Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 533

Archive 530

Archive 531

Archive 532

Archive 533

Archive 534

Archive 535

→

Archive 540

Adding a biography of a living person

After a few edits to other pages I tried adding to a page two biographies (as separate articles). One was accepted while the other was rejected with the reason being A7, insufficiently notable. I have tried improving it within my user page. If I click on the button "Submit your draft for Review" will I get advice on what to do next rather than instant deletion again? What else may I do? LowlanderToo (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is about User:LowlanderToo/sandbox? One thing you could do is move it to draft space, and encourage others to help improve it. Its subject's name should be boldfaced on first mention, and it needs a section header for the references section. But its most serious problem is the lack of independent references with significant discussion of the subject. It may need someone who can read Hebrew to find if these exist. Maproom (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am learning. Sandbox was an earlier version. The right place, which I should have given, is User:LowlanderToo/Boaz_Tsaban.LowlanderToo (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

israeltefera12

Draft:Campaigns and elections in the United States of America
How come it is still in the draft stage. Please help with in-text citations too. Israeltefera12 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It is still at the draft stage because you haven't submitted it for review. To do so you would need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft, but to do so at the moment would be a waste of your time and of a reviewer's time. To find out how to do in-text citations, you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. You ought also to read WP:Your first article. The draft also appears as one long unformatted paragraph, so you need to read the WP:Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Israeltefera12: Hello. Please be aware that we already have two articles that cover very similar content. Those articles are Voter turnout and Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections. Instead of trying to create a new article about U.S. voter turnout, I suggest that you work on improving one or both of those articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

New article about different person with same name

I want to post a new article about the Australian political activist and trade unionist Brian Manning. When I try and start a new article by this name it goes to the British historian by that name and want me to edit that one. How do I start a new one? And also register it with disambiguation? Peter Job (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Peter Job: and welcome to the TeaHouse. The normal way to deal with situations like that is to name the new article something like "Brian Manning (politician}" or Brian Manning (Australia}". For example, the word "mercury" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternative names, so we instead use parenthetical disambiguation: Mercury (element), Mercury (mythology), and Mercury (planet).--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the second part of your question. When there are only a couple of articles, the easiest way to handle disambiguation is to put a "hatnote" at the very top of each article, along the lines of
{{about|the Australian political activist and trade unionist|the British historian|Brian Manning}} to produce:

This page is about the Australian political activist and trade unionist. For the British historian, see Brian Manning.

and vice-versa on the other page. For an example, see Brian Schmidt.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This page is currently at Brian Manning (Australian trade unionist and activist), which seems rather long to me, and the "Australian" seems unnecessary. I have suggested to Peter Job that the page be moved to Brian Manning (trade unionist), or Brian Manning (trade unionist and activist). Comments? - 220 of ^Borg 08:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would be happy to re-name it, I think to Brian Manning (trade unionist and activist). I have to work out how to do this as I am new here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Job (talk • contribs) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The usual guideline is to try and select the one principal factor that characterizes this person, and distinguishes them from others. Of course, that is not always as easy as it sounds. I agree the current name is longer than ideal, but I don't know the subject at all so I can't suggest which one of the shorter proposals best captures the way he is perceived int he public mind - I would take Peter Job's lead on that. P.S. In case you have not done it before, the way to rename an article is to "move" it - see Wikipedia:Moving a page for details.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, all. Not counting Brian Manning Delaney, there seems to to at least four notable people by the name of Brian Manning, so I moved the historian's page to Brian Manning (historian) and made the Brian Manning page a disambiguation page. Like Gronk Oz, I am unfamiliar with the Australian Brian Manning and have not moved his page. Vycl1994 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not noticed Peter's most recent post to this discussion. I have now moved Brian Manning (Australian trade unionist and activist) to Brian Manning (trade unionist and activist). Vycl1994 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Information incorrect

Hi - I'm wondering how I can find someone who would edit the wikipedia page about me? The page states an incorrect fact. 2601:645:8200:C7DD:5122:1C3B:52AD:45F8 (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Who are you? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit the talk page for whatever article is in question. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Or, more precisely, suggest the changes to be made on the article's talk page. Be as specific as you can, and give published sources for any information you would like added. If not many people go to that page, it can be helpful to add {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) to your suggestion. Please see WP:AUTOPROB for more advice. --ColinFine (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Howe to make proof of the photo owner and choose the right copyright license?

Dear Wikipedians,

I'm new to this, adding photos to a bio page and they got deleted. How can I proof that the photos are taken by the author of the page, Janaka Ruwanpura? Does he have to send an email declaring that from his ucalgary.ca account or from a personal account? Secondly, what is the best copyright license to choose when uploading the photo so as to be accepted? Third, my apologies if the solution is completely different, I am new and know little about Wikipedia. Many thanks for your help and understanding. Daniela UCI2017 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@UCI2017: Welcome to the Teahouse, Daniela. At least two images have been deleted as copyright violations. I do not have access to all of the details, but if either of these images have been published on another website, then there is a very strong presumption that they are restricted by copyright. If those websites contain a copyright notice, then the presumption approaches 100%. We cannot use copyrighted images here on Wikipedia unless the copyright holder releases them under an acceptable Creative Commons type license, or they meet our strict policy on the use of non-free images. Any release under a Creative Commons license must be in writing in a legally acceptable form.

When you say that the photos were taken by Janaka Ruwanpura himself, are you attesting that these photos are selfies and that no other photographer is involved? If so, then the easiest course of action by far is for Janaka Ruwanpura to upload the photos to Wikipedia Commons himself, using his own account. Setting up an account is easy. That is vastly easier and much much faster than trying to complete the complex legal paperwork needed to allow another person, such as you, to upload these photos.

If (as I suspect) you have a relationship of some sort with Janaka Ruwanpura, then you could take your own photo of him, and upload it yourself as (legitimately) your own work. The bottom line is that Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, and we do not allow any corners to be cut. Compliance with image policies is enforced strictly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I change the name of an article?

Hi, I'm new and completely lost ;)

the fantasy writer Kristen Painter is called Kristin Painter in her wikipedia article (I own many of her books and her name's spelled Kristen on every single one). What can I do about that? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarantyne (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Amarantyne: On Wikipedia, the only way to rename a page is to "move" it to a new title. This is done by clicking on the move tab at the top. To prevent people from renaming articles to naughty words, your account has to be a few days old before you can do this. I can move the page for you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks! Amarantyne (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

When can I remove "unreviewed" tag?

Whenever I make a new page it's marked as "unreviewed" and says that "This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator". I've received messages that a couple of my pages have been reviewed, but the reviewers didn't remove this tag from the page. Am I allowed to do so myself now that the reviews have taken place, or do I have to wait for someone else to do it? Chamboz (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Chamboz, I have removed the template from the article, since it looks like @Cplakidas: may have forgotten to do it when they reviewed the article today. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Timothyjosephwood, I appreciate it. However that's not the only article of mine which has been reviewed: Transformation of the Ottoman Empire was also reviewed by Renata3 on September 14 without the tag being removed. Chamboz (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Chamboz: For future reference, you can probably remove the template yourself after the page has been reviewed without any issues. If anyone gets the notion that you are improperly removing it, they can check and verify that the article has been reviewed by another user. I don't think anyone will really care, since likely nearly 100% of the time, the template is placed automatically, and, as you can tell, is independent of whether the article has actually been marked reviewed or not.

For whatever it is worth, I have posted a suggestion that the page curation tool automatically remove the template when an article is reviewed, but no promises on whether that will go anywhere or not. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Chamboz (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

declined article

I wrote about an organisation helping youth with entrepreneurial tool for their busniess and it was declined due to lack of credible sources.

here is the write up

HostNownow is a Nigerian-based provider of shared, reseller, virtual private server, and dedicated web hosting.

HostNownow was founded in May 2014 by Niyi-Adesola Ayodeji and Olorunsheyi Emmanuel who are co-CEOs,their main aim was to empower the young Nigerian population via affordable technological solutions.

The company in January 2016 launched the first phase of her empowerment scheme that empowered about 500 young entrepreneurs with free websites to enhance their businesses.

Today, HostNownow is Known as Nigeria's fastest growing web hosting company. Emmieflexa (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Emmieflexa. You didn't need to paste the text of the draft here. A link to Draft:HostNowNow would have been fine. Anyway, rather than using external links in the text, you need to use footnote citations for the material in the article. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to do this. The references must include sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles, to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Try to make it unbiased and it should be accepted Timothy Robinson12345 16:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Robinson12345 (talk • contribs)

User:Timothy Robinson12345 - I respectfully disagree. It isn't enough to make it unbiased. An organization also has to be notable, and the draft doesn't establish notability. (If the company is Nigeria's fastest growing web hosting company, it probably is notable, but the draft has to establish that, not merely state it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok if it is notable but it did not look like it Timothy Robinson12345 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Need Help with Delhi Metro Template

Please help out with following correction to template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Delhi_Metro_Pink_Line_Route I have added a station "Karkarduma Court" to the template. Please make amends so that link is directed to the new page for this station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karkarduma_Court_Metro_Station I am unable to figure out how to do it. Thanks. Jazze7 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jazze7. The issue is with the capitalisation. The template link to Karkarduma Court metro station, whereas the article is at Karkarduma Court Metro Station. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the template defaults to lower-case for "metro station" in links, so I think the article needs to be moved to Karkarduma Court metro station to fit this pattern. See WP:MOVE for how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cordless_Larry for enlightening me regarding moving the article. I have gone through related article suggested by you. Looks like there may be a technical hitch if I move it as an image file is also involved. For the record I had only seen and copied the string format for other metro stations, just changing the name on the template.

Jazze7 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Jazze7 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between having rollback rights and just having the ability to rollback?

-- AI RPer (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi AI RPer and welcome to the Teahouse. Rollback is a right which has to be requested, in order to get the ability. It is needed for some anti-vandalism tools. However, autoconfirmed users can use other tools that do a similar job to rollback which do not require the rollback permission, for example Twinkle. Joseph2302 17:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Article about a local e-sports event

Hello,

I would like to publish an article about a Slovak e-sports tournament called 'Y-Games' both in Slovak and English. However, I myself help out with the organisation, therefore I'm not sure, if it is alright to do so. I've already written a whole draft, so I can show it for a preview, if it's needed.

Thank you very much for your help.

85.216.234.136 (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you ask about this. Yes, Wikipedia has a guideline about how to manage a conflict of interest. The standard line is that people shouldn't write articles about topics they're associated with, as this makes it very difficult to write neutrally. There is no absolute rule against it, however. Even beyond that, though, you're going to have an uphill battle. e-sports is not a topic that Wikipedia has welcomed with open arms, and many of those articles get nominated for deletion. Your best bet is to submit your draft to articles for creation. They can probably help you write it neutrally and within our guidelines. I don't really know anything about e-sports, so I can't help you, but you might try asking for help at WikiProject Video games if you get stuck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer and recommendations! I will look on them closely and do my best :)

Have a nice day!

85.216.234.136 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

boom beach recruitment

Peterasweet (User talk:Peterasweet) 17:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)boom beach recruitment wiki page will not recgonize me at all . what do i do ?

Welcome to the Teahouse Peterasweet this is a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia. boombeach.wikia.com is a completely different website you will need to ask your question there. Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect SVG authorship on file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons

SVG file under discussion

Hello. I recently uploaded the SVG file on the left to Wikimedia Commons. The diagram itself was traced from page 12 of Cao et al (2016), which was released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. I took a screenshot and redrew the diagram using Inkscape. I made minor alterations to the wording. I uploaded the file as 'own work' and then added its history to the 'sources' field in the file summary.

References

After reading the Wikipedia:Image use policy, I see that the authorship should properly remain with Cao et al (2016) as I added nothing creative. How can I fix this? Can I simply delete the file and start again. Or can someone help me change the meta information for the image. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RobbieIanMorrison, and welcome to the Teahouse. What we have here is a derivative work, which is a fancy way of saying that it's your work, but it's based on someone else's. You may want to use c:Template:Infosplit if you want to say that the original drawing is licensed by its authors, and your "own work" license extends only to the changes you've made (in effect, the code of the SVG file). Copyrights on SVG code are very much an unexplored feature of law (and occasionally pose problems when someone wants to have a "free" SVG of a logo, or similar, that is unfree). Luckily, since you are working on a freely-licensed original image, we need not consider those. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Finnusertop. Many thanks for your prompt reply. I deployed the c:Template:Infosplit template as you suggested and it makes the file summary clearer. The law on copyright is indeed complicated. As an aside, Cao et al (2016) got the diagram from a 2013 PhD thesis and that person got it from a 1999 MSc thesis – so it has a long history of being recycled and redrawn. Once again I appreciate your help. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

editing help KetiG (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• QSI International School of Tbilisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings! As a newbie to wikipedia editing,I very much appreciate your help and time. ...Yesterday, I have edited our school information (QSI International School of Tbilisi) . I did save the information however, after some time I was not able to see what I have been working on and the same text remained as it was before, which is very inaccurate. How can I proceed? Can I find my archive text anywhere (KetiG (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, KetiG. Look at the latest change record. Your changes were reverted by a bot, with the edit summary

User:XLinkBot (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by User:KetiG to revision 740831850 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii8Weo6Jn5A&feature=youtu.be [\byoutube\.com]))

I don't know why, but probably one of the more experienced editors here can tell you. --Thnidu (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, KetiG. The bot is programmed to revert additions of external links to some external sites including YouTube made by new editors. YouTube is blacklisted because it is often used for promotion content or copyright violations. When the bot removes links, it is programmed to revert also all edit by the new user made at about the same time; this is to assure that the removal of just the blacklisted link will not leave the article in an incoherent state.

You can find your last version here. —teb728 t c 06:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The text that you added was unsourced and far too promotional, KetiG. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for information on how to reference, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on the need to write neutral article content. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which seems to apply here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you also removed the template at the top of the article noting its lack of references. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Can I upload the original video though? (KetiG (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Numbeo as WP:RELIABLE

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 10:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, PogingJuan, welcome to the Teahouse!

The reluctance to accept Numbeo as a reliable source has to do with the nature of how its ratings are based on self-reported submissions from users. This puts it in the same category as Wikipedia – because it is user-sourced, it cannot be considered authoritative, hence reliable, even though some independent evaluation may have assessed it as overall pretty reliable. So references from other sources should definitely be preferred, if available. On issues like "personal safety", just based on people's impressions, comparisons between different locations are particularly concerning, since few people have an objective baseline across multiple locations to substantiate the comparison.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

using already existing page for format

Can I use an already existing page as a format and just modify my info to suit my needsLDBrand (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi LDBrand. Anytime you copy content from one Wikipedia page to another, you must provide copyright attribution. It's not difficult at all, just involving making sure you say what you are doing in the edit summary, with a wikilink in it to the page the content is copied from. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (where a model edit summary appears in the first paragraph).

Another issue is that it's probably a very good idea to create such a page in a sandbox, or in the draft namespace. If you don't, it's not unlikely at all that a person might tag it for speedy deletion within a very short time under CSD A10. Creating it as a draft will also allow you to work on it as some leisure, and, when you are done, submit it for review through articles for creation by placing and saving at the top this code: {{subst:submit}}.

One thing to be careful of: if the page you are copying to use as a template has images on it, some of them might be non-free images used under a claim of fair use. You must not copy those images across. So please carefully remove all such images before you paste and save, or null them in some manner (excepting an infobox, you can just add a colon in the image placement markup right after the initial "[["). Though not a major problem like copying across a fair use image, you should also null all the categories, which can be done in the same manner: make them into links by placing a colon at the start of their markup in as I described for images. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Writing an article on newly invented system.

The System is not yet implemented. It is mass useful. Currently it is being discussed throughout the world. Now I want to write something about it here for people. Mention able that I've invented it.Yet none wrote on it. Please tell me could it be?ZiaurR (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Read the conflict of interest guideline. Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about or editing articles about subjects (such as companies) that you are involved in. If the system that you mention, whatever it is, has not yet been implemented, then it is only notable if there has been extensive in-depth discussion of whether to implement it (whatever it is). Wikipedia is not meant to be a vehicle to publicize something that has not already gotten publicity in reliable sources. Maybe if you told us what the concept is, we might be able to be more specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi ZiaurR. In addition to the above, please see Wikipedia:No original research, one of our core inclusion policies. In short, because of the very nature of what Wikipedia is – an encyclopedia that summarizes mainstream knowledge about subject previously written about out in the world – it is never the proper place to first publish new information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

What is the problem with my draft?

Hello Wikipedians, I am a postgraduate business student and I have just proposed a draft regarding Logista Group, a Spanish listed company (€ 9.5 billion revenue), which was rejected. Could you explain me why it was considered as advertisement so I can correct it, please? I have already read all the guidelines for the creation. FIY this is not my first article, I have already written one in the Italian Wikipedia. Thank you for your help

Rorschach88. (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

First, your draft is mostly about what Logista has written about itself (its own web site, press releases) and not what others have written about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Second, I don't know what the policies of the Italian Wikipedia are, or whether they are the same as ours or less stringent. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Third, drafts about this company and requests about the drafts are the only edits that you have made. Someone may criticize me for biting a new editor, but: Do you have a connection with Logista? Please read the conflict of interest policy. When an editor who has worked on drafts about only one topic asks how to correct it so that it doesn't read like an advertisement, some experienced editors here become cynical. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for your reply:

First,I tried to correct the draft by adding only a content that is quoted by publishers such as Reuters/Bloomberg/New York Times as you can see in the references

Second,I think the policies are the same and I am aware about them because I read the document before writing my first article in the Italian Wiki

Third, you guys do a great and relevant job in checking and correcting articles, however it seems like you are blocking drafts only because of the reason that a new editor does not have a portfolio of articles. Of course, he is a NEW editor. So, how is it possible to become a Wikipedian editor and get your articles published if the reason why they are blocked is always the lack of previous articles?

(Rorschach88. (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC))

That is a criticism that I have not previously heard, that we block drafts from new Wikipedia editors because the Wikipedia editor does not have a history of previously accepted articles. What are declined are drafts when there are not existing secondary sources about the subject of the draft. What have other secondary sources, such as business magazines, written about Logista? You haven't answered my question about whether you have a connection with Logista? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If I would like an editor to write an article on a topic I would otherwise be biased to?

Are there wikipedia editors that would write an article on a subject I would have a bias over? BusinessFinds100 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. You can submit a draft at WP:AFC for review. If you don't want to write a draft, use WP:RA to request an article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Need help with my draft

Hello everybody, sadly my first draft got rejected today and I'd like to know how to improve it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HappyCow Since the reviewer did not state which part(s) he found read too much like advertisement and how to fix them, can someone (or himself) please help? G.C.E. Galotta (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed most of the promotional fluff, and all the unacceptable (unreliable, or not independent) references. In my view it looks a lot better now. Maproom (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

That's great, thanks a lot! G.C.E. Galotta (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Mine page is not able to get it approved despite all efforts

Hi,

Mine wiki page on Letsshave.com is not able to get it approve dispite all efforts please help me to get it appoved on priority basis. Elante10 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elante10. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic.You need to establish notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of the organisation in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read what you've been told at User talk:Elante10. Having had the article deleted once at Letsshave.com and twice at LetsShave.com, it is liable to be regarded as tendentious editing that you have created it yet again at LetsShave.com. You need to read WP:Your first article, and if you are convinced that the subject justifies an article you should create a draft through the AFC process for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with correcting content

I read a profile on myself - not put up by me - which was in part factually incorrect and had important gaps. I have tried to edit this but have managed to delete a lot! I have hit a brick wall with the editing and wonder if someone could help me if I provided the facts? Thanks, Gordon Edington Gordon Edington (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If you start a new section on the article talk, post {{request edit}} and describe what changes you are suggesting someone will respond. It's usually fairly backlogged, so it may take a while. The key to being successful is to be very specific about your suggestions and have good sources to back them up. TimothyJosephWood 20:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

About writing biographies

Hello, I need help regarding writing biographies of living persons. Can I talk to somebody online about this? EnianaB (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hello @EnianaB: and welcome to the TeaHouse. You could ask general questions here. Or if it involves something more specific, you could ask at the relevant project - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Language and literature#Biography. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings EnianaB, Guidance is available at WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

To review and remove COI and NPOV tags

Hello, A user placed COI and NPOV tags on an article (biography) in May 2016. I requested a review on 10 Oct 2016 and there is no reply yet. How many days am I supposed to wait for the user to review and remove the tags? Or can I remove myself? Or request someone else to review? Thanks. --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

HI Roshni Kanchan. Though the article has been edited since May 2016, the changes have been very minor. Once the article has been rewritten to be less about the wonderfulness of Raj Raghunathan and more just a listing of facts, by someone who wasn't the original editor, then the tags can be removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying @StarryGrandma:. Yes, my edits were minor ones, but the user that created the page has mentioned 'improving neutrality' in the talk history in May itself and so I was wondering about the procedure that should follow. Is there a place where one can request for such tags to be reviewed (else how will the article creator or next editor know if the changes were appropriate or still lacking?).

Also may I request you to point the sections and / or lines in that biography that need more improvement? I'd like to make an attempt at removing the wonderfulness part from the article :) .

P.S. In one of the sections below I saw a 'Resolved' kind of a badge at the end of the discussion. Am I supposed to use that once my questions are answered completely? It looked very neat !!

--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Roshni Kanchan. The edit in May changed one word and didn't affect the problems in the article. I have edited it myself and removed the tags. You can look at the changes I made to see what happened. The opening paragraphs read like a marketing brochure. I moved all but the first paragraph further down into the article, and changed them a bit. I kept all the references. I added a link to Raghunathan's curriculum vitae on his faculty website so that readers can find all his awards, publications, etc. I changed the heading back to only having a capital first letter, which is part of Wikipedia's manual of style. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you,StarryGrandma. The article looks neat now! I learnt more from this example than from the numerous How-to articles. :) --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

How to add a Village and its History?

I want to add my village and some of its history in Wikipedia. The problem is I do not have any other reliable resource except the village record book maintained by the village council. How can I add it? Ralpel (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ralpel. I'm afraid the answer is that unless you can find some reliable published information about the village, then you cannot write such an article, because there is literally nothing that you can put in the article. Please see Verifiability. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I use the uploaded resources(PDF) of the village for reliable sources? Ralpel (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Only if they are hosted at a website which is regarded as a reliable source, I'm afraid, Ralpel. Anybody can upload anything they like to the internet, and the reader has no way of telling whether it is reliable or some nonsense that somebody has made up. Also, if you are talking about uploading the PDF's yourself, that may be a copyright infringement, and Wikipedia does not permit linking to copyright infringements. --ColinFine (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not upload it but I can tell the village authority to do that. Thanks.Ralpel (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Colinfine, does the source needs to be in English? We are not native English speakers. Our main sources are mainly in our native Language. Thanks Ralpel (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Ralpel, sources do not need to be in English, or to be online. But they need to have been published, so that a reader anywhere in the world can in principle obtain them (eg through a public library). If your village were to upload documents to their official website, I think those documents would probably be regarded as reliable, but primary sources, and so usable only in very limited ways. Please see Reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn´t a village pretty much notable by default, per WP:GEOLAND? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I think it is. But the content still needs to be verifiable. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ralpel Census reports are often useful. Other official information such as public service or government facilities in the village such as a school, clinic, postal or police office is also useful to at least prove that the village really does exist and has such public amenities. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Images as cites

On the Tower Transit Singapore article, some images are used as cites. Are cites valid as from my understanding, cites should really be written or published works? Ux2340 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ux2340 If an image supports the claim it is a valid reference, "published work" could be simply a website containing the photo concerned. As long as no interpretation of the image is required to arrive at the claim it is supporting, it should be acceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

And it is hosted on a reliable site. Looking at the links 6-9 in that article, I think landtransportguru.net does appear to be a reliable site; but cannot see how those images support the claim. "Here is a photo of a bus whose model may or may not be identifiable from the picture, in the colours of a certain operator" does not seem to me to be a satisfactory reference for the (implied) claim "Tower Transport use Alexander Dennis Enviro500 buses in their fleet". --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the proof of the claim must actually be obviously clear in the image for it to be a valid reference. So if the bus make and model markings and the operator's logo are not both clearly shown in the photo it is useless. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

IMVHO a picture alone doesn't prove anything. A reader who is not a specialist, can't know what bus brand/model is presented, or whether the colors of the bus actually indicate the company being described. If one wants to add pictures, they should be put in a gallery, but as a reference they are useless (especially when we have a link alone, pointing just to a jpeg file, with no information about the author, place, time, object, anything...). OTOH, a link to the company's web page, which presents the list of bus types in use, possibly with pictures, would be a proper reference. (Ping: Ux2340, Roger Dodger and ColinFine) --CiaPan (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Auto-confirm?

Hi, I was going through the different user access levels and I noticed that to be auto-confirmed you need to be more than 4 days old and have more than 10 edits. I have a few questions 1)Does it mean active for 4 days? 2)Are 10 edits on the same page or across various pages? 3)What if what you have edited has been reverted or changed is it still considered valid?

Thanks 06:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarun.joseph (talk • contribs)

Dear, either 4 days or 10 edits, which ever comes first. It is not necessary to edit same page, you can edit any pages, reverts dont make any difference on edit count.

Best regards.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 06:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure about the "which ever comes first", @Aftabbanoori:? WP:Autoconfirmed users says "more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits", and the emphasised word is "and", not "or". --David Biddulph (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is definitely and, not or. An accout with a hundred edits on its first day will only become autoconfirmed 96 hours after registration. An account created years ago without doing any or only a handful of edits will only become autoconfirmed when its tenth edit is saved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cullen, Biddulph and Dodgers,

I am sorry I was wrong, I am extremely grateful for senior editors like you, for pointing out my mistake.

Sorry again, best wishes

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 08:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

my article is still in the draft namespace while it is also in the main namespace

hi, I wrote Draft:Molly_Nilsson but the article Molly_Nilsson is now in the main namespace, It seems to be based upon my draft , but was submitted by User_talk:Synpathic which is a new user, (at list it seems like from his talk page) I got no credit (the draft is still under "Review waiting"). Shavtay (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shavtay. I have deleted Molly Nilsson ac a copyright violation and warned the user who did this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Using a detail of a image already on wikimedia

A image already exists on wikimedia and I know how to add the entire image to a wikipedia page, but can anyone offer direction on how to use just a detail of the photograph?

Thanks for the help!

TimeForLunch (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi TimeForLunch, you'll have to download the image onto your own computer, crop it and then upload the new image as a derivative work. However, you cannot use a fair use image for such a purpose. Alternatively you can post a request to the WP:Graphics lab to have the crop done by someone familiar with the rules and procedures. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Taraxacum albidum

T. albidum, cropped

This is not quite true. You don't need to download, crop, and upload it to cause Wikipedia to display it cropped. You can instead use the CSS feature "image crop", as shown to the right, to display a cropped region of an image. Maproom (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom So we learn something new on WP every day. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: That's right. However, if someone ever replaces the original image with a cropped / scaled / shifted or completely new version, your solution will fail. --CiaPan (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input CiaPan, Maproom and Roger (Dodger67). Cropping the image with the CSS feature might be the best way to go for the moment. (And as a side note from a new user, is there a way to make sure I get notifications when responses show up to this thread, rather than my having to check back at random intervals?) TimeForLunch —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

And a follow up: I was able to crop the image without too much trouble (Yahoo!)

Saint Clare

What might need to be altered to use this in an infobox? TimeForLunch (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

For an infobox image using this technique, see Mustafizur Rahman. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a great example and I'm almost there... How should the caption be formatted? No matter what I try it does not show up.TimeForLunch (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

How to sort userboxes on my profile?

I've been here for a while, and I have a whole jumble of userboxes on my profile. I've been trying to add a new section, but I'm not sure how to sort the userboxes. If I could get some help, that would be greatly appreciated. Deicey (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Deicey: You should use a box of some sort, put the templates under: {{Userboxtop|INSERT TITLE OF BOX}}, and under your userboxes (at the end of the list, not under each one) put {{Userboxbottom}}. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I did this on my userpage a while back. Feel free to look at it for ideas or get an idea of how to organize your boxes. If you have to, put it in the edit window and look at the formatting I used to achieve the groupings. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rise FM Denmark

I reviewed Draft:Rise FM Denmark and declined it, largely because of tone issues. The author has made changes to it. At this point I see that there is one reference to Wikipedia, and I am not satisfied that the references are sufficiently independent. Do other experienced editors want to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe it still had some tone issues, though I have done a copyedit and do not think there are any left. However, I do not think notability has been demonstrated based on the sources thus far cited (and suspect it cannot be).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability of Northwestern Waa-Mu

Looking to write an article about Waa-Mu, the Northwestern original musical. It is performed and written by Northwestern students. It has been a school tradition for 86 years and people travel from all over the world to see it. Famous alumni have been a part of this organization. Wondering if this is a notable topic for an article on Wikipedia. Hanrose.95 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The only judge of notability is really the existence of in-depth, reliable, and independent source material. If there is enough good writing about the subject out there somewhere which is completely independent of Northwestern and its students about the musical, go ahead and create the article. If there isn't, perhaps a line or two in another article may suffice. See WP:42 for more information. --Jayron32 19:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec)@Hanrose.95: Welcome to the Teahouse. Notability is established by citing coverage in independent reliable sources. I emphasize independent because in the case of Waa-Mu, it is easy to find sources affiliated with Northwestern. Ignore them when writing the article. Find as many sources as possible that have no connection with Northwestern and its various publications. Summarize those sources when writing an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Foster G. McGaw notable enough to warrant an article?

My group is trying to choose a Wikipedia article to write for class, and we're thinking of creating an article for Foster G. McGaw. He was a philanthropist in the Chicago area who donated more than $100 million. You can read more about him here: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-19/news/8601280586_1_lake-forest-honors-american-hospital-supply-corp. What do you all think? Is this topic notable enough to write an article about? Kelletubby (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kelletubby: Welcome to the Teahouse. One source is not enough, but I imagine that you can find many more sources in this Northwestern University archive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kelletubby. The correct way to write an article also provides a barometer for whether you should. Look for sources first; amass them; digest them; set pen paper (so to speak) only if those sources include multiple ones that provide substantive coverage, are reliable, and are secondary in nature, written by third-parties to the topic. If that inquiry has a negative result, do not start because you have confirmed the subject does not warrant an article – is not notable. I know I am skirting your question, but I'm trying to tell you that you are best positioned to answer it yourself, so long as you understand what is relevant to deduce the answer. I think attempting to answer that question is a great learning exercise for your class, even if the result is a negative. If those requisite sources exist, explain that not one word should be written that is not corroborated by the sources, and in lockstep, that every fact should be cited to the reliable sources that have been gathered. Explain that the sources are cited to corroborate the information but not the words used, which must be the student's own (I would emphasize this; every time I've ever studied a Wikipedia class room assignment shared among multiple students I've found some measure of copyright infringement and plagiarism in the mix; in this regard, the student's might be referred to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). Explain that sources are the lifeblood of proper Wikipedia articles and refer them to Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Introduction to referencing/1 for basics of citing sources, and Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment. Assign reading of other core content policies including: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability of Stage for Action (1945-1948)

Hello there. Our group is considering writing an article on the Stage for Action, a post-WWII theatre group; however, we are concerned that it is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Here is a link to what would be our main resource (archives, it also has a description of the group: http://explore.chicagocollections.org/ead/northwestern/78/w669f3k/

Additionally, there is a soon-to-be-published book that is written about the subject, found here: https://www.amazon.com/Stage-Action-Activist-Theatre-Americas/dp/0809335425/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1476472491&sr=8-3&keywords=the+stage+for+action However, I sense that the book used the same resources that we would use.

Any thoughts and feedback would be greatly appreciated! Just8food (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Just8food. There is a somewhat similar question to yours in the thread directly above this one. I hope that my answer there might be useful for you as well. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

how do i add a heading?

I was wondering how i could add a heading to a new article i was working on, but i didnt find out on my own so could you help me?Jojayjo crow (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jojayjo crow: A heading is added typically by enclosing it on a new line with doubled equal signs on either side (with or without a space between them and the heading text). For example:
== Heading title ==
Please note that headings are provided in sentence case. You can provide lower level headings by adding more equal signs. For more, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. See also Help:Cheatsheet. You might also consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

delete an article

How to delete an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.94 (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Articles can be deleted only by an administrator. The Deletion policy includes 3 basic methods to request deletion: speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and articles for deletion discussion. Your nomination of Duronto Rajshahi for speedy deletion under criterion U1 was invalid, as it was not a file in user space and it was not you who created it. I have reverted that nomination, and also reverted your unexplained removal of content from the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on overlinking place names

My question started in Template_talk:Infobox_military_person#Overlinking of US states. Since then I have found that it seems that it's becoming common to wikilink both the name of a major city and its country. Am I missing a new consensus that is emerging on Wikipedia or did I just misinterpret WP:OVERLINKING? My Gussie (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@My Gussie: Welcome to the Teahouse. No, I do not think that there is any "new consensus", and a tendency by many editors to overlink goes back as far as I have been editing, which is 2009. I know that I have sometimes been guilty of overlinking major cities, though I do not link US states or major, well-known countries. We should all strive to comply with the Manual of style, but it is a lengthy and complex document. If you see overlinking in any given article, then simply unlink, mentioning WP:OVERLINKING in your edit summary. Problem solved, for that article at least. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

how to start new article and check whether its already available or not ?

hi , i want to write an article about intraday trading . how can i check that this article is already made or not or covered in any topic . and i want to take reference of some books and some articles on internet . but it seems that wikipedia have some copyright issue . so what should i do ? should i have write the article in my own words . or please guide me . DS Writer 2916 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article on Day trading of financial securities. I am guessing that is what you are asking about. If you have any verifiable information that you can add to the article, you may do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

More generally, new articles should always be written "in your own words". In particular, do not copy language from a web site, because that is a copyright violation. The information needs to be verifiable. Also, it is a good idea to inquire whether an article already exists, as you just did, because having two articles on the same topic is a problem for Wikipedia. We often have to merge them, and that is work. So thank you for asking first. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)