Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 532

Archive 525

←

Archive 530

Archive 531

Archive 532

Archive 533

Archive 534

Archive 535

Why do I see rollback icon?

When I view the history of the page, for some entries, I see next to the summary, the words: (current) [rollback] [vandalism]. For example, it looks like: 02:11, September 22, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+3,055)‎ . . User talk:Saydieee ‎ (current) [rollback] [vandalism]. Why am I able to rollback an edit if I don't have the rollback privilege? Or do I have rollback rights? because I don't think I do. NikolaiHo^Talk 05:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nikolaiho, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have Twinkle enabled in your preferences? Twinkle has the ability to rollback. It's essentially the same as the rollback user right, but it doesn't allow for the use of tools like Huggle, which requires the user to have real rollback permissions, not Twinkle's version of rollback. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Peculiar; I use Twinkle but I don't see that option. I can confirm that you are not one of the 6,852 rollbackers. Nor are you among the 853 administrators, and a quick check of your user rights show that you have extended confirmed user and pending changes reviewer rights. All of which gets us no closer to answering your question, I'm afraid.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: The option shows up when viewing a diff. The options would say either "[restore this version]" or "[rollback (AGF)] [rollback] [rollback (VANDAL)]" depending on which diff's your viewing. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you're right Gestrid - looking at a diff I see the following options at the top: [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]. So how does a rollback differ from Undo?--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

A Twinkle rollback replaces the current version with the selected previous version. A real rollback undoes all consecutive edits by an editor. It only works on the current version of an article, and its only to be used for blatant vandalism. Basically, if ExampleUser had done three vandalous edits to ExampleArticle, someone who has rollback rights could undo all three edits in literally one click (no "Are you sure?", just one click). -- Gestrid (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks Gestrid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gronk Oz (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Gronk Oz. You forgot to sign your comment, so your ping didn't work (Yes, pings don't work if you don't sign your comment in the same edit.), but I saw this because I've watchlisted this page. — Gestrid (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Aaargh, so easy to miss that one. Thanks for fixing it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Why other articles of similar contents have been accepted?

Hi everyone,

I wrote recently an article regardig a mathematics system that can be used to do mental calculation. I do not atend myself these lessons, as these are for children, but I know some children who are learning it and I have learned a bit myself and I really find it useful. The system is ALOHA Mental Arithmetics and I have found some Wikipedia articles regarding Kumon, Bertlitz and similar learning systems.

I have also writen another article regarding a renowned local painter and it was also erased even when this painter is mentioned in the Wikipedia for having wone several prizes. For each article I have also opened a discussion requesting help, but received no answer. Can someone give me some indications regarding how to get an article published?

Many thanks and kind regards,

María Ilovemaths (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I can find only your article on ALOHA in your sandbox, where you have been given advice on the formatting of references (WP:Citing sources). Your other article must have been written anonymously or when you were using another account. I'm struggling to find WP:reliable sources about ALOHA. Connected websites don't count because Wikipedia is not, in general, interested in what organisations say about themselves, only what independent sources write about them. Perhaps the other systems that you mention have been written about independently? Dbfirs 11:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

later ... I see you have been making some changes to your draft, but you do need to learn about WP:inline citations (numbered footnotes), and try to find WP:reliable sources in which the specific method has been written about. Dbfirs 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Cite validity

A question has been asked at User Talk:Unclepips as to the validity of the cite British Trams Online. Appears to be a fansite maintained by an individual. Does this mean we should not use and stick to more formal sources like published works that have an ISSN/ISBN or online sources that can be attributed to organisations? Est8286 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Est8286, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to WP:FANSITE, sources not to be used include Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) — Gestrid (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Est8286. Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport. They many know more about how reliable sources are for such things. The project has a subproject called UK Trams, but it does not appear to be active. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about photo credits

Is it possible to change the credit for a photo I uploaded? I can supply the proper documentation - permission from the copyright holder. Or do I need to upload the the photo again. michaelphmccartyMichaelphmccarty (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Michaelphmccarty. It is always difficult to give a concrete answer when the question posed does not provide the relevant specifics of the actual situation. When it comes to copyright, specifics are crucial. With the general description you've provided, the answer is probably "neither". As to the mechanics, changing the description is as simple as going to the photo, whether here or at the Wikimedia Commons, clicking edit, and changing the description (so there would be no need to re-upload anything). However, as general rules:

1. We cannot accept second hand copyright releases. Rather, we need the actual person who owns the copyright to release it in a verifiable manner, using a method that strongly corroborates that they are a person with ownership, and that they are the person they claim to be with that ownership. As an example, if a photograph was owned by Person A, and hosted at their official website, then an email from them from an email address bearing the website's domain name (and providing the type of release we need) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org might be sufficient (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more); and
2. (As implied above) permission to use a photo here is not what we need at all. Rather, we need the photo to be released to the world, irrevocably, under a suitably-free copyright license.

One of the reasons why the specifics are so important is that I can list multiple exceptions to the first rule of thumb above, depending on the actual situation – and this does not even begin to explore whether the photograph might be in the public domain for various reasons, based on date of publication or status of the photographer or owner. Can you tell us more?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked under the "type of release we need" and it shows a template which says that anyone can use the photos, even for commercial use. My source is very happy to let wikipedia use the photos, however, I don't think he will want people potentially profiting from them. Do anyone have any suggestions? Michaelphmccarty (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

He again Michael. Yes, we require a release under that type of non-restrictive license, allowing even commercial use. The only other alternative is a claim under fair use. To so so, the image at issue must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. Assuming this is about Aaron Resnick, that might be possible here since he is deceased (generally speaking fair use for images living people cannot be properly claimed at all). To do so, there must be no free image available to use and the claim can only be made for one of the various photographs you've uploaded, it must be reduced to a lower resolution to meet "minimal usage" requirements, and a fair use rationale provided and non-free file copyright tag added. I suggest you follow the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 3#File:Aaron Resnick.jpg. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Caroline Sam

I reviewed Draft:Caroline Sam and declined it, saying that it was not written in the formal neutral tone of an encyclopedia. I also said that, if the subject met musical notability guidelines, the author should indicate which criterion Sam met, with a reliable source. Its author User:Darreg, then posted to my talk page requesting advice, including writing:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by I should show that she is notable..., I thought that was already clarified by the references in the article. Well, to buttress more on that I strongly believe that they both pass the general notability guideline. There is significant independent reliable coverage evident in the article that discusses the entertainers in sufficient detail. Believe me it isn't easy to be that covered by so many references, radio stations, etc. as a third world entertainer with very little internet penetration. Maheeda and Cossy has a huge cult following in Nigeria. They are seen as cultural icons for pioneering anti-conservatism in Nigerian entertainment industry, however they are not notable (wikipedia definition) for their artistry.  

The author also wanted to know sentences I wasn’t comfortable with.

My first comment is that I am pleased to see this new editor working on multiple topics, and I see that Darreg is definitely here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and encourage them to continue their contributions. I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors on Draft:Caroline Sam. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added a number of [notes] to the draft. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks alot. I will go through each note and effect the changes appropriately, to the best of my understanding. Thanks once again. Darreg (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darreg. You might try targeting newspapers that are not likely to have their articles captured by Google News. I've often found good sources in this way – either finding an aggregator of local news or doing searches of local newspapers for a person or thing. I think this site might be a good one to work from, as it has links to numerous Nigerian newspapers. No guarantees, but opening up a whole bunch in separate tabs and searching each separately for "caroline sam" (or using an advanced search if they have them) might be fruitful. Meanwhile, using Google News, I did locate three articles from seeming reliable sources that I don't think you've tapped: Daily News article 1, Daily News article 1 and Nigerian Entertainment Today article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look into them. Sometimes I need to remind myself that Google doesn't really know everything. Darreg (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Source

Please advise for the sources reliability measures meet the mark for my page Henrik von Scheel.Rosepal8 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Their reliability may be acceptable. But to establish notability you need independent reliable published sources with significant discussion of the subject. The first source cited was written by the subject. The second and third do not even mention him. Citing such sources, particularly in the opening section, will give a bad impression to any reviewer. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it okay for Wikipedians to edit drafts that aren't theirs?

I just made a draft, and I'd like it if other people helped expand it, too. Is it okay to edit other peoples' drafts? I think it would be quite helpful of the community. -- AI RPer (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As long as you're ok with others editing it, it's ok. — Gestrid (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi AI RPer. Pretty much all pages on Wikipedia can, in principle, be edited by anyone at anytime. Drafts and userpages are not owned by their creators so they are subject to basically the same rules and guidelines as articles. Most experienced editors, however, will refrain from editing another editor's draft as a courtesy unless they are specifically asked to do so or there is a serious problem (for example, a copyright violation, etc.) which requires prompt attention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly: then I must be an exception. I assume that if someone has created a draft, rather than a subpage of their user page, they want other editors to help improve it. But I see that what User:AI RPer has created is not technically a draft, it is a subpage of their user page. AI RPer, maybe you could move it to a draft, so that other editors feel welcome to edit it? Maproom (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

AI RPer: your signtaure, as converted into the markup language I see as I type this, includes the strings "FormattingError" and "only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles". This suggests that something is wrong. Maproom (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on where the draft is located. In User-space other editors would be reluctant to edit, unless you specifically invite them. A draft in Draft-space is more open to contributions from other editors. Adding relevant WikiProject tags to the Draft talk page, with a "class=Draft" parameter, is one way to bring it to the attention of interested Wikipedians. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming that if you're seeing the red text then that must mean that you are not on the Vector skin, I like the default Vector skin because the search bar is to the top-right. But thanks for all the advice though. -- AI RPer (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing red text. In the page I'm seeing your signature as I assume you intended it. But in this edit panel, I am seeing '''[[User:AI RPer|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|{{FormattingError|[[:{{#invoke:TEMPLATENAME|main}}]] is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.}}|<span class="neutral-example-mono" style="font-family:monospace,Courier;" {{#if:|title="{{{title}}}"}}>AI RPer</span>}}]]''', which includes an error warning. Maproom (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Also I moved my draft to the draftspace so it can be considered a legitimate draft. -- AI RPer (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing my Name

Does anyone know how I can edit my name, I was a bit hasty so (W) only shows my Salutation and my last name! Please help me out! God bless, Dr. Allen Price, PhD,PhD,SSCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by DR PRICE (talk • contribs) 10:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

DR PRICE: See guidance at WP:UNC. TimothyJosephWood 12:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

How to write an article on a technical conference

I plan to write an article about a technical conference (XML Summer School) which is already mentioned in an existing Wikipedia article on Michael Howard Kay - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Howard_Kay - (though not properly linked as the link target doesn't exist yet). I just did the Wikipedia adventure and realized the notion of "notability" and the requirement to reference reliable sources. Obviously there is no scientific book or paper on this important technical conference which is running for many years now, but mainly web sources on its goals, its programmes and the faculty. What would you recommend to me to create a decent contribution to Wikipedia?

Many thanks in advance for your kind assistance! Have a nice weekend! Best regards, WolfgangSchi (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey WolfgangSchi. Sources don't necessarily have to be scholarly, with some exceptions. However, what they must be in order to contribute to notability is independent of the subject (e.g., not self-published, or published by someone with a close personal or financial connection), and otherwise reliable in nature (e.g., not blogs, other wikis, etc.). So the first step would be a gather sources that meet these criteria. TimothyJosephWood 12:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to create an article about linear superpositions

I want to write an article titled "Linear superposition". There are many papers and books studying this mathematical object. But when I type ""Linear superposition" in the Wikipedia search area, it opens the existing page Superposition principle. Note that Superposition principle is completely different from the article I am going to create. Writer278 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Writer278, welcome to the Teahouse. I can't be certain from what you have said so far, whether you want to write about a completely new (to Wikipedia) subject, or want to write a different article about the same subject covered by our existing article on superposition principle. The existing article certainly talks about "linear systems", which makes me suspect it's the same subject. If you are not happy with the existing article, I suggest starting a discussion on its talk page, with a view towards improving it. We don't normally allow two articles to exist on the same subject. If it is actually a distinct subject, which would be substantially different to the existing article, and not suitable for inclusion as sub-sections within the existing article, please have a read of Wikipedia:Your first article for some guidance. Your constructive contributions are most welcome, either way, and please do feel free to ask more questions here. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The article I intend to write is completely different. It is not the same subject as you suspect. It cannot be a subsection of Superposition principle. Moreover, it cannot be merged to it anyhow. In the literature, there is a strict definition of a linear superposition (see, e.g., a book by S.Ya Khavinson "Best Approximation by Linear Superpositions (Approximate Nomography)"), which is a study object in the area arisen in the mid of 60's. Writer278 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse, Writer278.

The current page for Linear superposition is a WP:REDIRECT page. I agree that whoever created the existing arrangement may have unduly focused in on just one meaning of superposition and channeled all of the references down to the Superposition principle, including ones coming from Linearity and Linear system but this state of affairs dates back to at least 2008, according to the discussion on Talk:Superposition principle. If you wanted to change this, you could follow the link back to Linear superposition (no-redirect) and replace the text there with a new article.

But don't be hasty. Rather than dive in with the text of a new article immediately, I suggest starting a discussion on the Talk:Superposition principle page about what you think is missing and how you'd like to change things, including perhaps a pointer to any draft Linear superposition article you may have prepared. You could even raise the question at WP:Wikiproject Mathematics to get a few more eyes on the issue, since there are a number of editors who are experts on these topics and far better able to help you than we can here at the Teahouse.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Writer278. The current article, Superposition principle, is about the concept in physics. You can certainly create an article about the mathematics. Include references. If you are using books as references, include page numbers. {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} are very helpful in creating references for technical articles. This link has a tool that will create a Wikipedia reference from the DOI for a journal article. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

If you do decide to write a new article, Writer278, I strongly advise you to use the Articles for creation process to create it in draft space, and don't worry about getting the title right - just call it "Draft:Linear superposition". After you submit it for review, when a reviewer accepts it they will sort out the title and deal with the redirect and any dismbiguation necessary. --ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine. Thank you for your advice. I created an article Draft:Linear superposition and submitted it for review.Writer278 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Change in method for creating new articles?

Is it just my account, or has something changed across the board in the initial steps in creating a new article? For some time, when I clicked on a red link to begin creation of a new article, I was taken to a mostly text page that included an option that let me click on a link to create something like "myuserpage/nameofarticle". (I forget the exact wording.) That, in turn, brought up a page with some preliminary coding already on it.

Now when I click on the red link "Dr. Stetson Humphrey" (for example), I am taken to this page. The options seem to apply more to new editors than to those of us who have been creating and editing for awhile. I thought the "Article Wizard" link might take me where I needed to go, but the resulting page also seems to be aimed at inexperienced editors.

Am I missing something, or is this a new approach to creation of articles? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There is a new screen that displays itself when you create a new page. You can bypass it by just entering text in the empty form. Some editors don't like it. There is discussion of turning it off for editors with some level of experience. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You should find now that the message does not appear if you are an auto-confirmed user (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Starting a new article for details). Nthep (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes! It's back to the old form now. Thanks! Eddie Blick (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I am brand new at Wikipedia and am trying to create a new article. I elected to use the sandbox for this purpose because I don't want it to be seen by the public until the content is more substantial and it is fully referenced. At the moment the heading of my article is my user space name not the name of the subject of my article. How does Wikipedia know what I want the title of my article to be? I understand that I am not supposed to indicate the Level 1 section heading which, I assume, would be the article title. Should I be typing my article title as the first line of my content? Iotell MW (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Iotell MW. Well done for working in your sandbox, rather than trying to create your draft directly in article space: have you read Your first article? Note that everybody in the world can see your draft, it's just that it doesn't get indexed, and the convention is that nobody else will edit it unless you invite them to. Don't worry about the title: when the draft eventually gets moved to article space, it will get moved to the right title. (You could just Move it yourself, but I recommend that you do that by requesting a review, by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top: when a reviewer accepts it, they will move it to the right title. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin. Yes, I've read "Your first article", and all the other preliminary stuff but I confess that I am quite confused. As you suggested, I will certainly request a review and trust that they will give my article the right name. I'll just carry on here. Thanks!Iotell MW (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:MiniTool

I reviewed Draft:MiniTool and declined it, saying that it read like an advertisement, and was more about what the company says about itself and not what others say about it. Its author, User:Keybord-Man, then asked me for guidance on my talk page. I have a few comments. First, please ask me for help at the bottom of my talk page, using the New Section feature of talk pages. (This Teahouse is upside down. Everywhere else, we prefer to add at the bottom.) Second, please sign your posts using four tildes. Third, the article that you used as an example isn’t, in my view, a good example. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I wouldn’t have accepted it either. Fourth, please find what independent sources, known as third parties, have said, not what the company says. Fifth, some experienced editor will tell you that you have chosen the hardest task that there is in Wikipedia, creating a new article with proper sourcing, as a new editor, and that there are many other ways to help Wikipedia with the articles that we have, and it isn’t important to help us with the articles that we don’t have. Sixth, do you have a connection with the vendor? Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear whether the draft is meant to be about the company or the software. More seriously, there are no independent references. Maproom (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I need something to motivate me, to push me on edit.

Hi, can I say something. I'just edit on the Wikipedia for a while, in the first days, I received 2 precious barnstar for my editing, from fellow editors, but, since then, I have not received any barnstars, or any awards for my work, although I gave a lot of time into it, I've just created over 30 articles and edit a numbers of other articles, but I received nothing, just the announcement of broken link, or image, or something like that. It broke my heart. I don't have motivate to edit like I was before. I don't ask for the reward, just something to push me to work on Wiki more enthusiasm. I'm searching for a third barnstar, or just a minor barnstar, I tried to create more and more articles, and I see that my effort is meaningless. We just come here, edit, and just like that, and no one care about my contribution ? Giangkiefer (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There are several things on Wikipedia you could get involved in, Giangkiefer. You can get involved in fighting anti-vandalism, for starters. You wouldn't believe how much of that there is. The way I started with that is monitoring the counter-vandalism network's IRC channel, #cvn-wp-en ^connect. I eventually got enough experience to apply successfully at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions for the Rollbacker user right, which enabled me to use more advanced tools like Huggle to fight vandalism. Because of my work in anti-vandalism, I also applied successfully at the same place for the Pending Changes Reviewer user right, which lets me review pages listed at Special:PendingChanges and check them for vandalism, copyright violations, etc..

By the way, because you've created 31 articles, you might be eligible to apply for the Autopatrolled user right, meaning new pages you create will automatically be marked as patrolled instead of a New Pages Patroller having to go in manually and review the article.

Another place you could get involved in is Articles for Creation, where you can help new editors write their drafts. I don't know much about the process, but Robert McClenon, an editor who's very active at AfC, could describe it better for you. I do know, though, that there's usually quite a large backlog, so they could likely use some new AfC reviewers.

Keep in mind that barnstars are supposed to be a rare gift. I've got only about 300 more edits than you do, and I only have three barnstars, and two of them were from inexperienced users. You're supposed to have to work hard to get those barnstars

Two more things: You could try out using Twinkle, as well. It has many tools useful for things like requesting deletion, speedy deletion, adding cleanup tags (such as "This article does not cite enough references."), warning new users who most likely accidentally did something they shouldn't have, and a bunch more.

Also, you could check out the permissions you can request at WP:PERM to see if there are any permissions you think you might find useful and that you meet the requirements for. (Rollbacker, Pending Changes Reviewer, and Autopatrolled, and about eight other user rights, are applied for there.)

I do hope you decide to stay. There's a lot more to maintaining Wikipedia than creating new articles. Trust me.

Also, if you do have any questions, feel free to ask either by replying here or by creating a new section on my talk page.

— Gestrid (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't feel too depressed about not receiving any awards. People usually only rarely give barnstars when you've done something that they noticed. If you keep working hard on your work, who knows what you'll receive! WikiPancake ^{✉ 📖} 12:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Giangkiefer - The Articles for Creation project would be very interested in and welcoming of you as a reviewer. The requirement to be a reviewer is that you have to be an experienced editor with at least 90 days of editing and 500 edits, and you meet those. (We sometimes get expressions of interest from inexperienced editors, just like some inexperienced editors want to be admins, but you have been editing long enough.) If you have created 31 articles, my question is whether any of them have been deleted. One of the main jobs of the reviewer is to provide a judgment that draft articles are not likely to be deleted. If a draft has too few references and is likely to be deleted, the reviewer should decline it and advise the author to find more reliable sources. The reviewer should also be able to know the difference between reasonable articles and crud. Crud is my term for pages that are meant by their authors to be articles but that will never become articles, such as social media profiles for the author or other non-notable people, and blatant advertising. You will be welcomed into the Articles for Creation reviewing community. Please go to Articles for Creation. If you have any questions, ask either here or on my talk page or on the Articles for Creation talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, according to this, they've created 31 articles (not including redirects), only one of which was deleted for lack of indication of importance. They also have 21 file uploads (counting only English Wikipedia and Commons). Five out five of the ones uploaded to Commons were deleted, while two out of sixteen of the ones on English Wikipedia were deleted. — Gestrid (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Then they know what was wrong with the one article that was deleted and what is right with the 30 that were not deleted, and can apply that common sense to reviewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

How can I get an article evaluated?

So recently I had helped improve a start-class article significantly by adding references and removing unsourced statements. In addition, I had fixed the layout of the article and added a new intro as per the rules. However, I am unsure how to request that the article can be re-assessed as I feel my contributions may have made the quality of that article better. The article was start-class initially. How should I request for a re-grade of the quality? Vagbhata2 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have looked over your edit history to see what article you are asking about. You have been an active editor working on a lot of articles; you appear to be trying to make multiple contributions to Wikipedia. That is helpful and is appreciated. I will comment that, in my opinion, article ratings are over-rated. The difference between Start-Class and C-Class, and the difference between C-Class and B-Class, are really rather arbitrary, but they make very little difference. In a few WikiProjects, such as WP:WikiProject Military History, there may be a systematic article categorization effort. Elsewhere, very little attention is paid to the ratings. I personally think that it makes more difference that you improved the articles than for you to try to change the ratings of the articles. It is also my understanding that anyone can re-evaluate an article. That is one of the reasons why it makes very little difference how the article is categorized. Good Article and Featured Article have formal procedures. Everything else, in my experience, except in certain projects, is arbitrary. Do other editors have other comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Robert McClenon, Vagbhata2. If you really want, you can post a request on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProject(s) asking for someone to reassess the article, but I don't pay much attention to these ratings myself and I doubt many others do either (apart from GA and FA status, which, as Robert notes, have more formal assessment processes). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice guys, so i'll help improve the quality of the articles I come across regardless of the ratings. Vagbhata2 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

How to italicize TV series name in article title

I created the long-overdue list of episodes article for a television series. I just realized that I forgot to italicize the name of the TV show. I don't have access to edit the title after-the-fact (at least not that I can find). I would greatly appreciate it if someone could italicize the Cold Squad name in List of Cold Squad episodes (so that it appears as List of Cold Squad episodes). Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary:, done but for future reference it's done using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. Nthep (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thank you so much! And I learned something new, too. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: You can also use {{Italic title|string=Cold Squad}}. This will usually continue to work if the article is moved. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:Thank you. I don't understand it, but I appreciate your response. The {{DISPLAYTITLE}} did the trick. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: If you use this template {{Italic title|string=Cold Squad}} it will make the text "Cold Squad" be italicize. Instead of italicizing the whole title, it italicize only the specific name, even if the article is moved - so that the DISPLAYTITLE does not need to be edited. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to upload an article about a cargo ship which had a fire on board in 1993 (MV Oslo Lady) and cannot be found on the Web or Wikipedia.

The article will give the following information: The Name of the Ship, the time and date the accident occured on the ship. The specification of the ship, the IMO#, the call sign, the names of the crew members, the workmen that were injured/kill on the ship. A brief insight on the investigation.181.188.88.59 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You might start here. The ship has changed names several times and you may need to check out several of the names.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings 181.188.88.59 and Welcome to the Teahouse. Category:Ship fires may provide example articles that may be helpful for you. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:University of Calgary Faculty of Arts

I reviewed Draft:University of Calgary Faculty of Arts . I declined it as not requiring an article of its own, and said that it could be merged into University of Calgary. User:Jgcab then posted to my talk page:

The contested lines about Campus Culture were removed. The article can not be merged with the page University of Calgary because the content is separate from the broader University. Most of the University of Calgary Faculties and Schools have their own independent pages (e.g. Faculty of Law, Cummings School of Medicine, Haskayne School of Business, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine), yet most of them are not as long as the draft that was submitted. I have seen other pages such as University of Alberta Faculty of Arts and McGill University Faculty of Arts, both of which contain less information and content than the page that the University of Calgary Faculty of Arts that was previously rejected. Yet somehow they were deemed worthy to be included in the encyclopaedia. Please explain why University of Calgary Faculty of Arts was deemed to not have sufficient content, yet the aforementioned articles of University faculties were approved. 

I would like to ask other editors whether they think that User:Jgcab has made the case for a separate article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jgcab: Welcome to the Teahouse. I do not see a single reference in the article which is independent of the University of Calgary. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent sources say. With the exception of law schools and medical schools, university departments rarely have enough independent coverage to justify a freestanding article. Such articles cannot be built on recapitulating what university affiliated websites and publications say. The fact that other non-compliant articles exist is not a reason to create more non-compliant articles. We have well over five million articles, many of which have problems of various types. I have not read the other articles that you mentioned, but it is entirely possible that some of them should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Benefits and Suggestions?

Hello! I'm a new editor. I was wondering. What are the benefits of being an editor here? And please suggest ways on how to engage readers. I would grately appreciate if you replied.Thank you.Cassiopeiahino (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As an editor, you are helping to create and maintain the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written and, as an ideal, create what Jimbo Wales called "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". Incidentally, it may also help you to realize the relative unimportance of your own ego and teach you the benefits of collaboration, thus making you a wiser and happier person. And it keeps you off the streets. --Boson (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If I might add a couple of personal observations to Boson's answer, I found that I have learned about all sorts of topics which I would not have touched otherwise, I have used the opportunity to take photos of subjects which were photo-less, I get a warm feeling looking back over all the articles I have contributed to, and of course you meet the very nicest people here!--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Cassiopeiahino In addition to answers above from Boson and Gronk Oz, there are some practical benefits to creating a user account mentioned here. Thanks for contributing. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Website Reliability

How can I know if a website is a reliable source? Is "youredm.com" reliable? - TheMagnificentist (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Some WikiProjects keep lists of vetted sources. I've got a few of them listed on my user page. Many sites have been discussed in the reliable sources noticeboard archives, and it's a good place to check first. When you find a site nobody has discussed, one of the easier ways to judge its reliability is to check the "staff" or "about us" page. If it lists an editor, that's one indicator of reliability, though it doesn't guarantee it. If the "about us" page uses first-person pronouns ("I started this site in ...", "My site is..."), that's a strong sign that it's a self-published blog. The next thing you might do is check whether the site solicits user-generated content. Some review websites, such as Sputnikmusic, have both staff reviews and user reviews; only the staff reviews are reliable. Finally, a Google search for "according to youredm.com" can reveal what other sites think about it. For example, if you do a search for "according to variety magazine", you get lots of high-quality hits, which means Variety is well-respected by its peers. Of course, you can always ask in WP:RSN if you get stuck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Creating A Page For A Locality

What are details(information) required to contribute a page for an area (locality) of a City?

Riyasamuel (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Riyasamuel. Like all Wikipedia articles, the basic answer is "What have independent reliable sources published about it?" First, find your sources, and then write your article about the area from what they say about it. Don't put anything at all in the article unless you have found it in a reliable published source. You can use non-independent sources (eg, the area's official website) for uncontroversial factual information, but be careful not to put any kind of evaluative or promotional language unless that is cited to an independent source. You might find WP:WikiProject Cities#Article guidelines and conventions helpful, as well as Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at your draft, Riyasamuel, I can say that ordinary information which would be true of any Indian community (such as timezone, driving on the left, currency) are not appropriate for the text of such an article. However, if you use an infobox such as {{infobox neighbourhood}}, some of these may be available as parameters. If you follow that link, you'll see that there is a huge array of parameters that you can give, not all of which will be applicable. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

creating an article for the first time, want some feedback before I submit for draft review

I just created my first article. It's sitting in Draft space, but it hasn't been submitted for review yet because I'm not sure what that is meant to do for the article. Here's the draft: Draft:Portland Piano International Festival Can someone take a look and 1. give any feedback and 2. help me with the categorization of the article. It looks like a stub but I'm not sure how to name that. Also, I wikilinked an article on the Italian wikipedia-- is that alright? Let me know anything and everything!! Thank you! Icebob99 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Icebob99. Stubs normally don't make it through WP:AfC, so if you want to go that route, you probably want to flesh it out a bit more. Of course, AfC, is not a requirement, and you can always move the draft to main space on your own. New stubs in main space are more likely to be speedy deleted if they meet criteria, and all articles regardless are always subject to a community deletion discussion

Submitting new articles through AfC makes it much less likely that your article will get deleted, but it also raises the bar for new articles significantly, which is why a stub will probably not be accepted. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Icebob99 I'm afraid Timothyjosephwood is wrong about AFC, stubs are accepted at AFC because "it's a stub" is not and has never been an acceptable reason to decline a submission. As long as a draft properly complies with the minimum standards per the AFC reviewing instructions it must be accepted, regardless of its length. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67), I was oversimplifying a bit, I think I've personally only accepted one stub at AfC, and most of them aren't rejected because they are stubs, but because most stubs don't meet the criteria to be accepted regardless of their length. TimothyJosephWood 10:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the dual perspectives, that does help clarify what is a stub. Icebob99 (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Numbeo

Hi Wiki-admins and co-members! I just want to ask if Numbeo is a reliable source and can be used in sourcing Wikipedia articles. Because it is used at South Korea as a reference/source of the country that 'ranks highly in personal safety', but one user said that Numbeo is not a reliable source when I used Numbeo as a source. Please clear it to me, thank you! ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

References missing and Orphan Page

I have created a Wiki Page on my grand father https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vemuri_Anjaneya_Sarma

I got a notification that a reference has to be added, which I have duly added. But the page still displays a message saying it can be deleted. Can you help me with it.

I also saw a message that it is an orphan page.

How do I fix it?Sridhar.lanka (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Sridhar.lanka and Welcome to the Teahouse. I made a few copy-edits to the Vemuri Anjaneya Sarma article to help improve. First I added a few wikilinks to help integrate the article into the encyclopedia. The references you added <ref> at the bottom "References section" need to be moved up into the article to the place where that particular citation should occur. To remove the orphan notice, I found two other articles where I added Sarma article into "See also" section, so this article is no longer an orphan. Lastly, you might like to learn more about references here. Thanks for your contribution. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sridhar.lanka. The article is now safe from being deleted for being a completely unsourced biography of a living person, but lots of problems remain. Everything in the article needs to be based on what published sources say about Vemuri Anjaneya Sarma, not on your own personal knowledge of him. You also need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and declare your relationship to the subject, following the instructions there. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

How to get an entry in a category for e.g. 1967 Births?

Hello, When going through the biographies (of living persons), I observed that sometimes the categories which appear in the article mentions their name and sometimes it doesn't. For e.g. Jonathan Haidt's name appears in '1963 births' category while Dan Ariely's name doesn't appear in category '1967 births'. How do I get a name in the listed names? Thank you. :) Roshni Kanchan (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Roshni Kanchan:, Do you mean you want to add Dan Ariely to 1967 births? If so, what you would do is take [[Category:1967 births]] and add it to the bottom of the page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dan Ariely is currently in Category:1967 births, however, there are 15,685 pages in that category at this time. The software only displays the first two hundred pages in each category (probably for performance reasons). This means that Dan is not likely to turn up on the first page, but instead could turn up on any of about 52 pages of names. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 03:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Voidwalker There really should be a way to search within a category. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: There is actually, if you use "incategory:category" in the search bar. If you want to search for pages in the category, use "page incategory:category". See H:S#Parameters for more info. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 17:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Iazyges and The Voidwalker for replying. I understood that 1) by adding a category e.g. 1967 births on the bottom (with the other categories) of a biography article will automatically add that person's name to the list. I do not have to do anything else. 2) The name may not appear on the first page of that category (but it is surely there?). And since it is not organized (again taking the 1967 births example) by last name or first name ... er ... I may not locate it?

One question - I only got notification of the first reply by lazyges in email. I did not know of the other two replies before I visited the page. How can I "follow" the post? --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Roshni Kanchan: Category:1967 births is sorted alphabetically by surname with a few exceptions. Dan Ariely is sorted under his surname and you only have to click "next page" once to see him. You are only notified of a post if the poster links your username in the same edit as they signed it, or the post is to your own talk page. See Wikipedia:Notifications. Help:Watchlist can help detect edits to a page but not to a specific section so it's of limited use on an active page like this if you are only interested in one section. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks very much for the reply. I understood now. :) --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

how to difference between articles or biography of same name ?

recently i see , there are so many articles on same name . mostly in biography or biodata. how can be differentiate between them . how can i write new article about someone but his name already available in wiki . IndianPageantlCommunity (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia. You would add a descriptor to the article name. For example John Smith (lexicographer) to differentiate from John Smith (astronomer). RudolfRed (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IndianPageantlCommunity, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a standard way to handle this, by putting a distinguishing term in parenthesis. See, for example Richard Burton, Richard Burton (cricketer). and Richard Burton (cricketer, born 1955). But if you are going to write a new article, I strongly advise that you use the Article wizard to create a draft; then you won't need to worry about the precise title, because the reviewer who accepts your draft will sort that out. Please read your first article before you start.

One other point: User names are not allowed to suggest that the account is being used on behalf of an organisation, so I suspect that your username is not acceptable. Please see ISU. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Article might get deletd.

I wrote an article about a band that has been released last year (which is pretty recent) and added the basic information that's known until the day. I'm also the owner of the offical Fan Page of the artist and I believe that my article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I've written other wiki's about bands that contained the same type of infos and it got approved. I even used the same template to post this one. All the information reffered is listed on the external references or linked to another wiki page. Badomensarmy (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Badomensarmy I can't speak to the other articles because they were not created under your current account's name, but please see WP:WAX. In short, Wikipedia always has many thousands of articles that should be deleted but just have not been yet, so usually the logic of since an article about X exists, an article about a similar situated topic on Y is warranted, is usually a dead end. From looking at the article, and running some searches, it seems to me that Wikipedia should not have an article on Bad Omens, at least not yet. As an encyclopedia, a compendium summarizing already existing knowledge, Wikipedia only properly covers notable topics, as shown by reliable, secondary sources, written by unconnected third-parties to the topic, writing about the topic in substantive detail. Also because of its nature, Wikipedia is never properly the place to cover anything new and not already the subject of coverage out in the world. Every single fact in an article needs to be able to be corroborated by pre-existing, published sources. Of course, once the world takes note of a subject by published significant content about it, then an article is warranted – but not before. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Inviting help for a declined draft

Greetings. I created the draft article Draft:Marcia_Joanne_Bennett, which was declined for insufficient sources. I loved her books when I was a teen, and she did publish with a major publisher (Ballantine), but possibly due to the era in which she was writing, there's not much about her online. I've exhausted my own resources here, but wonder if there's a place to post links to declined drafts in case a later editor is moved to take up the cause. Thank you! Stevenarntson (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stevenarntson, and thanks for your question. It is possible to start a draft of an article in your own userspace (e.g. User:Stevenarntson/Marcia Joanne Bennett) if you'd like to come back to work on it at a later time and publish it as an article, but there's not really a central place to post links for declined drafts for assistance. One possibility is to seek help from editors interested in improving biographies by asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stevenarntson. As already indicated in the decline, but with a little more detail here, primarily what the draft needs to be accepted is good sourcing demonstrating the:

1. notability of the topic – by reliable, secondary sources, written by unconnected third-parties to the topic, writing about it in substantive detail; and
2. the verifiability of all of the content of the proposed article (as well as that it contains no original research) – by reliable sources, though not necessarily secondary and independent ones, corroborating the information in the draft (reliable, primary sources can used for verifiability purposes, though they should only be used for straightforward statements of fact, cannot be used for analysis or interpretation and are useless to demonstrate notability).

I did some searches (it appears she is best known by her name with her middle initial, "Marcia j. Bennett", and searches not using that name format find much less) and though I haven't looked at the results in any depth, I think you might use some of the sources found here to improve the draft. By the way, I find the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books very useful for citing such sources (though its output often needs some tweaking). Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit! Yes, it looks like there may be some sources in periodical literature--Google books is a good resource! I visited the library today and had some help from the librarians there to find more, some on-hand and some retrievable through interlibrary loan. I'll peck away at this topic a little more and see if there's enough to resubmit it. Thanks again! Stevenarntson (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)