Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 525

Archive 520

←

Archive 523

Archive 524

Archive 525

Archive 526

Archive 527

→

Archive 530

Requirements to translate articles

Hello,I am a beginner in wikipedia and I would like to start a project. Specifically I would like to ask what I need to do in order to translate an article in to my native language. And a more specific question :May I use the same references with the original article that I translated or I have to insert new ones even if I have only translate it without adding anything new? GreekNinjas (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GreekNinjas, welcome to the Teahouse. English Wikipedia (this site) only hosts articles written in English. Assuming that your native language is Greek, you will need to create those translated articles at our sister project, the Greek Wikipedia / Βικιπαίδεια. You can visit their community portal at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Πύλη Κοινότητας, which should hopefully allow you to find the Greek equivalent of our Help Desk and Teahouse pages. Each Wikipedia project sets its own editorial policies, although they are often similar to the policies used here. So, we can't give specific advice on what their policies about references will be, only that it's likely quite similar, and you can hopefully use the references from here. After that, all you need to do is find out how they prefer to handle copyright attribution for articles which have been imported and translated from another Wikipedia. You are quite welcome to ask more questions here, but really should try to make contact with the community over there as well. Murph9000 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I would add to Murph9000's answer, GreekNinjas, is to look at WP:Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Blue Lime Labs page was moved to speedy deletion - why?

Hi there,

I have just created my first wiki page - Blue Lime Labs - though it was moved to speedy deletion due to ""A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)".

Could somebody advise me if I can improve my article somehow? What influences if my article topic is significant or not?

Jolita.pundzaite (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jolita.pundzaite. What influences whether an article can be accepted or not is whether there has been significant writing published about it by people who have no connection with the subject (the Wikipedia jargon for this is notability). That's all. Not fame, importance, significance, influence, popularity, innovation, or superlatives. And certainly not what it does, says, makes, sells, or publishes, until somebody else has written about them. But if a new article doesn't demonstrate notability, it may sometimes nevertheless be kept for improvement if it shows that the subject has some importance, since there might then be enough references to establish notability. From what you have written in your draft, it looks like just a new company, of which there are thousands, and most of them will not have the notability to justify a Wikipedia article.

Unfortunately, you have done what many people do, and come new to Wikipedia, and tried to do one of hardest tasks in Wikipedia, which is creating a new article. Furthermore, I suspect you have done what many people do and come to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting your company. Please be aware that promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. Only if people have already decided that your company is worth writing about will Wikipedia be interested in it. Please read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Troubles to edit an article without external sources

Dear guys. Wrote an article on composer Thomas Daniel Schlee some weeks ago, and added something last Sunday. One administrator deleted everything, telling me, I cannot add the article without quoting the original sources. - The "problem" is that there don't exist any original sources besides my own research and the information I got from Thomas Daniel Schlee himself. - To me it is clear that one time information has to be written for the first time, but my administrator doesn't understand this or is not allowed to accept this. Is there any chance to edit my article with myself as source? Christian Heindl (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Christian. When I was a new editor here at Wikipedia, I also faced problems like these. But though Wikipedia is a free and editable encyclopedia, we still have some rules to follow (a lot, really). External sources are required since these prove the the article about a certain topic is correct and accurate. Also, sorry but original research is not allowed in Wikipedia (you can read WP:NOR). But, you can still try to list sources that could be related to your research, or in which you can copyedit them using your research if possible, without conflict. I hope you understand. Your companion user, | Democratics ^{Talk stat: Open} | My Guestbook Here 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christian Heindl, I can see that you're getting frustrated with Wikipedia's many rules, and indeed they are frustrating! But the matter here is very simple: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It publishes articles on topics that are already well known and widely written about. It is not the appropriate place to try and publish research for the first time. If you would like to get your work on Schlee out there, you should seek to have it published by a traditional publisher of original content (i.e. a magazine, scholarly journal or book publisher). Once published somewhere like that, the information can then be added to Wikipedia with an appropriate citation. But it cannot be the place your research first appears. You cannot use yourself as a source. Joe Roe (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Schlee, like many living prominent scholars and classical performers, has a lot of publications but little material about him. However, here are some possibilities: 1) http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/omz.1994.49.issue-3-4/omz.1994.49.34.214/omz.1994.49.34.214.xml, which includes the editor's introduction to him, 2) http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/omz.2005.60.issue-12/omz.2005.60.12.30/omz.2005.60.12.30.xml, which is an acceptable source of quotations by Schlee, 3)https://www.ktn.gv.at/276322_DE-Landesregierung-LR_Rolf_Holub.?newsid=24128, which gives a record of his role in one organization, 4) according to the German National Library (a good source for baiscs such as birthdate), there is information on him in 'Internat. who's who mus.' 97/01/04/08/2014 (I don't know about this publication, but the NAME sounds authoritative), and 5) if you are in Austria or have access to a good academic library in Germany, try looking in a paper source about musicians and musical scholars. Contrary to widely circulated opinions, there is a lot of good published material that is not online. Music is not my field, but I know in literature and archaeology, for example, there is a lot of material only available in paper publications. Kdammers (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for all your comments! As far as I see from all these English Wikipedia has other rules than the German one, which is definitely proud to be the first and only internet source for countless topics. So this was my first and last attempt to add something to the English one.194.166.18.37 (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Thomas Daniel Schlee already is an article, started over two years ago. It is lacking in citations. Kdammers (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Using interviews for biographical information?

Hi all! I've created two articles Wanda Gass and Monica Helms. In both, I use information from interviews that both women provided to populate information about their early lives, etc. I understand that the information they provided is from a primary source and read WP:Interviews. Another editor has removed much of this information (it smacks of being a little retaliatory based on this diff, but I would like to check my understanding of the issue anyway).

I restored the content, but want to make sure I did the right thing. Can someone provide me with a bit of wisdom one way or the other? Lizzius (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A reference to an interview with the subject of an article may sometimes be relevant, but can do nothing to help establish that the subject is notable. An interview can be cited to support a statement such as "she claims she was born in 1988", but not "she was born in 1988". Maproom (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think notability is in question here. There is helpful material about self-published material used as sources of information about the subject themselves here WP:SELFSOURCE. I can see no reason not to use a university published article as a reliable source for the degrees that university has granted. Gab4gab (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Lizzius The diff you provided from User:Nurse12 is concerning. Yes, in its light, this smacks of retaliatory editing rather than careful consideration of the merits of the edit. So far you've reverted twice, and did not leave a detailed edit summary on the second. I do see you've opened up a discussion on the talk page (where you both have posted with civility) which is exactly what you should have done. IMO it's best to revert once, then discuss, then return the content after some time. If you're not already, please be aware of the three revert rule and you might find the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle a useful read.

There seems to be a conflation here of a primary source's inability to help determine notability, with an inability to use them. The fact that they are worthless for notability assessment in no wise implies using primary sources is improper in any way—nor that an article that thus far fails to establish notability through secondary and independent sources, means any of the primary sources in use should be removed. Rather, the issues are separate. That being said, primary sources must be used carefully, should not be used for self-serving claims; only for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", and cannot be used for interpretation analysis, evaluation, etc. And an article should not be based primarily on primary sources, even if notability is sufficiently established through the right types of sources.

In this case. I've only looked at Wanda Gass, but the statements the primary sources were used for seemed fine – except possibly for the claim that "despite the club being created for young men...", which seems a bit self-serving; self-congratulations of overcoming institutional prejudice. (Actually, though this is in the interview source that was cited in the same paragraph, it appeared after the citation, so it's not clear that source was being used to verify that claim (it could be thus challenged and removed as unsourced (see WP:BURDEN).

So I support the return of the majority of the content removed from Wanda Gass. However, I don't think the sources thus far cited sufficiently establish her notability – again, a separate issue – but it really is something you should focus on. Maybe some of the sources here might help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Those sources do look promising. Regarding notability I believe the current IEEE reference satisfies criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. Gab4gab (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Great!! Thank you. I'll make the suggested edits, and thank you for finding another source to help fill out the article. Lizzius (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. Your experience on WP is stunning. I've been looking forward to getting further guidance about WP policies in light of edits that have been made between User:Lizzius and me.

1. I'm a noob. The allegation of 'retaliatory editing' is disconcerting as the interactions between User:Lizzius and I have not been put into context. It's easy to make me look like the bad girl by selectively offering one instance. On it's face, that interaction looks snotty and unwarranted. In fact, the first article I ever edited was wiped out by this user, without any constructive guidance or input. I'm open to guidance and input, but the tone set by this user was discouraging. I want to add value where I can, but my attempts at offering input were met with hostility as this user followed me to several other articles reviewing and reverting my edits without input. And this user had only been on WP two months longer than I had! I had my own, personal editor following me around WP, so I blew out and returned a month or two later...only to be met again with this user stalking me! Is there no policy against this??

2. The policy about primary sources and independent sources and interviews is pretty clear. It's recommended that a user not use as a secondary source an essay written by the subject. And a user could cite an interview as a source, but notability must first be established. That was not the case in the content I reviewed, so I removed that content with an appropriate policy citation. That wasn't retaliatory, but hypocrisy. The user's own work could not withstand the very judgments the user was using to revert my work on multiple articles.

I'd welcome any constructive input, especially advice as to how to avoid stalking by users.

Thank you. Nurse12 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nurse12. I'm sure you're aware, but "stalking" is a serious accusation and carries real world implications that are simply not relevant here. I would ask you to strike any of your accusatory comments above and remember that there are perfectly valid reasons for checking someone's contribution history (in your case, as it related to a pretty blatant BLP violation as well as two copyright problems). You can review WP:Wikihounding, specifically: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." (Consequently, Recent Changes patrol is what brought me to Scott Bundgaard in the first place, and your account was only a few days old when you offered this reasoning for your controversial edits there (this edit implies you had history with the article that extended well beyond your edits with the Nurse12 account. I asked you about it on your talk page.) Lastly, of course your edits to Wanda Gass and Monica Helms were retaliatory. While slightly frustrating and now as we both know a bit misguided, at least we both learned something and I can make the articles a bit better.

Thankfully, nearly every interaction on Wikipedia is public, so if anyone takes an interest and reviews our conversations and edits at your talk page, or Scott Bundgaard they can offer us some advice on a better way we might have been able to approach this situation. For my part, this has been good for my development as an editor, because familiarizing myself with policy as it is relevant to my understanding of some of your problematic edits has certainly improved my understanding of some of the more nuanced policies regarding sourcing, conflict resolution, etc. It's also helped me realize that I should probably have tried to be more specific on the talk-page from the onset, which I will go ahead and correct with my future edits. Lizzius (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User:Lizzius, you are Wikihounding me! WP:Wikihounding

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

You have singled me out on multiple pages to confront or inhibit (my) work and continue to follow me from place to place on Wikipedia.

You have charged me with retaliatory editing, while you were the original offender. You have charged me with not sourcing secondary sources properly, while many of your articles violate that exact policy. And now you are casting aspersion on my intent and my identity?

I thanked you during our first exchange (as anyone can see) in an attempt to abide by the WP:Civility policy, but you continued to stalk me - to Wikihound me! Thankfully all of this dialogue is public, so that you can't spin the narrative by continually omitting facts not favorable to your position. Leave me the heck alone!!

Nurse12 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Need help merging

I was about to start editing the wikipedia page on the AURAI, but noticed it should be merged with AURA. Can I do that? And if so, what do I do with the empty Aurai page? Please help!GrecoRomanNut (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, GrecoRomanNut! The pages you're looking at, Aura (mythology) and Aurai have had proposed merger templates on them for more than a year, and have been logged (Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers/Log/July_2015) but WikiProject Merge has a very long backlog (back to 2013). While it may seem simple enough to take content from one article and copy & paste it to another article, that won't preserve the page history which is an important part of Wikipedia's licensing.

I would probably leave it alone and concentrate efforts on the larger article. However, if you feel you can expand Aurai as a unique article that may be a better option. I note that the only comment about merging (which predates the templates) is against a merge, so at least one editor wants to keep it. - Reidgreg (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reidgreg, thanks for the help. I was just going through all the Greek Stubs, searching for one I can expand. I am good at referencing and adding thigns in the right spots, my problem is just finding the info in the first place! I will leave Aurai alone and edit Aura! GrecoRomanNut (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Uploading Photo

How to upload a photo from my computer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Rudra Protap Chackraborty, and welcome to the Teahouse! To upload an image, follow the instructions here. Be very sure that the image you're uploading is something you have permission to upload. (Being able to download an image to your computer does not mean you have permission from the image creator to upload it to Wikipedia.) Otherwise, it will likely be deleted quickly, as Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

However, I believe you still need to wait two more days for your account to be autoconfirmed in order for you to be able upload images on your own. To be autoconfirmed requires that your account be four days old (According to this, your account is two days old.) and have at least made ten edits in total. This is to protect against vandalism. You will then be autoconfirmed automatically and be able to do things like edit semi-protected articles, etc..

-- Gestrid (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please check my article

Hello!

I've just posted an article CloudMounter, could you please check it and let me know if I need to correct anything. I tried to make it corresponding to all requirement.

Thanks in advance!DashaG11 (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DashaG11: without pronouncing on the subject's notability, which the reviewer at AfG will be better equipped to assess, I can tell you that the screenshot section is unnecessary. You will find that short articles on software do not feature one, for the simple reason that there is little of general interest in the average application UI screenshot :) Your referencing looks good to me (but please move the inline ref tags after rather than in front of the sentence's punctuation). Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@DashaG11: I have rewritten the article slightly (see what I changed here) to convey a slightly more encyclopedic tone. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: ::@Elmidae: Thanks!

sourcing problems

I have a myriad of problems with an article I have been trying to write for several months, ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB). It is an organization I became interested in because I work with an inorganic standards producer who depends on their services. They are active in more than 50 companies overseeing ISO certifications and are referenced several places on wikipedia already so it would seem they meet the notability threshold. My problem is sourcing. The best information is from their website. There are some word combinations that are unavoidable. After months of futility, I finally reached out to them and they tried to grant permission to use their website as source, which they did. Can this be done without uploading the original source files for the website, simply by the owner of the intellectual property?

Bbcard1 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If they are willing to license the content of their website under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA (which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose, even commercial), then it will allowable to use content from it directly in Wikipedia - they would need either to declare on its website that it was so licensed, or to send a mail as specified in donating copyright materials. Permission to use it on Wikipedia is not enough.

However, it is rarely appropriate to get the owner to license text in this way. The content of most organisations' websites is too promotional for a Wikipedia article; and it is not usually necessary to quote the text precisely anyway unless it is a literary work or something like that.

But I have another concern. Wikipedia articles should normally be based nearly 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject: what the subject has said (or their friends, relatives, employees, associates, or customers) is of little interest. From your description, it sounds as if unusually, there might be a substantial amount of uncontroversial factual information which can appropriately be included from their site (see PRIMARY); but the fact remains that if you cannot find any substantial independent published material about them, then they fail the criterion for notability, and no article will be accepted, however it is written. If you read Your first article, you will see that you are recommended to start by finding independent references, and then write the article from those independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bbcard1, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main problem seems to be your previous use of copyright text in the article ANAB - The ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board. For them to grant permission for this material to used on Wikipedia, you and they need to follow the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. A warning, it's a complicated process and if it is not followed to the letter, the text will be rejected here. There is also the issue that the tone of the text on official websites will almost always be too promotional and would require heavy editing to bring it into line with Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, etc. This is a notable organization and should have an article, try the advice I give people who get into similar difficulties here:

1. Read their relevant website pages, and more importantly consult independent sources too, like this, this, and this. Digest the material. Internalize it. Make sure you understand the outline of the subject well enough to explain it verbally to another person without looking at the sources.
2. Then make an outline of the facts only (no adjectives; no phrases; just the facts.)
3. Now attempt a draft of the topic, just using your outline, preferably after not having looked at the source article for a little while. Work on it in your sandbox, rather than attempting to create it immediately in article space. But remember, you cannot paste copyright material into your sandbox either.
4. Go back and check your draft against the sources for accuracy and add the appropriate inline citations.

Any help? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that can help. It is an organization that is growing quite a bit. I'll do notes today and try to do an article over the next couple of days. I may start with a less ambitious article. While there is an importance to the ISO certifications they do, it has seemed to be a part of the problem. Some of the organizations that they govern, such as The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors have wiki articles and I may use them more as a guide, at least for starters. Good idea or bad?

Bbcard1 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

One other question, I have looked into the matter and it appears the common license permission was sent some time back by ANAB. How do I know if it was processed? is there a database that can be searched?

17:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbcard1 (talk • contribs)

"Less ambitious" is probably good, Bbcard1. Make sure your notes are predominantly based on sources unconnected with the organisation - and note that organisations that it has provided a service to are not independent. Wikipedia doesn't care about "importance", except insofar as that importance is manifest in independent writing published about the source.

As for your question about the permission: I'm not certain if there's a way to find out, but the OTRS Noticeboard is probably a good place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary source when the primary is only updated infrequently

Does the existence of an authoritative primary source justify never using a reliable secondary source? See Talk:List of circulating currencies#ISO codes.

There is a dispute, which I am trying to mediate, over the acceptability of a secondary source (Xe.com) for ISO 4217:2015 three-letter codes for circulating currencies, such as GBP for the British pound and TVD for the Tuvaluan dollar. Both editors, Normakku and Zntrip, have been quite civil, but I believe neither of them is completely in the right.

The question at issue is whether the existence of an authoritative primary source justifies not using a reliable secondary source, when

• the primary source's own material (declarations, really, since it is the authority that issues the codes) is revised between public releases (Talk:List of circulating currencies#amendments)
• the secondary source is updated frequently (Xe.com: ISO 4217 Currency Codes) and
• the secondary source currently reports a change that does not appear in the most recent public version of the primary source

Fuller discussion is at the Talk page. I'

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Thnidu. The principle that Wikipedia does not rely on original research is one of our three core content policies. That policy states quite clearly that reliable secondary sources are preferred, although primary and tertiary sources can be used to fill in the non-controversial blanks. I have no expertise regarding ISO currency codes and so I am commenting on the general principle instead, so here is the bottom line: Reliable secondary sources are preferred, because they have the expertise to interpret the primary sources and present the information in context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. Zntrip has done some more digging and demonstrated clearly, in their own words, that "While XE may be a reliable source for exchange rates, I don't think the same can be said about its presentation of ISO 4217."

Re: primary vs secondary: this case is not typical of the cases discussed at WP:PSTS. This isn't material resulting from research by the primary source, or non-trivial, possibly controversial assertions about the source itself, or anything else the source reports about the world at large. The codes we're talking about are defined and promulgated by this source: by definition, they are whatever the source says they are, and questioning the source's reliability makes about as much sense as questioning the reliability of the U.S. Congress's official website as the source for the text of a Congressional bill, e.g. H.R.213 [114th Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2015] (top of "Most-Viewed Bills | Top 10" as I write this).

So as far as I'm concerned, this dispute is resolved in favor of Zntrip's choices. Normakku, I hope you'll continue to contribute with the same level of enthusiasm and dedication you've shown here, and with proper attention to the general issues we've discussed. We should never stop learning. I freely admit that I was wrong to assume that Xe.com's codes were as reliable as their exchange rates (appear to be), and I'm very glad Zntrip looked into it.

--Thnidu (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Submission issue

Hello everyone, Thanks for accepting me to this group. I have tried to create a page on Wikipedia about an organization called Connect4Climate. I like what they have been doing and realized they don't have a page on Wikipedia. Did some extensive research and submitted a page. So far the draft hasn't been approved. What has been happening? The link to the draft page is Draft:Connect4Climate Thanks much. Best, Daniel DPLopes (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@DPLopes: This is because the draft has not been submitted yet. To do so place {{subst:submit}} on the top of the article to enter it into the articles for creation process. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not quite, The Voidwalker. DPLopes: when you removed the submission template (which recorded the failed submission on 24 April) from the draft, that removed the "resubmit" button. Quite apart from removing that button, the fact of the previous rejection is important information for any reviewer. PrimeHunter has restored the template, so you can resubmit. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hadn't fully checked the history, thanks ColinFine! -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DPLopes. I took a look at your draft article Draft:Connect4Climate and would like to make some recommendations. Your references are presented as bare URLs. I recommend that you flesh them out into full references with bibliographic details. Please read Referencing for beginners. Your draft has many external links in its body. This is not allowed, although a small number of external links are allowed in a separate section at the end of the article. I also have concerns about the large number of sources which are not independent of Connect4Climate and its affiliated organizations. A Wikipedia article should be built primarily by summarizing what reliable independent sources say about the topic. All assertions which are in any way controversial must be referenced to a reliable independent source. I noticed various lists of notable people that lack references. In conclusion, please read Your first article and revise your draft following all of its recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

allergic reaction to triatomine bites in the U.S.

I looked up triatoma bugs. A possibly useful addition is that bites can cause severe anaphylactic shock in those allergic to them. I KNOW. This happened many times to my mother and me over 50 years ago when we lived in a then isolated rural area in So. Calif. (outside Orange). This is a rare but life-threatening fact with application to other areas in the southern U.S. 2602:30A:C059:A9E0:A0C5:E938:5DC0:B71C (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@2602:30A:C059:A9E0:A0C5:E938:5DC0:B71C: Yes, you're right, that is important and should be added to the article if it is verifiable. So far, though, we have only your word for it. That doesn't mean I'm doubting you, but No original research is a fundamental policy here. Among the many good reasons is the fact that anyone can say, for example, "The White House has been infiltrated by hostile aliens from the Lesser Magellanic Cloud. I KNOW! I've seen them!". Can you provide references, whether from newspapers, health agency warnings, medical journals, or other reliable sources? ("Reliable sources or it didn't happen!") Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This CDC website mentions that the saliva of certain types of triatomines can cause an allergic reaction in some people. Mduvekot (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mduvekot and 2602:30A:C059:A9E0:A0C5:E938:5DC0:B71C: Oh, good find! Even better:

Could I be allergic to the bite of a triatomine bug?

Yes. The saliva of certain types of triatomines can cause an allergic reaction in some people. An allergic reaction may be characterized by severe redness, itching, swelling, welts, hives, or, rarely, anaphylactic shock (severe allergic reaction). ... It is important to note that not all triatomines are infected with the parasite even though they may cause an allergic reaction.

And the Centers for Disease Control are indisputably a reliable source for disease information. --Thnidu (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding it to the article now. --Thnidu (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability issue

I have created the page for Pascal Stil, an international draughts player, who is the only player that has ever represented Ireland on an international level, and continues to do so. While he is no match for the top players, I thought his participation in European Championships and the fact that there are no other players in the same sport from Ireland, would make the page qualify for notability, but the message is still there. I have added some additional information and references, but could use some advice on how a sports person who is the only person from a country active in a certain sport can be more notable or notable enough. Belfastchild1974 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Pascal Stil. Since draughts is considered to be a game but not a sport (since it is a game of mental skill), I am not aware of a specific notability guideline, so that the issue (as the tag says) is one of general notability guidelines. In any case, discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Belfastchild1974. The editor who originally added the "Notability" template was Cullen328. I just re-added it after you removed it because I did not (and still not do not) feel the issue has been sufficiently addressed. You're citing of special game applets, etc. (which is essentially an online game score) may show that Stil played a particular game against a particular opponent, but it does not (at least in my opinion) equate to the kind of significant coverage that Wikipedia requires to show a person is notable for a stand-alone article. Moreover, some of the websites you've cited are in Dutch, which is fine per WP:NOENG, but they appear to be user generated content which are not considered to be reliable sources. What would be helpful are newspaper or magazine articles (online or not), or even books where Stil have received more than just a passing mention or a brief sentence or two of coverage. The source should be ones that have a reputation for strong editorial control or oversight and they should not be what is know as primary sources.

Finally, you did not use the WP:AfC process when you created this article, but decided to add it to the article namespace yourself. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but drafts vetted via the AfC process tend to have their issues addressed before they are elevated to article status. AfC does not mean an article will never be deleted, but AfC articles tend to be in better shape when it comes to notability and, thus, have a better chance of surviving deletion. As it is, it's not a given that the Stil article would survive a nomination for deletion given the current state of sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I added the notability template to this article a few days ago. I did so after looking at the references now in the article and conducting an unsuccessful online search for better sources. I see results pages showing that this person scored at the bottom of the pack in two international tournaments in a fairly obscure game competition. I say that while noting that my own grandparents loved that game. I do not see the kind of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources necessary to establish notability. Neither directory listings nor blog posts establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just for reference Belfastchild1974, I also searched for something online about Stil, but like Cullen328 did not find anything that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. Ireland has a well-established press and if he had received significant coverage for his accomplishments in the Irish press, it's likely something would've have turned up. It's possible I am just looking in the wrong places which is why I asked about Stil at WT:BTG#Pascal Stil. It's very possible that someone from that WikiProject might be able to clarify whether he is notable as a draughts player, but so far I have not gotten a response. In my own personal opinion as someone who knows almost nothing about professional draughts but knows quite a bit about professional players of other board games, it does not seem likely that someone who is listed as finishing 64th in the 2012 European championships of international draughts and 75th in the European championships international draughts 2014 (two articles which you also created by the way) would be considered notable enough simply as a draughts professional for Wikipedia's purpose. Perhaps it is simply too soon for Stil to have a Wikipedia article written about him, and maybe in time his accomplishments will have received more substantial coverage in reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with that draughts is seen as a game and not a sport, as it is covered by the International Mind sports Association, which even in it's Wikipedia article is confirmed to be a sports federation. The indication here that it would not be a sport is just ignorance and lack of knowledge of the person adding that statement.

Belfastchild1974 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Robert McClenon's intent was to insult Stil or other draughts players. I'm sure there are lots of people who feel board games such as chess, backgammon, reversi, go, etc. are more intellectual contests than physical ones, and rightly or wrongly the term "sports" tends to be associated more with the latter than the former. Even so, we should still try to assume good faith and maintain civility when we interact with other editors, especially at a friendly place such as the Teahouse, so that last bit at the end of your post was not really appropriate.

Back to Stil and notability, I've already posted something at Talk:Pascal Stil#Notability so no need to repeat by all of that here, but just being a member of an organization which is considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not enough in and of itself to establish notability. Notability is not inherited/transferred from one subject to another; notability has to be established for each subject and the way this is done is showing that subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Making templates

Hi ! i just want to know how to create some templates according to your specifications and style of templates, But for now i like to know how to create a Name template similar to the Korean template and can i modify it ?

for some what like this (Name of person avove, plus his / her name on Baybayin for example this one which i can put this characters from pre kudlit and post kudlit ᜇᜌ᜵ᜃᜎᜅᜒᜆ) i want a good answer for this question so i can proceed to my project. Thank you!JournalmanManila (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@JournalmanManila:, I also asked about templates here when my account was a few weeks old, and although this is the place for new editors to ask questions, it seems most new editors don't dive into templates that quickly. (That just shows how exceptional we are!) It'd probably be better to ask template questions at the Village Pump. It may look a little intimidating at first sight but they were really patient and were quickly able to help me. Another option might be to ask at Template talk:Korean or view the history of Template:Korean and ask one of the major contributors on their talk page for coding help. I'm wondering, though, if it might not be better to start by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems? This seems to be in their wheelhouse. If you think so too, ask by starting a New Section on their Talk page. Hope this helps! - Reidgreg (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Oh Im sorry , now i know where i should ask a questions according to specific issues , And im just a newbie here.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JournalmanManila (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Creating a Page

I want to create a page for a article.How?Rudra 07:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rudra Protap Chackraborty. Start by completing the Wikipedia Adventure tutorial. This won't take long.

Next, try reading WP:My first article for some pointers. Most Teahouse hosts will recommend that you spend some time learning the ropes by making a variety of small edits. Take your pick from the tasks offered at the Community portal. Creating a new article can be quite challenging, many new editors get discouraged when their articles are rejected when first reviewed. Don't let that stop you, making mistakes is expected and allowed for, but learning by watching what others do can be less painful to your ego.

Cheers,  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello @Rudra Protap Chackraborty: and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is not as easy as it sounds: I would suggest building some experience by improving existing articles first. Once you are ready, there is a good explaining the process at Wikipedia:Your first article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

ignored?

Hi I have had my article rejected three times. I chose an existing Wikipedia format. The person is notable but the response is that it is blank.

Is there someone I can pay to do this programming/ editing/ patience with weekly rejections?

I don't have time or expertise it seems to do this. Who can I contact to give them this worthwhile project as it seems random and offensive

Uncertainty3214 (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Uncertainty3214. I looked at your current draft and it is blank. There is no way at all that a blank submission will be accepted. I looked at an earlier version of your draft, and it looked somewhat promising but had some sections repeated several times. It is unlikely that a reviewer would accept a draft that repeats its content over and over. That kind of problem can be corrected quickly if you establish that the topic (this person) is notable. What is required are references to significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. The Teahouse is not the place to try to hire paid editors. This is a volunteer project and paid editors often (as a generalization) violate our policies and create far more problems than they solve. Successful editing here can be tough but is not at all impossible. We have well over five million articles after all, the vast majority written by volunteers. Please read Your first article and Referencing for beginners, and follow all the advice that you find there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Uncertainty3214: Cullen328 has a lot of patience. My reaction to your question was:

What is it that you don't understand about "We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead."?

You say "I have had my article rejected three times", but there isn't any article! All you've done is give a title and create a blank page with it; that is not "creating an article". Apparently you think you've found a topic that deserves an article and you want somebody to write it.

"Look at this house I've built! But nobody wants to buy it, I don't understand why not."

"?? All I see is a vacant lot."

"I don't have time for trivialities. I've followed the format, now who can I pay to fill in the content?"

Follow the advice you've between given twice now: Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead.

That doesn't mean writing "Someone please write this article for me" on the Requested Articles page or Talk page: you must read, understand, and follow the directions at the top of the page, in the box headed How to request an article. It doesn't take acquiring much expertise, much less than studying the driver's manual to learn the rules of the road for your first driver's license.

RTFM: Read Your first article.Go learn the basics, or read and follow Abdullah Alam's advice. If you haven't got the time for that, you might as well forget the whole thing.

--Thnidu (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu, please try to remember that the Teahouse is supposed to be "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." We don't bite the heads off newbies, and don't tell them to RTFM. If you can't answer with the patience you praise in Cullen328, "you might as well forget the whole thing". Rojomoke (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rojomoke and Uncertainty3214: Aiiiii! You are quite right, of course, and I humbly apologize. --Thnidu (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a note: the Draft:George Henry Freedman is actually blank, however the appropriate contents is possibly in User:Uncertainty3214/sandbox. Anyway, the sandbox page does not fit submission criteria, either. --CiaPan (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Same text (or similar; I'm sorry, TL;DR) in Draft:George Freedman and Draft talk:George Freedman. --CiaPan (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. CiaPan (talk)

Deleting a redirect

i'm trying to move this draft to the article namespace; but there's a redirect with the intended name and it won't move. how can i delete such a redirect? --HamedH94 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Go to Requested moves. You need to request a non-controversial technical move to move the draft over the redirect. An administrator will do the move for you because it involves deleting the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Special names

Hi! How to get 'special' names? I was scrolling here and saw some of the names in colour or in different font and beside it is the talkpage. Is it the signature? How do you do that... Lucio4550 (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lucio4550. Yes, it's all the signatures' formatting. See Wikipedia:Signatures for more info. --CiaPan (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just finished my draft - need feedback

Hi there,

Here is a newly done article about Per Moller -> User:Jolita.pundzaite/Per Møller

Can somebody review and give me a brief feedback?

Jolita.pundzaite (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I see very little here to establish Møller's notability. Most of the references are one-paragraph summaries of his employment history from announcements of conferences where he has been a panelist or judge, and I don't think that any of them meet the conditions of Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Further, such brief descriptions are commonly provided by the subject himself, in which case they would not be reliable. You'll have a much stronger case if you can provide articles from independent news outlets describing to establish the subject's notability. --Thnidu (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I need help!

Please help me, editors. My problem is this: I was editing Asterope (Hesperide) and I noticed it did not have one of those little pronounciation guides after the name at the start of the article. I was trying to add it, and I was doing fine, until I remembered that other pages have this cool thing where if you hover your cursor on a letter in greek, it tells you the pronounciation in english. I do not know how to add one of those and I was wondering if you could help, thank you GrecoRomanNut (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, GrecoRomanNut! The pronunciation guide seems to be using Template:IPAc-en. There are instructions on its implementation there. I have no idea how to actually pronounce Asterope, so I'll leave that to you! - Reidgreg (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reidgreg, Well, its as-tear-oh-pee hahah! I didn't know either. Youtube helped :D. Anyway. I found the right text for it. And i copy pasted in the right order, but it didnt work. If you could visit the Asterope (Hesperide) and see what I mean, you could help further. I have just never done this before so I am having trouble. If you could help me that would be great — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrecoRomanNut (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go there now. - Reidgreg (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Left a reply on your talk page, hope it helps! - Reidgreg (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding supplementary questions. Should all pronunciations be cited or are they just considered guides which do not need sourcing? If needed what type of source would be suitable? I recall disputes as to pronunciation in classical languages. SovalValtos (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: it's preferred that non-obvious content should be cited, and a cited pronunciation would be less likely to be challenged by another editor. But I'm not certain of the specifics on this one. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation has lots of information on how and when to use pronunciation guides, but not about citing for them. I would tend to look for an answer from those who deal with this more often, at WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Writing systems or on Help talk:IPA for English. - Reidgreg (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Personal Sandbox

I read somewhere that we have our own personal sandboxes? where can we access our sandbox?Oaktreemaster1911 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. At the top right of any page there are a number of links including one labelled "Sandbox". In your case that will take you to User:Oaktreemaster1911/sandbox. You can create further user subpages, named as you wish along the lines of User:Oaktreemaster1911/yourchosenpagetitle. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

To further comment on what David Biddulph said, such named sandboxes are very handy for writing articles. You can work an article for as long as you want before moving it to mainspace. You can also use sandboxes to rewrite existing articles that have issues. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting guidance on how to edit my entry to move from draft to article

Hello Wiki Geniuses,

I have been working on research for an article for quite some time and hope to get some guidance on how to get it to see the light of day.

Draft:Al Stohlman Award for Achievement in Leathercraft

This international recognition has been awarded annually for over 30 years to the top leather artisans in the world. Unfortunately the majority of the leatherworkers associated with the award are in their 70s and 80s, so not much digital history exists. I had attempted to write well cited bios as they do not exist digitally anywhere else, however I do not mind removing them if that is not relevant content. The bigger challenge I have is that the person who denied the draft last time stated that it needed to be linked to the Award's website... which unfortunately doesn't exist, because all of the board members for the foundation are also in their 70s and 80s.

Any recommendations on how to best revise or cite this article for publication would be hugely appreciated.

Thank you!

- The Magnus Opus TheMagnusOpus (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't really need the bios. If the people are notable, they can have their own articles. As for sources, you can try Google's newspapers archive. They have a lot of great information not otherwise available online. Are you positive the award or the group that puts out the award doesn't have a website? It seems odd that they wouldn't in 2016, even if most of the members are older. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Hello!

I am working on publishing my first article to Wikipedia, and I don't understand how to cite online sources of information (i.e. web sites) properly. Can someone please simplify the process for me, so my submission is not denied?

Thank you! Kmfay (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. On the draft and on your user talk page you have been given useful links. In particular you should read Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kmfay. You may want to take a look at Template:Cite web. Using citation templates ensures that your references are formatted consistently, and the template reminds you of the important items that should be included. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Poor and lazy researching on my late father's page,

I note you have made some amendments but I am still disappointed with the very poor researching of information about my late father. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would quite easily be able to source information about the people my father produced and worked with during his time in the music business. His contribution to the music industry was significant but the amount of information provided on his Wikipedia page is extremely 'thin" with many omissions. I am not quite sure how Wikipedia can describe itself as an online encylopedia when it is generally so poorly researched. I have become totally disillusioned with it. Who are these faceless people who decided what should and shouldn't be printed when I,as the daughter of a subject am not allowed to edit and if I do my suggestions are rejected? I was merely stating facts and including some information which I thought should have been included. The information regarding citations and referencing are confusing and unhelpful.Carrie LedinghamCarrieledingham (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 523#Incorrect and irrelevant information on the page about my father, Norrie Paramor. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Carrieledingham: if you have further suggestions for improvements to the article Norrie Paramor, you should make them on the article's talk page. You will also be able to see there who are the "faceless people" who followed your suggestions a week ago. Maproom (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on volunteers to improve articles. The rules about references are particularly strict for biographies, so unreferenced claims should be (and, I think, have been) removed, as has some copyright material. It can be frustrating when what you "know" cannot be accepted by Wikipedia, but the project allows only facts that have been reported elsewhere. You can speed the process of improvement by pointing out independent sources to verify the information that you wish to be included. If you find the referencing method confusing, just mention the sources on the talk page, and someone will put them in for you. Dbfirs 21:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carrieldingham. In addition to what Dbfirs posted above, you can also ask for more specialized assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography since these are the two WikiProjects whose article the article written about your father seems to fall under. The Teahouse tends to be for more general questions about editing so the answers tend to sometimes be general as well. The editors of a WikiProject, however, may be able to provide more immediate and article-specific assistance in some cases. Anyway, it's just another option to consider if you find you don't get a quick response on the article's talk page. Finally, your father technically does not have a page on Wikipedia; there is an article written about him, but the subjects of articles do not own what is written about them. In fact, even those who create or edit articles do not own what they have written. Once again as pointed out by Dfirs, Wikipedians are volunteers and articles can be pretty much edited at anytime by anyone in the world who wants to, which means that sometimes content is added/removed when it shouldn't be. What experienced editors try to do is ensure that article comply with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and manual of style. Since there are over 5,000,000 articles and only so many Wikipedians, it sometimes takes a bit of time before things are noticed and edited accordingly. Since you have a conflict of interest with respect to your father, Wikipedia asks you to be very careful when editing the article because sometimes people closely connected to a particular subject have a hard time maintaining a neutral point of view. You are not, however, prohibited from ever editing the article and in some cases (as explained in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide) it is totally acceptable for you to do so. As long as you are open about your COI and explain your edits using edit sums of on the article talk page, nobody will be able to accuse you of anythng improper. The changes you make may be reverted by another editor who disagrees with them; if they are, discuss them on the article talk page and try to establish a consensus for them using relevant policies and guidelines as explained in WP:BRD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

First Page

The first page I created is here -> Frank Brickey

Would someone look at it and offer feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhawk84 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jayhawk84. I took a look at Frank Brickey. I think that you have done a good job of writing, formatting and organizing the article. My concern is about the quality of the sources, and whether or not Brickey is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. The first reference is an obituary that shows every sign of being submitted by family members. The second is a directory listing. The third is more or less an anecdote told by an opinion columnist in a small town newspaper. So, my recommendation is to try to find higher quality sources that devote significant coverage to Brickey. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)