Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 541

Archive 535

←

Archive 539

Archive 540

Archive 541

Archive 542

Archive 543

→

Archive 545

re-submitting

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm so confused! I didn't think the process would be this complex. My article was declined because I didn't cite references. I've added the references and want to re-submit the sandbox version. Somehow I wound up with three versions and I want to submit the sandbox version only. How should I proceed? Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dorotheainmiddle: Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest that you spend more time upgrading the references in your draft before resubmitting. For example, an important claim of notability is that he won a Guggenheim Fellowship. You have cited that to a random online list of award winners. Far better to cite this to the Guggenheim Foundation's own website. Most of your references are bare URLs which are uninformative and difficult for a reviewer to evaluate. Please read an essay called Referencing for beginners, and expand these references with full bibliographic information. Also, take a look at Good articles about similar people, and model the style of your draft on those articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful guidance. I made the change about Guggenheim. I can't "upgrade" the other references because I'm just mentioning that he was in those festivals. They're URLs because this guy has only given, like, 2 interviews. He's sort of a JD Salinger-type. I saw his films and they're totally cool but there hasn't been much written on him. They show his films in a lot of college courses on film, but there's not much out there in terms of written material. I pretty much cited everything there is. I saw an interview he gave on PBS a while ago, but the link to that doesn't work anymore.Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dorotheainmiddle: Please do not leave bare URLs in your references. A bare URL can always be filled out with bibliographic information. Always. If "there hasn't been much written on him", then it is quite possible that he is not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. It is your obligation as the writer of the draft to demonstrate that this person is notable, and properly formatted references are your tools for doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the draft in question is Draft:Jim Jennings (2). There are two other drafts on the same person, but they have been tagged for deletion simply so as to not to get edits scattered between drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dorotheainmiddle! I think you've made a good start. There are a few issues I think you should address though—especially regarding the sourcing; the use of naked URLs in the citations, which make it more difficult for readers (including the AfC reviewer) to identify and assess the sources used to verify the information content, and demonstrate the notability of the topic. I have done some copyediting, and in doing so, left a number of hidden comments in the text regarding this issue and some others. When editing the draft, you'll see them between this markup: <!-- (hidden notes) -->. (They do not appear in the draft's displayed text.) You can also view them in this diff of the changes I made. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for offering such good advice. I'm not sure what you mean, though, about filling in "naked" URL's with bibliographic material. Basically, this guy's films are shown all over, especially in filmmaking courses. I supposed I could add things that curators say about him in the festival catalogues. I'm not sure how to work in the part about his films being used as models in filmmaking classes. I know his films are rented out by the Filmmakers' Co-op and he's the #2 filmmaker university professors rent out. I'm not sure how to verify that in a written source. Basically, students and other filmmakers know his work, but don't know much about him because he has that weird other gig as a plumber so he doesn't get written up a lot. Any ideas? I've only been able to find those two books so far and some stuff in MoMA catalogues and whatnot.

Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess I could just leave off all his screening. Then there wouldn't be any URLs.Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's the answer. I can just leave off the screenings he's done. I mean, in the film world he's well-known, so anyone looking him up would know he's shown a lot of films all over. I probably shouldn't add that. I guess I could add a section of his work, film by film, and include comments from festival catalogs, but those would be Internet stuff, not books.21:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked up the Wikipedia entry for Ken Jacobs, who is Jennings peer, and it's basically the same kind of entry as mine. What should I do?Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Do please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy, one of the editors told me to look up similar articles and use them as models. I did that--and now you're making fun of me! I think if I get of the screenings list, there wouldn't be any URLs, so that would cease to be a problem. Film festivals don't write books. They have some written catalogs, but mostly, it all online. Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Dorotheainmiddle. That is not what I mean by naked URLs. This is a naked URL from your draft, as shown in the references section:

http://www.undergroundfilmjournal.com/2010-ann-arbor-film-festival-official-lineup/

And this is a transparent attributed reference to that same source, rather than a naked URL:

Everleth, Mike (March 8, 2010). "2010 Ann Arbor Film Festival: Official Lineup". Underground Film Journal. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

I used a citation template to format this, but it could be attributed identically without, like this (see the difference in edit mode):

Everleth, Mike (March 8, 2010). "2010 Ann Arbor Film Festival: Official Lineup" Underground Film Journal. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleting an account

@Superchunk22: Hello Superchunk22, Wikipedia does not delete accounts. It will just remain inactive. You can attempt to usurp the account if you'd like to regain that username. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I get that, but what do you mean by "usurp"? -- Superchunk22 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Superchunk22: Usurp refers to the process of taking an old username for an inactive account. This page is where you can learn more and make a request for it if you're interested. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What are some examples of independent references?

What are some examples of independent references? Hi god (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hi god: The New York Times, CNN, The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times....See the reliable sources policy for more information on this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Table - mouse hover over syntax

On the special page Special:Tags, when you hover over a row of the table with your cursor, that line becomes highlighted. What is the syntax to do that? I was also wondering if there is a way to view to source code for a 'special page. NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: I don't know whether the hover feature is possible in wikitext pages. Special pages are generated by the MediaWiki software when somebody views them. This often involves reading database logs which are not available in wikitext. You would have to read the source code of the software itself to see precisely how a given special page is generated. But you can add ?uselang=qqx to a url to see the name of used messages in the MediaWiki namespace. Add &uselang=qqx if the url already has a '?'. This works for both special pages and other pages. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Tags?uselang=qqx says "(tags-intro)" near the top. This means MediaWiki:Tags-intro is displayed in that place. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Except, that's not exactly too helpful. You can view the HTML markup by pressing F12 on chrome browser (IDK what browser you may be on, or how to access this on a different browser). This tells me that the table uses the css class mw-datatable, which gives the table a predefined format and makes the table <td>s change highlighting when they are moused over. Example:

Example

Foo bar

Cheers! -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 02:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. That really helped! NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used as a propoganda Tool by Indians

Wikipedia is the largest online Encyclopedia. Till recently I had lot of trust in the information provided by Wikipedia. However, to my utter disappointment I have discovered that it is being used as propaganda tool by so called “Volunteers”. I have gone through number of articles and found deliberated defamation campaigns against Pakistan. I condemn use of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool by Indians. They are killing this great educational treasure. I suggest that neutral administrators should oversee sensitive topics else we shall damage the hard earned credibility of online encyclopedia. Malik Atta 08:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalikAttaRasool (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not quite sure i'm seeing what you're saying. Which articles are you referring to that you have concerns over? -- Dane2007 ^talk 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello MalikAttaRasool. You will be happy to know that sensitive topics are monitored by Wikipedia administrators, including specifically anything related to India-Pakistan relations. However, they are volunteers just like everybody else here. The quality of the encyclopaedia is dependent on all of us making an effort to maintain a neutral point of view, therefore if you come across articles that you think aren't neutral, I'd encourage you to help fix the problem by starting a discussion on that article's talk page or raising it on the neutral point of view noticeboard. Joe Roe (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur with what User:Joe Roe has written. I will add that if there are articles with whose content you disagree, these are considered content disputes. Read the dispute resolution policy. It will advise you to discuss article content on the article talk page. If that does not resolve the issue (for instance, because the other editor is stubborn), it will provide several options, including asking for a third opinion, and asking for community consensus via a Request for Comments. In certain areas where there is a history of battleground editing, including areas of the world that have been battlegrounds in history, including India and Pakistan, there is a procedure known as Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions for reporting of disruptive editing. However, it is always best to try to settle content disputes amicably. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of the articles I have read on India-Pakistan issues, the important articles at least make sure to be fair when citing claims and state the side it came from and it's significance. They almost never take a claim from a certain side and cite it as fact.

Iran-Middle-East (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

How to sort a table based on a date range

I have found how to sort a table based on a column with a single date (WP:TABLESORT). But it does not work when the table includes date ranges. I would like to have it sort based on the start of the range (preferably while leaving the range as a range, not as two separate columns). Is there an automated way to do this?Gronk Oz (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Sorry to bother you. It turns out the problem was not the date ranges, it was the mix of year-only, year-month, and year-month-day data. Fixed now.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

How to properly render birthplaces if the political geography has changed?

It has been my understanding that a person's birthplace is rendered in their Bio Box according to political geography of the time. For instance, George Washington's birthplace is listed as "Bridges Creek, Westmoreland County, Virginia, British America," noting British America and not the modern U. S.

The edit in question regards the page of Comanche chief Quanah Parker, who was born in the present-day state of Oklahoma, albeit when the region was known as Indian Territory. A fellow editor has alleged that these birthplace notations are "for modern readers to locate," though most examples I have seen do not reflect this. A closer example would be Chief Sitting Bull, whose page denotes his birthplace as Dakota Territory rather than any modern state in the American union. In the interest of avoiding needless editing conflict, what is the correct policy on this? Sethzel (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names in the section titled "Place names" notes "Many place names have a historical context that should be preserved, but common sense should prevail. There can be few places that have not been parts of more than one culture or have had only one name. An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France..." Of course there would always be exceptions which can be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, but unless someone has a really good reason, the primary place name should always be the name at the time of the context. Clarifications can be made in places where space is not a premium (i.e. NOT IN THE INFOBOX, and probably also not in the lead, but possibly in the main body of the article). I hope that helps. --Jayron32 21:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sethzel: Welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with you about how Quanah Parker's birthplace should be rendered. I recently read a book length biography of this fascinating man, and we should get his biography right. That being said, the proper place to discuss and resolve this issue is at Talk: Quanah Parker and I suggest that you express your opinion there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am creating my first wiki article and I need some help.

I have received images from the photographer allowing me full rights to use them. What form do I need to provide to them to release this information to Wikipedia?

Also can someone take a look at the draft and provide feedback please?

Thebiv19 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thebiv19 (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

For the convenience of those who want to respond to this request here is the draft article in question Draft:Mike Delguidice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). MarnetteD|Talk 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thebiv19: Welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot exercise "full rights" to an image based on your statement that the photographer has authorized you to do so. The photographer must freely licence their work themself, in writing, in a legally acceptable form. The easiest way is for the photographer to set up an account on Wikimedia Commons, and upload the images themself under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I need advice on which "paid" template to use for WP:COI paid work dsiclosure

Greetings.

I need advice about which "paid" template to use in a page about a person that I work for (Todd Anthony Tyler) when I build the page - also what disclosure template do I out on his page and where?. I have put one on my userpage but I am not sure if it is the correct one to use as I will also use WP as a non paid person. Any advice would be very gratefully received.Neil Kindness (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neil Kindness: Welcome to the Teahouse. The template that you have placed on your userpage is the correct one. I suggest that you use the same template on the talk page of any drafts you write. Please use the Articles for Creation process to draft new articles when you have a conflict of interest, such as an article about Todd Anthony Tyler. Read and study the essay called Your first article for some useful guidance. If you want to edit articles where you have no conflict of interest, just do so, as long as you comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I Have A Problem About Steve Pool's Article Biography To Restore

I Have A Problem With Steve Pool's Wikipedia Page Article Biography To Restore (68.190.248.127 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi 68.190.248.127 - What is your problem? You have asked for help here, and on your talk page, but not said what help you need - Arjayay (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, Arjayay! - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

HI Robert and Colin, I will bring this discussion to the Draft talk page: but how and who do I alert that there is a response on the talk page? But It's ok for me to write in the space where the reviewer makes comments?

Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

describe me major points

Hello Teahouse !! I am new to these things Is there any helper? How can I improve myself? I am interested in these things please locate me and give me some major points on writing articles. Zeba Rasheed 5:00 PM, 8 November 2016(UTC)Zeba Rasheed (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zeba, welcome to Wikipedia. A good start is the Community portal and the Help out section in there, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal Hamburg-1982 (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See also vs. Categories

Hello Teahouse,

in linking an article with more or less related articles, what is the boundary of the See also section in the articles and adding the article to a category? Is there a guideline discouraging the action of adding and article B to the See also section of article A when both are in the same category?

I do understand the policy of keeping See also list relatively compact. Hamburg-1982 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hamburg-1982 and welcome to the Teahouse. As for categories, add any categories that are relevant and backed up by the article text. If the article says "Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States", add categories Category:1961 births, Category:21st-century American politicians and Category:Presidents of the United States.

See also is usually not compared to categories, but links that appear within the article text; you should not add See also links to articles that are already linked in the article text. In the above example, do not add President of the United States to a See also section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Pratyush Kumar Das

I reviewed Draft:Pratyush Kumar Das and declined it because the references do not provide independent in-depth coverage, and noted that they are inconsistently formatted. Most of the references appear to be press releases. I would also add that the draft needs editing on the grammar. User:DivyaK then asked me what type of references need to be provided. I haven’t Googled on the subject and don’t know whether he is notable in the sense that Wikipedia wants. I would say that the references should be put into the form of footnotes. (When I see a mixture of footnotes and end notes that are formatted differently, it distracts me.) Do any experienced editors have any comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The article was supported by numerous references articles. Why can they not be verified?

The article was supported by numerous references articles. This Doctor has helped millions of people across the world who have acne and skin problems and I feel its important people are made more aware of his work so he can help many others who suffer from skin problems, which can cause major depression and effect people lives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Danielov.Christopher Mark Pattinson (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the draft, which needs considerable work, "references" 1-11 are all papers by Danielov, whereas your Reference 12 "magazine articles" are dominated by articles by his company BIONOVA. Notability takes no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves, nor what anybody related to the subject, friends, colleagues, institutions or companies, have to say about them.
Notability is only shown by references showing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Please also read referencing for beginners for how to cite references properly, and please remove all the external links from the bodytext of the draft article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at it now please have updated as suggested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Danielov#Works Christopher Mark Pattinson (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You haven't removed the external links from the body text, and you haven't cited the references properly as footnotes as shown at WP:REFB. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Err, no you haven't "updated as suggested". Rather than getting rid of non-independent references, and providing references showing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, you have added even more non-independent references e.g. "Magazines where Dr. Danielov published some of the Scientific Articles".
As suggested above, please start by reading referencing for beginners and remove all the external links from the bodytext - some of these may be convertible into useful references - and then trim/delete the self-referential entries. - Arjayay (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixing vandalism in the search hints dropdown list

When typing in the search input field on the Wikipedia home page, a list of possible hits drops down. Recently I noticed that when searching on "White House" the brief explanatory text for the White House article in the search dropdown list had been vandalized. How would an editor proceed to correct such vandalism? Piperh (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

While I can't figure out exactly where you are seeing the text, those descriptions come from Wikidata, a sister project to Wikipedia. It appears that the vandalism has been reverted. If that wasn't what you saw, please provide more details so we can help you. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI @AntiCompositeNumber:, those descriptions show up in mobile view. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I know, but I noticed that the edit wasn't tagged as a mobile edit. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

After I posted, I realized you probably knew, but I focused on your opening comment. However, I am unclear why you are mentioning an edit. I assume OP was doing a search on a mobile, saw the problem, and came here. They did not need to do an edit. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The OP may have referred to https://www.wikipedia.org which shows Wikidata descriptions for desktop users. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Question on Notable person - Major Raymond Celeste Jr.

I would like to write an article about an U.S. Army Officer who was killed in Vietnam. He was a West Point Graduate and was well respected by the men he served with in the Army. He was killed in action in Vietnam at the age of 34 years old. I have all of the necessary records to reference his complete biography to include the battle that he was KIA. How do I know if this is enough to precede in the terms of the notable criteria? His name is also on the Vietnam Wall in Washington DC.Loyaltycourage (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Loyaltycourage. You don't go into much detail about the nature of the sources, but it sounds like what you have are primary sources about him, and not published, reliable, secondary sources written by third parties to the subject. We need significant coverage in those types of sources to demonstrate that a person is notable – by the world taking note of the subject of an article. Those would be, for example, substantive coverage of him in newspaper articles, mainstream books, television documentaries and the like. How do you know? Ask yourself this question: if you were to summarize only what those types of sources said about him – plain facts and no gloss – would you have enough for a multiple paragraph write-up? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Loyaltycourage: Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest that you read WP:SOLDIER, which accurately reflects the thinking of many editors who work on military topics. Please be prepared to explain how Celeste meets that standard. The fact that this person's name is on the wall at the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial in Washington does not confer notability, since every single American confirmed as killed in that war is listed. Simply being killed in a war is not a plausible claim of notability. If it was, then we would routinely accept individual biographies of millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians killed in that war. What we really need in a case like this is significant biographical coverage of Celeste as a person in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Celeste was in a major battle and the unit he was fighting in received the Presidential Unit Citation. His actions were noted to be "instrumental in defeating an attack by a numerically superior Vietcong force." As cited in his Bronze Star Citation with Valor Device. Loyaltycourage (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Page Issues

If someone could please help me, it would be greatly appreciated. This is my first time contributing. The top of my page says "page issues". I addressed the issues, yet, "page issues" remains at the top. The page is Roberta Angelica. How do I remove "page issues", from the page? Thank you. FireStarterInc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireStarterInc. (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, FireStarterInc., and welcome to the Teahouse. You'll see that those templates have links ("Learn how and when to remove this template") which you can click for information about their removal. However, please note that the issues with the Roberta Angelica article do not appear to have been resolved. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi FireStarterInc. In addition, to what Cordless Larry posted above, I think it's important for you to understand that there is no "my page" when it comes to Wikipedia. Articles are not owned by their creators and can be edited by anyone at anytime. Creating an article from scratch is a fairly difficult thing to do for even experienced editors, and from your edit history it looks like you've only been editing for a single day. Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines and those tags were added by other editors as a way of letting the Wikipedia community know that there are certain issues which need to be addressed. So, unless you're absolutely sure that you've addressed the reasons why the templates were added, you might want to consider discussing things with the editor who added the template to see what needs to be done. You can find out who added the templates by checking the article's edit history. You also do not have to be the editor who fixes each and every problem with the article. Wikipedia article's are imperfect and constantly being improved over time through collaborative editing. Being tagged with a maintenance template does not necessarily mean the article is destined for deletion and another editor may come by and fix the issues associated with the article. Your main concern should be the "Notability" template added to the articles because a lack of notability is an acceptable reason for deletion and is not really something that can be fixed by adding more content to the article. What you need to show is that Angelica has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people or Wikipedia's notability guideline for entertainers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing Dusty & Stones

How do i go about adding some sources for a page i created for it to meet Wiki standards 41.211.35.17 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find more by reading WP:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. The discussion about the article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusty & Stones. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

belgian notibility

Hello Teahouse!

I tried to add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danny_Devriendt , in my quest to put some notable Belgians on the Wikimap. It was rejected for being too promotional (I can tweak that language), and, does not adequately show the subject's notability... here I am more confused, as the subject is very notable in Belgium, and has notability abroad. I notice that e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hinssen , a fellow Belgium did pass on notability. How can I remediate? Any tips? Kind regards, Willy Herotonti (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Herotonti, I'm afraid the article about Peter Hinssen is not a good example to follow, it's references also appear to be inadequate. You need to find sources about Devriendt that are not written by himself or anyone with a connection to him. Look for mainstream news media or magazine article that discuss him and his work in significant detail and that were written by professional journalists. That excludes press releases by Devriendt or his associates or agents, interviews of Devriendt are also no good because they are the subject talking about himself. Passing mentions or "name dropping" in articles about other topics are also no good for establishing notability. Note that sources do not need to be in English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Using an image on the Italian wikipedia for an English article

I would like to use this image on the English wikipedia, but there is a problem. The Italian page says that before being used on other wikipedias it needs to be transferred to the Commons, and to do that the license needs to be verified.

(Dopo aver verificato con sicurezza la validità della licenza questo file può essere trasferito su Wikimedia Commons, rendendolo così disponibile anche a Wikipedia in altre lingue e agli altri progetti Wikimedia.)

Since I don't know much about the licensing and use of images can any one advise me on what can move this process along?

TimeForLunch (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi TimeForLunch! It looks like you figured out how to transfer the image to Commons. The license seems fine to me, since the original uploader and copyright holder released the photo under a compatible free license, and there's nothing to indicate that the uploader is not the copyright holder. I went ahead and marked the license as checked over at Commons. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Howicus (Did I mess up?). After posting I noticed that the page suggests a way to go forward, so I gave it a try and it worked out OK. TimeForLunch (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

How can my edits be protected?

Hello. Is there any way to prevent future changes and reversions to the articles I've improved? Thank you. Architect 134 (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no way to protect the articles to prevent future changes. Articles you edited can and will be edited by others, that is a fact of editing Wikipedia articles. -- GB fan 16:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When your edits are disruptive or otherwise unconstructive you should expect that they will be reverted promptly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You intended your edits to be constructive by stating information that was already common knowledge, but they were reverted because they didn't provide encyclopedic content. You need to learn that sometimes other editors disagree with you as to what are useful additions to articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Occasionally, edit protection is added to pages if it's being vandalized often. See WP:PP. Justin15w (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk page formatting messed up

Hi, can someone take a look at my talk page and fix the formatting on the barnstars at the bottom? For some reason I can't figure it out. Thanks so much. Justin15w (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was just an unclosed table. Fixed I think. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I was so close, yet so far. Justin15w (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Can a redirect page be renamed??

I created a redirect page awhile back with the name of Kwalk' I accidentally added the punctuation at the end by mistake and need the page to either have a name change or to be merged the new redirect page Kwalk that I created soon after. Thanks OldEnglishHero (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You can just add {{db-user}} to the top (remove the # before #REDIRECT for easy access), and it will be deleted later by an admin. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 02:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How to edit the semi protected page

Hello, I want to add my page Apollo Hospitals, Visakhapatnam to the wikipage List of hospitals in India which is semi protected. How can I do that ? Hpsatapathy (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Hpsatapathy You can edit the page. Semi-protection limits the right to edit the page to autoconfirmed users, and you are an autoconfirmed user. However, refer to the page as "my page", and no one owns a Wikipedia page. Do you have a conflict of interest, such as employment with the hospital, or do you only mean that you created the page? If you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the list, but should instead request the edit. If you only mean that you created the page, you may edit the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Content box stuck in wrong place (possibly)

Good morning kind editors

I can't seem to move my contents box to the correct position in my draft article in sandbox - is this me being blind?

Neil KindnessNeil Kindness (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably you intend that User:Neil Kindness/sandbox will become an article entitled Todd Anthony Tyler, in which case the section heading #Todd Anthony Tyler would be removed from what would then become the lede of the article, and the contents list would follow the lede. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

personal information table wont display in the RHS of the page

Hello

My personal information box wont display correctly It is sitting on the left hand side - what am I doing wrong please?Neil Kindness (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be more standard to use the Template:Infobox artist instead of attempting to simulate an infobox with a Wikitable. The infobox will automatically be placed over on the RHS of the page.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Pre-submission opinion on an artice

Is it possible to have a pre-submission opinion on an article prior to submission? - The article in question is my sandbox.Neil Kindness (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Neil. For starters, the draft seems generally alright. Not obtusely promotional in tone, and the sourcing seems ok on the face of it.

I will say however, that since you are apparently a paid promoter, it seems very unlikely that you in fact own the copyright for the head shot, as indicated in the image's attribution. The copyright for such pictures, as I understand it, is usually held by either the studio who took the picture, or the company who commissioned it. TimothyJosephWood 13:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Copy-pasting Wikia material to Wikipedia?

Hey! I created an article on a Wikia once. It was fully cited and written with my own words. Now, if I want to bring this article to Wikipedia, do I have to do another rewrite or is it considered ok to simply copy-paste material from different Wiki-platforms? If I have to rewrite, then that would be difficult because you can only phrase something a limited amount of ways. Thanks in advance! OscarL 12:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi OscarLake. There are two main things to consider when copying material from another site to Wikipedia. The first is copyright: is the material you wish to copy under a free license that allows anyone to reuse the work for any purpose? In this case, Wikia is usually fine, as the content there is under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0, the same license used by Wikipedia. This means that there is no copyright issue with copying from Wikia to Wikipedia, so long as you attribute Wikia as the source of the text. The second thing to consider, though, is suitability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with guidelines for inclusion. Many Wikia articles have a level of depth that's more than what Wikipedia looks for; they often include material that is not talked about in reliable, independent sources like Wikipedia requires. Could you give us a link to the Wikia article you wrote, so we could better say if the specific article would work on Wikipedia? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Howicus. I appreciate it. I'm not sure how attributing to Wikia would work, since I've never seen examples of this in other Wikipedia articles, but I'll figure it out somehow. The second point is less of an issue, since I'm actually a relatively experienced Wikipedia editor with several created articles in the past three years. While the Teahouse is mainly for new editors, I didn't know where else to ask. OscarL 13:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

For attribution, state the source and its license in the edit summary of the edit you add copied content with along with the line "see that page's history for attribution". This is enough to meet the legal requirement of attribution. In addition, there are templates you can put in the article and/or its talk page to indicate this, but they are not required. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Reg Category:Catholic Church in Africa

An article on my watchlist Cathedral of Our Lady of the Rosary (Jashpur) had a category change by Robot to this category, Category:Catholic Church in Africa . Some serious wrong is happening under this category. A senior user should have a look at this please. Jazze7 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jazze7 and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree, it looks like a mistake. I've removed the category that originally was Catholic Church in Asia, because the existing category Catholic Church in India already accounts for this broader definition (all churches of the Catholic Church in India are also Catholic Churches in Asia). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See also affected category >> Category:Catholic Church by continent <<

Robot has emptied continents

Jazze7 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jazze7: Apologies from the CFD volunteers. This has been resolved. (See User talk:Cyde for a discussion.) – Fayenatic London 14:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thank you for your reply. No apologies needed. I was just alarmed at what was going on. I had noticed when reversal was in progress. Regards Jazze7 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article

I am desperately trying how to create a profile for my daughter who is a performer.

The first attempt was declined as it was decided she wasn't notable enough, but now with more experience I wanted to update it. Now I find it's been deleted, and I have no idea how to find it to resuurect it, or how to fix the issues with it.

She's a British Child Actress and Musical Theatre performer with West End Credits.

Can anyone please help me?

The page was named "Isabelle Methven"24601Forever (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I was able to find the page and have restored it for you. You can find it at Draft:Isabelle Methven. Will leave some additional info on your talk page. -- GB fan 13:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 24601Forever. I'm afraid that, like many people, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. As an encyclopaedia, it may not be used for promotion, and does not contain "profiles". Once a person or other topic has already been noticed and written about at some length by people who have no connection with them, then Wikipedia will regard them as notable, and may have an article about them, based almost entirely on what those independent sources have said about them. It has essentially no interest in what anybody says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees, colleagues, or agents say about them. In fact, anybody who is connected with the subject is discouraged from directy editing such an article, because of their conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I don't think Wikipedia is for advertising

Whitetiger401 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing with mathematical formulas

Hello,

I wish to re-submit an article on Wikipedia concerning "Grey Systems Theory". The problem is that the article includes mathematical formulas. I have been informed that if I use "LaTeX" and "WP:MATH", I will be able to submit these formulas. Problem is, I am not a programmer and don't know where to start with this. Also, as the mathematical formulas are interjected between ordinary text, do I have to keep on changing the text formatting?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Kind regards John Barrett JBarre03 (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

JBarre03: this page explains how to put mathematical formulae in a Wikipedia article. And yes, you do have to keep on changing the text formatting: you switch to formula mode with <math> and switch back with </math>. Maproom (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the info, that was helpful.JBarre03 (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The draft in question, Draft:Grey Systems Theory, was deleted as being a copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick deletion of new article "The Fethafoot Chronicles"?

Hi I created an article about a series of fiction books yesterday and had the article almost immediately branded as up for quick deletion. I was wondering what I would have to do to have the article up and running without infringing any copyright issue that seems to have occurred? I am the author of the series and only wish for the public to access information about the series and the author on Wikipedia etc?

Thanks for your time,

WenoJMW Aboriginal author Qld, AustraliaWenoJMW (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi WenoJMW. As far as I can tell, an article on this book series has no place on Wikipedia (nor even for mention in any existing article), as this is not yet a notable subject, being a fiction series that is new (Wikipedia is never the proper place for first announcement of new things), has not been the subject of significant treatment in reliable, secondary sources entirely independent of the series (such as being the subject of substantive treatment in newspaper articles, other mainstream books, mainstream magazine article, etc.); does not meet any criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books); appears to be self-published through the vanity press BookBaby, and you are here for self promotion.

Even if I'm wrong about the series not yet receiving significant coverage in the types of sources we need to show a topic warrants an article, an article would focus on summarizing what those independent sources said about the series (rather than a summary of each book). We also could not use the copyrighted content you posted without it being released under a suitably-free copyright release (i.e., you releasing your copyright under a highly free copyright license allowing anyone to use it, even for commercial purposes). You could never post in an article, as you did, that the text was yours, non-free copyrighted, and could not be used by anyone (quite the opposite is required). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment about Wikipedia and copyright. Many editors think that, if they own the copyright to a web site (or other material), they can use it in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia doesn't merely require that the author have the copyright, but also (and this is the part that many editors don't understand) that it be released for use by others under terms of the copyleft. The other problem with using copyrighted material from a web site is typically that, even if the copyright has been released properly, the language is likely to be non-neutral and promotional, and Wikipedia doesn't allow that. So, for at least two reasons, owning the copyright is not enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Founding members? or Founder members?

Hi. Good afternoon. I created a category for 'Category:Founding members of the World Cultural Council'. I also created a template with the same name Template:Founding members of the World Cultural Council. While the name 'founding members' may be neutral English, it may also be appropriate to use the term 'Founder members' or even 'Charter members'. What would be the right term for Wikipedia style purposes? Thank you in advance. Healing Mandala (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Founder members sounds sooo wrong. Founding members sounds correct to me, and I should know since I am an English major. OldEnglishHero (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response, OldEnglishHero! Best Regards. Healing Mandala (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Founder member" seems perfectly normal to me,Healing Mandala, so I wondered if this is a US/UK difference, and indeed it appears to be. Looking on GloWbE, "founding member[s]" is 25 times more common than "founder member[s]" in US sources (35 times more in Canadian, 15 times in Australian, ten times more in NZ) but only 1.5 times more common in UK and twice as common in Irish sources. So "founder members" is common in the UK and Ireland, but rare in most other places. Since "founding members" is known everywhere, (in fact, more common, except apparently in Sri Lanka), WP:ENGVAR says that it should be used. --ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response, ColinFine. Best Regards, Healing Mandala (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Geoff Weigand

HI I need to help with editing my article to be sure that the tone is corrected. I have simplified the entry and would appreciate your feedback and suggestions to improve it (or simplify it more). Pamignite (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pamignite: in the first sentence, it says he's a "product developer". If he's notable, it is as a rock climber, not as a product developer. Indeed, the article makes no mention of any product he has developed. Things like that come across as promotional, and should be removed. But I suspect establishing his notability may be more of a problem. If you can't do that, the article will be rejected, and the work you do on improving the tone will have been wasted. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, based on Wikipedia pages of his contemporaries, he is notable. I used the thecrag.com and mountainproject.com websites as that would allow people to look at the routes he is known for creating as first ascents. However, these routes are also found in respectable published climbing guide books. For approval purposes, so I only site the published books as resources and remove the URLs? The magazine articles that feature him are well-respected - such as Rock and Ice, Rock (Australia) and Climbing magazines. What is your recommendation for these? I have looked at other climbers published in Wikipedia and have reviewed the links for resources for beginners. Any specific recommendation and responses to this article and the questions I have posed here is greatly appreciated.Pamignite (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pamignite. I'm sorry, but "based on Wikipedia pages of his contemporaries" is in all cases completely irrelevant to establishing notability. Wikipedia has five million articles, and many of them are substandard - unfortunately, many people prefer to engage in the apparently easier (though actually very difficult) task of writing a new article, rather than improving ones we already have. His notability depends only on whether people who have no connection with him have chosen to write substantial material about him, and had it published in reliable sources. Please see notability. --ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine for your feedback. You have responded to the initial statement and I understand your counsel. Could you please respond to my questions regarding the cited sources? Specifically about the magazine articles published about him and the published climbing books.Pamignite (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Profile denied

I like an author who isn't on Wikipedia. She published three books and has lots of reviews in major newspapers. But my article was denied. BTW I'm not paid or anything like that.AphraBenn (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey AphraBenn. There are thousands of written works published each day, and simply being a published author is not itself sufficient to establish notability in terms of qualifying for one's own Wikipedia article. Content, supported by reliable sources, needs to be added to the draft to demonstrate why, of all the published authors in the world, this particular one is sufficiently prominent, important, influential, etc. so that they warrant an encyclopedia article. TimothyJosephWood 16:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The draft article in question is Draft:Jessica Dee Humphreys. (Please do not refer to Wikipedia articles or draft articles as profiles.) You didn't really provide enough information about Ms. Humphries to establish notability. The draft lists her books (of which it appears that she was a co-author or rewriter, in two cases for a general), and doesn't say anything else about her. Have the books been favorably reviewed? What else has been written about her? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon and Timothyjosephwood. I will try again, adding more sources and info. I appreciate your help and advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AphraBenn (talk • contribs) 16:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AphraBenn - There are still a few problems. Thank you for providing a link to Romeo Dallaire. However, in the process of expanding the draft, you added two sentences without deleting the first sentence. That is, the draft is partly duplicated. (This seems to be a common problem with new editors. Can someone explain why it is common, or how to avoid the problem?) You still have a reference to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reference. It is a link or a See also. Also, at least in my opinion, the draft still needs expansion. You say that the books have been reviewed. Please add the reviews as references. Also, has anything been written about her early life and education, or about how she got started as a writer? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Funny, I couldn't see the original sentence when I rewrote it. A glitch? Anyway, can't thank you enough for your patience with me as a newbie! Will try again. AphraBenn (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I figured out why you see many new editors duplicate their drafts. One must editsource at the top of the page, but there is an option to editsource lower down, which only adds a section. Tell new editors to make changes by clicking editsource at the TOP of their draft.AphraBenn (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon This is tougher than I thought. But fun! Will you look at it now, and let me know if it is acceptable? AphraBenn (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AphraBenn - Writing a new article, complete with references, is the hardest task that there is in Wikipedia. Some experienced editors think that new editors who want to contribute to Wikipedia would do better to help in some less difficult way, with the more than five million articles that we already have, rather than the articles that we don't have. I don't normally follow a draft article through the approval process. For one thing, once I have declined an article more than once, I think that I have too much history with it and maybe should let another reviewer look at it. However, I will be glad to take another look at it after you have worked on it some more. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand Robert McClenon. I'm trying my hand at small edits to existing posts, too. Thanks for all your advice.AphraBenn (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft: FORT (collective)

I reviewed Draft:FORT (collective) and declined it, saying that it had notability issues and tone issues.

I then received the following on my talk page from User:Sieshoeke:

Requesting assistance and explanations regarding the recently posted entry about the artists from FORT (collective)
Dear Robert McClenon, I hope this finds you well. First I would like to thank you for taking a closer look at my recently written entry about FORT (collective). I work for a german gallery who represents this artist group and I already have written and published a german version of the entry about FORT (collective) successfully to the german Wikipedia site. Could you be so kind and help me with how I am supposed to include the references correctly since the text comes directly from the artists. It's not a quote, but they wrote it. The main reason for creating an entry was that the artists start to get known international and just moved from Germany to the USA for the next two years. Last but not least, I am wondering what you meant by saying the entry has tone issues. Could you clarify what exactly you mean and where to find it? I know it isn't a perfect entry, I am new to all this and I have to admit that I'm not good with computer science, nevertheless I tried to fulfill all the criteria given. I am sorry if the entry did not turn out the way it is supposed to. I look forward hearing from you and I will do my very best to make my entry a wikipedia worthy entry! Thank you very much again for your help. Best wishes, Sieshoeke (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I am replying here for the benefit of other new editors, in order to explain what Wikipedia is and is not. The author states that the text comes directly from the artists, not a quote, but they wrote it. We don’t want text that is written by article subjects. It isn’t neutral. That is what I meant by tone issues. The Work section does look as though it is written from their viewpoint. Wikipedia should be written from the viewpoint of neutral third parties such as critics. Also, you write that the main reason for creating an entry was “that the artists start to get known international[ly]”. Wikipedia isn’t here to help someone be known internationally, but to summarize what has already been written. If the artists are not well known yet, the article may be WP:TOOSOON. Do other experienced editors have other comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to address the notability issue:

The notability criteria for artists are similar but slightly different to those of German Wikipedia. The article should show that the topic meets the notability criteria, in particular WP:ARTIST by indicating where the artists' contributions to the exhibitions were substantial and indicating (for a non-German readership) which galleries are regarded as "significant" (at the national level). The article should also show that the artists have received significant attention regionally and/or nationally, for instance using references to articles in regional and national newspapers, e.g.

* "An der Nahtstelle von Kunst und Alltag" [Where Art and Everyday Life Meet]. Weser-Kurier (in German). 4 April 2015. Retrieved 10 November 2016.

* "Kunst kritisiert Discounter: Alles raus, alles weg" [Art Criticizes Discounter: Everything must go]. taz.de (in German). 5 April 2015. Retrieved 10 November 2016.

The editor should also familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and, if they represent the artists or have a similar conflict of interest, make the appropriate declarations.

--Boson (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)