to make a page for it even if it isn't very popular? I just found out a lot about it and I thought making a page with all the information would be a good idea. But now i am unsure. Help please! Theweirdgirl666 (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See web notability guidelines. If you haven't found much information about the blog, it probably isn't notable. Popularity isn't important, but how much the blog has been covered by third-party independent sources is important. Probably not, but maybe. My advice is that if you can write a reasonably sourced article, submit it via Articles for Creation to be reviewed by an experienced editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Writing an article about a band

I'm trying to put an article together about a band, which I believe meets the notability criteria, having had national television coverage as well as local, and a number of reviews by independent sources, in print, on the internet and on radio, both broadcast and internet, sometimes, but not always, including interviews. The real question I have is where and how do I actually create it, and how many parts can be filled in from sources other than those reliable and independent sources (bio of band members, ages, etc). For example, if the band congratulates one of it's members on their nth birthday, that gives date of birth, which then gives ongoing age into the future. If they aren't using a sage name, this is a matter of public record, although I wouldn't expect the details of that public record to be published without the permission and approval of the band and/or member. It's reaching the balance between giving the information which would be of interest to fans or potential fans, and respecting the privacy of the band and it's members. Can you be of any help to me? PhilLee2802 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, PhilLee2802. Wikipedia:Your first article has all the information you need about the mechanics of creating a draft article for review. To answer your question about material not from published sources, there shouldn't really be anything in a Wikipedia article that a reader can't verify by checking sources, so you should only include material that can be sourced. Not all of the material needs to come from independent sources, though. Basic facts about the band such as the age of its members can be sourced to their own promotional material or website. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How to remove 'citation needed' flag?

This is my first ever Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Beck_(painter) I can see a flag 'citation needed' in the 'Background' section. I have now added a suitable reference, but cannot work out how to remove 'citation needed'. Very grateful for advice. SueJ (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@SueJ: if you edit the page you'll find {{Citation needed}} or {{CN}} possibly with date stamps in there. Just delete the curly brackets and everything in between. Nthep (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The code {{CN}} is what was creating the Citation needed mark on that line. To remove it you remove that tag, as I did in this edit. I also removed an external link you put inline in the lead. We do not link to external websites within the prose of the article. -- GB fan 15:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Struggling to work out how to thank you for your help and advice. But if you can see this, then thank you! ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SueJenkins (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Final Deletion of Articles

There is an article (Valley Center Western Days) which has been marked for deletion and the result seemed to be delete. When do deletion discussions end, and who closes the discussion/carries out the decision? Thanks in advance. Vchero (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vchero. There are several deletion procedures, but the matter you mention is an example of an Articles for Deletion debate, which takes the longest and requires the most extensive discussion. Normally, these debates last a week, though they can be closed early if consensus is overwhelming. On the other hand, if discussion is weak, the debate can be relisted and could take two or three weeks. If consensus is to delete the article, the debate must be closed by an administrator who has the power to delete the article. If consensus is to keep the article, any editor in good standing can close the debate. This is called a "non-adminstrative closure". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I just add that the closer should not have been involved in the discussion, and suggest you read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure # Appropriate closures - Arjayay (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is about appropriate closure. I don't see the closer as having been involved in the discussion, and it appears that the closer is an administrator. Maybe I have missed a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that Arjayay was speaking in general, rather than about this specific situation, Robert McClenon. The point is that AfD debates in general should not be closed by editors involved in the debate, and I think that is information useful to this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the general statement. I disagree with the spelling of my user ID, but I fixed it. I don't see a direct connection between non-administrative closures and the need to closers to be uninvolved. A close by an involved closer is inappropriate, even if the closer is an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the typographical error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I also see that another page, Valley Center History Museum, has seemed to have reached a consensus on a "redirect and merge" per the decision on the AfD page, but the admin said that if they carried it out, it would be too bold (probably in relation to the fact they participated in the debate). Do admins go through and check when people have decided and go through with the conclusion? Vchero (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vchero. There is a list of open deletion debates that is monitored by administrators who like to work on deletions. Do not think in terms of "the admin" but rather an administrator. No one is assigned to any matter and any administrator who is not using their administrative powers on a specific matter is just another editor. I suggest that you let this discussion continue for a few more days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I was just wondering because the debate has been open for 5 days and it seems unanimous. Thanks for explaining! Vchero (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Vchero, the editor who made that comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Center History Museum is not an administrator, but rather a regular editor who made the deletion nomination. They probably meant that it would be too bold for them to close the debate as redirect because it is rather frowned upon for nominators to close their own AfDs. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry understates one thing. It is very frowned up for nominators to close their own AFDs. AFDs are normally closed by uninvolved administrators. They are sometimes closed as Keep by uninvolved non-administrators. An editor who closes an AFD in which they !voted is very likely to face sanctions, ranging from a strong warning to de-sysop to a block. Closers should be uninvolved prior to the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the clarification! Vchero (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Open proxy blocks when signed in

Hey Wikipedians, this is about open proxy blocks. I assumed that if I'm signed in to my account I can still edit pages even if I'm using an open proxy. But I get the block message when I try to edit even though I'm signed in. Help? MediaKill13 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MediaKill13. You can find technical information on this matter at Wikipedia:Open proxies and following the various links there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How to produce the summary which is displayed on mobile devices

Some articles have a very short summary which is displayed on the mobile Wikipedia app, e.g. Godwin's law displays the summary "The longer an online discussion grows, the higher the probability of mentioning Hitler." Looking at the source of that article, I cannot find that text specified anywhere. Can any of the wise Teahouse residents point me to where that text come from, please? Gronk Oz (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz! I haven't used the app before (so I'm not sure where the summary is found), but I think that the summary comes from the description in the article's Wikidata entry. (The short article summaries that appear in the drop-down list when searching on the mobile site appear to use those same Wikidata descriptions, too.) CabbagePotato (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That looks right, CabbagePotato - thanks! How do those entries get created? It would be good to create that when I write a new article... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with Wikidata; Wikipedia:Wikidata and d:Help:Items look like they might be helpful in answering your question. CabbagePotato (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: If the article exists in another language then you can click "Add links" under "Languages". Adding a language in this way will automatically create a Wikidata item. If there is no other language then there is often no reason to create a Wikidata item but it can be done at Wikidata as described at d:Help:Items#Creating a new item. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If the article is linked to a Wikidata record, Gronk Oz, then "Wikidata Item" appears in the left menu. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

uploading an image

I wanted to upload an image for submission to a site for possible use as a logo.

I was not sure about the "licensing" issue. I consider it public domain. It is an image that I have created myself.

when I use the upload wizard, it asks for a license page, but since I created it myself, the website (imgur) that I uploaded the image for hosting does not have a license statement.

100.12.250.92 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I don't fully understand what you mean: if you are submitting a possible logo to a site, I don't understand what that has to do with uploading it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. But what I will say is that if you created it, then you own the copyright (unless it is so basic that it cannot be regarded as copyright). It will be in the public domain only if you explicitly put it there - but if it is to be used as a logo, that may not be what you want, because that will mean that anybody can change or reuse it for any purpose, without your permission. Most logos represent some organisation, which does want to keep control of their use; so most logos are not released either into the public domain, or under a licence compatible with Wikipedia. Most logos which appear in Wikipedia articles are uploaded and used there under the non free content criteria. Does that help? --ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

what is left for me to do to get the article published on the Wikipedia site?

Hello,

I am very confused by the dialogue that has gone on over the article Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird, that I am working to create. I have done each suggestion that has been made, clarifying the issues pointed out, but am at a loss now as to what is currently needed to get this article listed. I really am lost. Please advise. Thank you, ZintkalaNuni (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link Draft:Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird - Arjayay (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

When you ask a question at a public forum in Wikipedia, it is helpful to provide a link to the article in question. In this case, it is Draft:Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird. I have two points. First, the review process is backlogged, and is done by volunteers, and you are just in the same situation as every other author of draft articles, waiting. Second, you haven't really addressed the original advice, because you haven't really written a proper lede sentence beginning simply as "Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird was a Native American woman who was rescued as a baby ...". The article shouldn't begin "This person, Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird". It begins simply "Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird". Other than fixing the lede, please look over the draft for any non-neutral language, that is, language about how sad her story is, in the voice of Wikipedia. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to comment, although it is our job to report the comments of others. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for someone to check my article so I don't have to resubmit it a third time!

Hi everyone!

Just a quick question -- I've submitted the article I'm creating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Henry_Alan_Green) three times now, each time with a new piece of feedback. Before it gets reviewed and potentially rejected again, I was wondering if someone could glance it over and tell me if there's anything else I would need to fix to get it approved this time? Thanks!

Gc717 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

One obvious point is that you have violated MOS:SURNAME. Other editors may comment on other aspects. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have moved it as it is good enough to publish. I have done some cleanup. -- GB fan 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the article still needs work. "Green is very active as a voice for Sephardi Jews, both in the United States and abroad", for instance, is an unattributed and unsourced opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The article also tells us "the book based on his dissertation is viewed as the most significant contribution to the sociological origins of gnosticism, three decades after its publication". The book was published in 1985, which is three decades ago now, but the source for the claim that is it the most significant contribution is from 2009. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How to know an article is notable and verifiable

Hi,

I've been contributing to Wikipedia generally on a subject that I resonate a lot with: The World Cultural Council and its annual award ceremonies. I have been collecting a lot of information. All notable to me like understanding who are the founding members, what Nobel prize winners are working with this institution, why the names of the awards were selected, how is the selection process of the winners, among others.

To me, all the above information is notable for an article that produces value to the community, but it may not be notable to someone else. How should I know?

Second, the information that I have collected can be verified with some of the members of the organization, but there is no newspaper nor book where the information can be double-checked. What constitutes a verifiable article? Almost all articles have statements that can not be verified in any way. Can you please help me?

Thanks in advance,

Healing Mandala (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Healing Mandala. Please read notability. "Notable" in Wikipedia doesn't mean famous, or important, or significant, or popular, or influential, or worthy, or valuable to the community, or anything like them. It means that more than one person who has no connection with the subject has chosen to write, at some length, about the subject, and had their writing published by a reliable publisher (such as a major newspaper, or a reputable book publisher). That's the criterion for having an article about somebody, because if there isn't such writing about them, then it is impossible to write a well-sourced article about them.

If you're talking about whether particular information may be added to an existing article (about a notable subject), then the criterion isn't quite the same. It is necessary that the information have been reliably published (unpublished information should never be added to a Wikipedia article), but it does not always have to have been published by somebody independent of the subject: uncontroversial factual information can often be adduceds from non-independent sources such as the subject's own website. There is also a separate question about putting information into an article: even if it is well-sourced, it may not be encyclopaedic (important enough to be worth mentioning) - that is a question which gets answered by consensus of interested editors. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons Image release for people featured in the image

This seems straightforward enough when it comes to the photographer, but what if the image has recognizable faces in it? I didn't see a way in the wiki help for a way to document an individual who is featured in photograph to release their rights creative commons use. Is that even possible? Is that why most Wiki images are of sites and buildings, which in my experience are not subject to IP laws?Philip.mark.powell (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Philip.mark.powell. If a photograph is taken in a fully public place, there is no expectation of privacy, and no requirement that people portrayed release rights. I have uploaded photos of recognizable people to Commons without problems, and have used other such photos I found there without problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, please educate me. If this content were used for editorial purposes (news etc.) I would think there would be no problem, as you indicate, but if under the Creative Commons agreement, it can be reused by others for commercial endeavors, I would think permission from clearly recognisable people would be required. Again, just trying to learn and do things properly. Thanks.Philip.mark.powell (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been doing some reading on Wiki about this topic and it seems that in the United States anyway, you can release photography under CC license if it has identifiable people in it, but you may get into trouble if someone reuses it for commercial use. Is it possible to upload a photo with identifiable persons in it and restrict the Creative Commons list to everything but commercial? It would seem to me that would be acceptable, but again, I'm no expert, just trying to educate myself.Philip.mark.powell (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a non-commercial Creative Commons license, but then you couldn't upload that image to Commons, which requires that it can be reused for any purpose. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Youtube video as a reference

why it's not ok to put a link to Youtube video as a reference on interview for certain actor? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. There are two parts to answering your question. The first part has to do with the copyright status of the video and the second part has to do with the neutrality/content of the video.

As explained in WP:YOUTUBE, YouTube videos can be used in certain cases to cite article content. The problem is that many videos uploaded to YouTube were not done so by the original copyright holder of the content. Lots of YouTubers seem to upload stuff they find online regardless of its copyright status. This maybe fine for YouTube, but Wikipedia does not allow links to any videos, etc. on any website which may be considered to have been uploaded in violation of copyright law per WP:COPYLINK. If the interview the actor gave has been uploaded to the official YouTube channel of the copyright holder, then it can possibly be cited in the article. For example, an interview Tom Cruise gave on CNN uploaded by CNN to the CNN official YouTube channel can possibly be linked; an interview Tom Cruise gave to CNN upload by me to the Marchjuly Youtube channel most likely cannot be linked.

An interviews is basically someone talking about himself or herself. When people talk about themselves, they often find it hard to do so in a neutral way. That is why Wikipedia considers interviews to be a primary source. Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about something, not what the subject says about itself. Primary sources can be used to cite certain article content in articles about living people, but they need to be used carefully per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

a place where I can find articles with multiple issues

is there a place where I can find articles that have multiple issues or any issue and need my help to improve it in one place so I save time searching for them? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Super ninja2 and welcome to the Teahouse! There are several places to find articles with multiple issues.

• At Template:Multiple issues page, left column, click on "What links here" for the list.
• There is also Category:All pages needing cleanup.

Another place to find more Wikipedia articles to be improved is at the Community portal, Help out section. The grid on that page shows nine different types of updates on a variety of articles, and that page is frequently updated. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia encyclopedia. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Website Sources section

what exactly is Bibliography and further reading sub-heading? and why it contains Website Sources section (like in United States article) does that means I have to separate website sources form book sources or pdf sources when I make an article? why Website Sources section is not simply under References sub-heading? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A "bibliography" in the context of Wikipedia refers to the list of books/articles that the subject of an article has published. For example, Stephen King bibliography is a list of all of the books that author Stephen King has published. The "References" section lists all of the sources that the Wikipedia article itself cites; it explains where the information found in the article can be verified. The "Further reading" section is a list of works where a particularly interested reader could find more detailed coverage about the subject. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just took a look at the United States article – the case there is a little different. The term "bibliography" is confusing because it can either mean a list of works published by an author and it can also mean a list of works that an article cites. The "Bibliography" section at the United States article serves kind of as a combination of references and further reading – it combines sources that the article cites frequently with published media that the reader could look to to find more information about the United States. The "Website sources" header seems to be special to the United States article. Generally, I don't think you need to separate the websites from the other sources. I think it's there for the convenience of the reader. Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2 and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout explains what each section of an article contains. All the sources are references. The other sections are for information not used in the article but which might be useful for the reader. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor Mz7: thank you thank you so much!! you really helped me!! shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

the difference between

what is the difference between sources and references and citations? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. How I understand it is this: The "source" is the place that verifies a piece of information you want to write in Wikipedia. For example, if you are researching the birthplace of a notable actor, and you find the answer in a book about the actor, the book is the "source". In order to mention the birthplace on Wikipedia, you must provide a "reference" to the source – in other words, the reference explains where you found the information you are writing. A "citation" is a more precise way of saying a "reference". On Wikipedia, they mean the same thing. For help with referencing on Wikipedia, check out the page Help:Referencing for beginners. If you find yourself confused, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse and we'd be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To simplify a bit, Super ninja2, the book in this example is the "source". The bibliographic information about the source is the "reference" or the "citation". The source is immutable, but the reference may have shortcomings and can be improved. The reference may lack page numbers, or the name of the publisher, or an ISBN number, and so on. If you add those, you have improved the reference, which is a worthy and commendable thing to do. But the underlyling source remains the same, although the referencing in the article has been improved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

what is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page?

I saw a question here few seconds ago about the "new section" tab and I surprised I never knew it was exists! what is the "new section" tab and what it used for? and thank you all for your help shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Super ninja2. Unsurprisingly, the "new section" option allows editors to create a new section. This allows new topics to be discussed on that particular talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. The "New section" tab is basically a short-cut for adding a new section to a talk page and it works pretty much the same way as the "Edit" tab. Go to User talk:Super ninja2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the very top and see what happens. Next, try clicking on the "New section" tab and see what happens. You can in fact add a new section to a talk page using the "Edit" tab; it just takes a little more time since you have to manually format the section heading, etc. and place the section in the proper location on the talk page. The "New section" tab will automatically do that for you.

You seem to have lots of questions about Wikipedia which is fine, but sometimes you can learn a lot by searching for the answers yourself. Have you taken the Wikipedia:Adventure yet? Lots of answers about Wikipedia can be found there. There is also WP:FAQ which has lots of answers to common questions about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Invalid COI

Hi,

I came across a COI and thought to investigate the closed case. Upon successfully getting the feedback from the editors of COI, i got to know that editors created the COI page without any proof and just based on assumptions. There has been some wicked act on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_marketing_research_firms

After questioning the editors several times, they failed to provide any evidence on which the whole drama was created. I would request senior editors to investigate this "digitgaps" on COI page and find out the following editors have some external connection outside wikipedia to create such a scene: Tagishsimon, Brianhe and BilbySamwiki2001 (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DigitGaps. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Samwiki2001. This matter is over and done with, and those highly experienced editors you mention have done absolutely nothing wrong. Continuing the discussion is disruptive. Please read the essay Drop the stick and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi [[User talk:Cullen328|, thanks for checking this. Don't you think that if a case is invalid then those COI pages should be deleted? Samwiki2001 (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Royalty-free images

are Royalty-free images allowed to be uploaded on wikipedia? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Super ninja2. Probably not, but it depends on what the copyright holder means by "royalty free". If they mean that they retain copyright and control, but grant permission to people to reuse the image without payment, that is not enough, because images in Wikipedia (apart from fair use) must be available for anybody to reuse and modify, under CC-BY-SA or similar. If they mean that they have released them under a suitable licence, then yes. You need to check the specific copyright status. --ColinFine (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)