Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 559

Archive 555

←

Archive 557

Archive 558

Archive 559

Archive 560

Archive 561

→

Archive 565

I'm a new author and my post has been flagged for speedy deletion

Hi, I just started an article yesterday that has been flagged for speedy deletion. I have already contested it, but I am wondering if there is anything else I can do, like move the article into a draft version or take it down and start again so that it's not deleted. Please advise, and thank you!Scooter474 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scooter474, you can move the article to Draftspace by clicking on the "More" dropdown menu and clicking "Move." Then rename it like this: Draft:article name. That will prevent your article from being deleted while you work to improve it. When it's ready to go, you can move it back to mainspace. Justin15w (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. I've moved it to draft space and removed the speedy deletion tag. In article space it would certainly be deleted as you had provided no claim of notability in Wikipedia's terms. You need to provide references to published reliable sources independent of the company, giving signifificant coverage rather than brief mentions. There is more useful information at WP:NCORP. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I will continue to edit this in the draft space and provide appropriate references to meet Wiki's notability requirments. --Scooter474 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Scooter474. I wish you the best of luck, but my searches yielded nothing in the way of sources that would illustrate notability for the subject of your draft. You may wish to pick another subject, or perhaps even better, spend some time making additions and corrections to existing articles. Writing an article as your first Wikipedia task is probably not the best way to go. John from Idegon (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

How much copyediting is too much?

So, I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I find it hard to resist the urge to keep tweaking things like grammar, structure, layout, punctuation, etc. Any advice on how to know when it's best to just leave someone else's work alone? Or should I just "be bold" and reassure myself that a master editor will stroll along and happily revert any egregious overreach on my part with no harm done? Megastopheles (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Megastopheles. Correcting obvious and indisputable errors (even if minor) is always welcomed. On the other hand, stylistic changes based on your personal preferences are far less important edits to make. An excessive number of such changes may possibly irritate the main content creator of an article. Since we currently have 5,318,773 articles, most of which could benefit from several uncontroversial edits, I suggest that you limit yourself mostly to the first type of edit I mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, Cullen328. I suppose I wasn't considering the type of edits I wanted to make as "controversial" as they wouldn't change the facts of the article. Megastopheles (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversial is a relative term, Megastopheles, and as an active content creator, I am very accepting of most good faith edits to my writing. Some prolific writers, though, react negatively to a large number of style and layout changes, especially to well-developed articles. This is my opinion, not policy. Tread carefully and spend your editing time well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I would always suggest being bold. A revert is a click away if someone doesn't agree. As said above, before putting in a lot of work changing major stylistic or tonal qualities, you may want to ask about it on the Talk page, to avoid a lot of work for nothing. Remember that no one owns articles in Wikipedia. Thanks for contributing and happy trails! Justin15w (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

right way to make new page about innovative business

This must be a very common question, but... I work for a noteworthy organization which doesn't have a wikipedia page. GrandCare makes touchscreen-based technology for senior care, involving motion sensing, telehealth, socialization and more. It is used in private homes and also in senior living communities. It has been around for more than a decade, while many competitors have come and gone. GrandCare, its products, and its founders are all pretty noteworthy and I believe there should be some wikipedia representation. But I want to do it the right way. Advice?96.40.236.211 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Eek. I wasn't logged in when I asked. This is me, scott feldstein.Scottfeldstein (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I would advise doing it in your sandbox and then asking for help here or at the relevant Wikiproject (Wikiproject Business?) before you submit it. Certainly it sounds like the issue with this page might be getting secondary sources here. Has GrandCare featured in any newspaper reports? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, GrandCare is in the news often. They do press releases that are picked up by many new sources. And there are totally independent write-ups as well. Scottfeldstein (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The press releases are of no use to Wikipedia. It is independent coverage by reliable sources which is needed. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If you work for the organisation you need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a process for me to suggest an article that could be written by an independent editor?Scottfeldstein (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a process, Scottfeldstein, which is to post a request at requested articles. Be aware though, that there is a long backlog, and that, like everything in Wikipedia it is processed by volunteers, who choose what they want to work on. You can make it more attractive to a volunteer by including references to the independent reliable sources which will be required for any article. Note that user generated sources such as wikis, forums and blogs are not acceptable; nothing connected with your company - including interviews and articles based on press releases - is acceptable; and at least some of the sources need to have significant material about the company, not just listings in directories. The reason for insisting on this, is that any article about your company needs to be almost 100% based on what people independent of the company have published about it: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the company (or its employees agents or associates) says about itself. Please see ORG. --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

why has adding a reference messed up the page?

The Julien Clerc asks for in-line citations to be added. I've started doing that, but I've managed to mess up the end of the page - Categories does not appear any more and the reference appears under Authority control rather than the Reference heading. How do I correct this, please? MerielGJones (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Categories were still showing. The references were misplaced because you'd forgotten to add the {{reflist}} template to the references section. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant! Thanks!! MerielGJones (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Unable to include image file that appears on the French wikipedia page for the same topic

Hello: I have just posted an expansion to the page at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappe_et_Gessalin. I wanted to include the image from the Infobox that is used at fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappe_et_Gessalin, but I cannot get the picture to display and was wondering why. (I have tried formatting the filename differently but the ones I tried made no difference) Thanks in advance. Kumboloi (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kumboloi. That logo is a non-free image and the file is only for use on French Wikipedia. As long as use of the image would fully comply with our English Wikipedia policy on use of non-free images, you can download it to your computer and then upload it here on English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was afraid that it was not generally available through Commons. I scanned through the Wikipedia policy and can see that this image may be either restricted because it is a logo or because the image was produced by the original uploader. In practical terms, what do I need to do to include it in my page? Do I have to try to contact the company, or the original uploader?

Kumboloi (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kumboloi. The page Cullen328 included should tell you everything: you do not need to ask anybody for permission. You need to determine if its use in the enwiki article will meet every one of the criteria in WP:NFCC, and if so, you can simply upload to it enwiki, giving the justification according to that page. (Download it to your machine from frwiki first). --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. I've uploaded the file and given what I hope is sufficient justification. At least I could see the image when I last checked! Kumboloi (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kumboloi. The image did not have a sufficient fair use rationale. I've taken care of it. Currently, though, the image is rather large to meet minimal usage requirements. I will reduce its size soon, and then everything should be A-okay. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Thanks for making the changes Fuhghettaboutit. I'll take a look at what you've added to get a better idea of the requirements for the next time I'm dealing with images. I appreciate all the help. Kumboloi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Anytime Kumboloi. That's what we're here for. P.S. I've reduced the image size. I don't think you'll notice much or any difference in its display in the article.Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the image looks great Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks for fixing things up. So, my understanding from the changes you made to the image justification was that the original creator/uploader's instructions would likely apply to wikien and that you didn't need to contact them directly, correct? Kumboloi (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kumboloi: Not quite, or maybe yes, but I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking or if your focus is targeted. Let me sort of "surround the issue" and maybe that will help. Fair use is a doctrine in copyright law that is an exception to the exclusive grant of copyright. The level playing field is: if someone owns the copyright to an image (or text), you can't use it at all (excepting if you obtain a license to use it from the owner [we cannot use such one-time licenses here btw]). Fair use is a carve out to this exclusive rule, and its essence is: if the use you're going to make of copyrighted content is for certain purposes, such as an educational one, then you can use someone else's (non-free) content without their permission, and with them still owning it. But there's a bunch of rules limiting that use. Some of the more important ones are that the image can't have a free equivalent, and the use has to be minimal (so small size), and specific (use in one particular place), etc. Besides the fact that you would never normally seek permission for fair use because the whole idea of the doctrine is that you're using it without permission, despite someone else's ownership, the person at the French Wikipedia has no ownership over this image, so their permission is meaningless even if permission was at issue–the owner is the company, or, since its bankrupt, their trustee, or whoever took surrender of debts or maybe its principal(s) or ownership could even be in limbo, but it's not the person at the French Wikipedia, who was also using the image under a claim of fair use (well sort of–the French equivalent doctrine anyway). It's important to be transparent; list as much information as you have; the source from which the owner can be traced or deduced is is an important one, which is why I translated where the French Wikipedian says he got the image. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You Guys So Much

I'd like to thank everyone for finally listening to me. A few weeks ago, I had stated an edit that highlighted a wrestlers name based on their brand pink for Raw and light blue for Smackdown Live! Although you guys made it difficult for this simple change to happen it has finally happened. Thank you guys fro finally listening and stop being so stubborn, I appreciate it.

Mmeah16 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Mmeah16.

It looks like your thanks should go to Zach012. Whether this change survives other editors' views about what the Manual of Style says about table formatting remains to be seen.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is there such limited information on African countries

While trying to do research on African countries such as Nigeria, Cameron, Zimbabwe etc on Wikipedia, I realised that there is such little information on them. While I know that the argument can be made that they are not documented as heavily as countries such as the US, it doesn't refrain from the fact that they are still countries so are hence widely documented by their own media as well as foreign. It will just be helpful if more people would focus less of their time fixing up little grammar mistakes on big celebrity pages (not to discredit their goodwork) and spend more time trying to document whole nations with populations of over 30 million. MikeMafolabi (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mafolabi. I agree with you, aspirationally, that would be good. But that's not really how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not centrally run. It's a community of volunteers, each editing by their own lights, though many agreeing to abide by certain core principles. People edit what interests them, what they like, what motivates them. We also have a certain demographic skew that results in some subjects being far more likely to be of interest to, on average, more people who decide to contribute. See also Wikipedia:Systemic bias. There's also the factor of complication. Some topics are more self-contained and easier to write about than others. So, it may not be ideal, but yes, we often see more work being put into listing every aspect of every type of every species of Pokémon entity than, say, the paintings of Monet, or the species of worm in a genus, or, here, African countries getting short shrift over celebrity profiles. The way to "fix it" is to be bold and start trying to address the issue you see as a problem. All gaps in Wikipedia are ultimately filled by someone realizing they too are an editor and rolling up their sleeves. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The article on Nigeria is over 153 kbytes long, and contains links to the articles on History of Nigeria, Politics of Nigeria, Law of Nigeria, foreign relations of Nigeria, Geography of Nigeria, and many more. The same applies to Cameroon (81 kB) and Zimbabwe (161 kB). Those seem like fairly substantial articles to me. Admittedly, they're only half the size of United States (360 kB) and United Kingdom (306 kB), but given their relative importance in world affairs, I'd say that was appropriate. Of course, if you think there is specific information missing from these or any other articles, you're welcome to add it yourself. Rojomoke (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Size is not a very good indicator of comprehensiveness for large scope topics like countries. We try to keep articles concise for readability. I'd suggest you take a look at what actually speaks of article quality: our Good and Featured Articles. Currently, the African countries of Cameroon, Chad, Madagascar, and Rwanda are Featured which means that as far as scope goes, these articles are complete. The same cannot be said of sub-articles, the likes of which Rojomoke listed above, and I agree that these are in urgent need of improvement (expansion). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mafolabi. A year or so ago, I served as a volunteer judge for a competition regarding articles about Nigeria. I learned that here is a very active Nigerian Wikipedia community. I read over 100 articles about Nigerian topics, many of which were biographies of notable Nigerian women. I was very impressed by the work of editors interested in Nigeria, but of course, much more work needs to be done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Does a reference date have to be in accordance to the dmy/mdy templates?

If a template on an article requests to use, for example, "dmy dates" do you have to put a dmy date on a reference you made? Depthburg (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Depthburg. You're still posting new questions at the bottom, which I'm okay with.

The reason for the dmy and mdy templates is to identify the intended interpretation of ambiguous dates. Since you are putting in dates for references, you should use an unambiguous format. Most of the time, these are formats that include the spelled-out name of the month. There's also the ISO 8601 format, yyyy-mm-dd, which I'm beginning to see as the format most often used for access-date and archive-date parameters. This is all spelled out in WP:CITESTYLE.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I'll stick with the ISO 8601 from now on since I formerly spelled out the name of the month for references. Depthburg (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Are the featured pictures made by the people? Like those of presidents and all are they made from starting or are modified in a way? Also, what does restoration mean?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Adityavagarwal. Pictures on Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons come from a variety of sources. Many are taken by users themselves. Others are images where the copyright has expired. Yet others come from still different sources but are, for various reasons, licensed for public use. For example, this picture of Calvin Coolidge is available for use because the copyright has expired. On the other hand this picture of George H W Bush is available for public use because it is a product of a US Government employee.

Long story short, there are lots of ways that pictures end up on Wikipedia, and it usually depends on which particular picture you're talking about.

As for restoration, I suppose it could probably mean multiple things depending on context. TimothyJosephWood 16:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. So for the wikicup featured pictured if i get one from where the license has expired or one which is in public domain will that do? This is because editing the pictures, especially those of celebrities, presidents, etc. , might not be good due to their originality being disturbed right?Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume @Adityavagarwal: is enquiring in regards to the Scoring rules of Featured Pictures in the upcoming WikiCup where one has to create or do significant restoration work on the image to qualify it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, so can you advice a bit on making feature pictures, as if I get one done then perhaps I can manage. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

How do wikipedia verifies uploaded image?

How do wikipedia verifies uploaded image? Just wondered about the verification process.Touhid3.1416 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Touhid3.1416, welcome to the Teahouse? Do you refer to image content, file format compliance, copyright license, or something else? Do you have a specific image in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Random editors

How do I keep people from editing the pages that I have created?People or somone keeps editing my page without my permission and when I go back to change it the way that I want it they go and change it back.How do I prevent this ? Rivera.m.e (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You need to read about "ownership of pages". --David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Rivera.m.e, welcome to the Teahouse. We are glad to answer your questions, but you must adjust your understanding on what you're doing here. Next time you open an editing window, notice the words directly below the save button:

By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Every single thing you write here ceases to be yours the second you press the save button. Anyone can and most likely will edit your contributions. The articles are the Wikipedia community's, not the authors. John from Idegon (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi River.m.e.. The only 100% way you can really stop people from editing content you create or add to Wikipedia is for you to simply not create or add it to Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for your own personal use. If total control is what you seek, then you should search online for a web hosting service which will allow you to have this. Some of these sites may require a monthly fee, but there may be some you can sign up to for free. You should then be able to pretty much post whatever you want without worrying about others editing it.

It looks like you've only been an editor for a few months. Your very first edit ever was to the article Love & Hip Hop: New York (season 4). Did you create that article? Did you ask the article's creator for permission to edit the article? I'm assuming that the answer to both those questions is "no". Yet, for some reason, you want prevent other Wikipedians from editing articles you create or at least ask you for permission first before editing the article. You can hopefully see that if such a thing were required as normal practice, then Wikipedia would pretty much disappear in a short period of time because nobody would be allowed to be bold and improve articles in a collaborative manner. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for an invite!

As one of you noticed I am struggling with my submission. Now I'm facing another problem, the person I'm writing about just received the OBE - Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire... For those who are not familiar with British titles. It's for of a Knighthood and Poonam received it for services to business and charity. I need to add The OBE after her name and also update the Awards section of my submission. Another problem I'm facing is that both reviewers are claiming my article looks like an advertisement which clearly isn't a case considering her recent Knighthood nomination which definitely makes her notable person. Can you take a look and help me improve the article? Draft:Poonam_Gupta Appreciate all the help.VictoriaLaw (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with the reviewers - while you have clearly put a lot of effort into the article, it doesn't have many secondary sources. You need to include secondary sources to show that the subject of the article is notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You yourself are obviously not familiar with British titles. An OBE is not a knighthood. OBE is 2 levels lower in the order than KBE/DBE. While she should be congratulated on her award, an OBE does not make her notable in Wikipedia's terms. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As an example of the issue, VictoriaLaw, phrases like "Deeply passionate about helping others who are less fortunate than themselves" never belongs in any Wikipedia article unless it is directly quoting a cited reliable published source completely independent of the subject. It is not Wikipedia's business to say whether anybody is "deeply passionate" about anything, but to summarise what independent sources have said about a subject. Almost the whole of the "charity" section is unferenced, and of the two citations in the section, one is to an article obviously based on a press release, and so not independent of Gupta; and the other does not appear to contain anything relevant.

In writing a Wikipedia article, especially about a living person, you need to collect reliable published information about the subject that is independent of the subject: this excludes anything published by the subject or their associates, and anything based on an interview or press release from them. Then you need to forget everything you know about them, and write an article based solely on those independent sources: if you can't find a source for a claim, don't put it in the article. If you can only find a non-independent source for the claim, put it in only if it is uncontroversial factual information like places and dates. Wikipedia has no interest in what you know (or what I know), or in what a subject says about themselves - none. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, VictoriaLaw, parts of the draft seem to be more about Gupta's business than about Gupta herself. Personally, I would recommend removing the awards the business has won from the section Draft:Poonam Gupta#Awards and recognition, leaving just Gupta's personal awards. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dates

Wikipedia,

While the availability of such a vast amount of knowledge is greatly liked, I wonder and need to ask, why are the dates in the articles represented without appropriate formalities? Such as my date of birth is August 9th, 1981, or 'the 9th of August, 1981', or 'August 9th of 1981', yet my Wikipedia article would reflect August 9, 1981.

WhomShallBe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If your question is about date formats (such as the fact that we don't use ordinals such as 9th), you'll find the information at MOS:DATEFORMAT. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, David Biddulph.

I will have to decide how ordinal restrictions affect life and whether Wikipedia is truly a benefit to society, or if it is muffling it and how to continue onward from there.

WhomShallBe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"August 9, 1981" is understood by any fluent reader to mean "the ninth day of the month of August in the one-thousandth, eight-hundredth, ninety-first year of the Common era of the Gregorian calendar." Do you seriously think that not using less efficient date systems is enough to say that free knowledge rivaling the quality and certainly outdoing the quantity of the Encyclopedia Britannica somehow isn't a benefit to society? The methods you describe might have been the prescribed method for writing dates in the Victorian era, but modern English speakers almost universally use something like "month ##, ####" or "## month ####." Ian.thomson (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

WhomShallBe, don't you think it would be beneficial to your learning process to actually contribute some edits to articles on Wikipedia? You've been here going on a month and your only edits have been to ask questions here. John from Idegon (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear John from Idegon,

Okay.

__________________________________________________ WhomShallBe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories

How to sort categories alphabetically and not by last name? - TheMagnificentist 16:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheMagnificentist. Categories sort pages placed in them in a few ways:

1. Default: The title of the page is sorted in the category alphabetically by its first letter.
2. Piping: If you pipe ("|") something after the category, it will sort by what you use. For example if you want a page of a person to sort by last name rather than first name (which is standard), then you would use [[Category:Name of category|Last, First]], which would then sort by "L" rather than the default of "F".
3. DEFAULTSORT: Place above the categories the template {{DEFAULTSORT}}, piping what you want all the categories to sort by, e.g., {{DEFAULTSORT|Last, First}}
4. Wrinkle on above: Piping a category will override the DEFAULTSORT template, so if there was someplace where there was a good reason to have most of the categories sorted one way, but one differently, you could use the template to place the default sorting, but vary one or more by piping something different.
5. Parent articles: Parent article should be sorted so they appear first in eponymous categories, regardless of the name. For example the article William Shakespeare should not sort by "S" in Category:William Shakespeare, but should appear first. This is done by piping a space after the pipe: [[Category:William Shakespeare| ]]

Your post sounds like you want to remove a category's sorting by the last name of a person. Since that is the normal way it is done, there should be a good reason to vary the norm, but the ability to do so should be provided by the above list. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

How to make a page worthy of submission?

I recently put together a page for HawaiiCon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HawaiiCon ) It has more publications and better ones than most of the other conventions listed on Wikipedia, and yet it was turned down for 'sources listed now are still too trivial and still consist of either trivial publications or mere announcements.' Playboy is too trivial? The major papers of the whole area where the convention is are too trivial? Space.com? NASA? Slate? All too trivial? HELP!Mangolo (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the event itself isn't trivial. Wikipedia is using a picture from that event for Jonathan Frakes! I mean of the thousands of pictures of Riker, it picks HawaiiCon! Mangolo (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mangolo - I'm not a regular at the Teahouse, so I hope the hosts don't mind me chiming in. My take on your draft is that it reads as a bit too self-promotional independent of the sources. But I mostly wanted to comment on the Jonathan Frakes photo. As with many celebrities, there is a lack of free photos that are eligible to be hosted on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. There might be thousands of photos on the web of Frakes portraying Will Riker on Star Trek, but the vast majority of them have copyright restrictions, and a photo of him in that role might not be suitable for the infobox on the actor (rather than the character). The Wikimedia Commons gallery for Frakes contains a mere seven images at this time, including the one from HawaiiCon. Regardless, having a photo of a person taken at that event does not confer notability upon the event itself. Funcrunch (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If I remove all the promotional elements, then will it be worthy? The reviewer previously made no comment regarding that aspect.Mangolo (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mangolo. Removing everything promotional is an essential first step and any article must be written from the neutral point of view. Transform the bare URLs into bibliographic references as explained in Referencing for beginners. Many of your references are weak. The Playboy article only has two sentences about this convention. That is not significant coverage. Several others are similar. Others are local event listings describing an upcoming convention, generated by press releases. We need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Please read Your first article. I am pinging Orangemike, who is an editor with plenty of expertise in science fiction fandom. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Funcrunch. Any helpful editor is welcome to answer questions here. Stop by any time! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Should I remove the Reviews section? Also, the significant coverage, i.e. whole articles about the convention are from local papers and fanzines, is that too fringe? I hate to put in a ton of work and then the article not be posted because the biggest paper in the region is too insignificant for Wikipedia to consider a significant source.Mangolo (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify a point about sources, Mangolo, a source can be considered reliable and can therefore be used to verify material in an article, without it contributing to demonstrating that there is significant coverage of the topic for notability purposes. So, local newspaper coverage might not help demonstrate notability, but that doesn't mean that local newspapers can't be used or that article content based on them should be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

editing competition

Hi, I'm a newcomer. In my travels through wiki, I stumbled upon a page about an editing competition for 2017. Apparently, I didn't bookmark it, and now I can't find it. The prize money wasn't much, and I'm certainly not going to win any of it, but I've become almost obsessed with finding that page. Can anybody please help me maintain my mental health by telling me where the page is? Thanks, Dennis Drdfp (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Drdfp. Is Wikipedia:WikiCup what you're looking for? It is linked in a notice at the top of my watchlist. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contests may be helpful, if the WikiCup isn't what you wanted. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

YES!!! The wikicup is what I was looking for. THANKS!!!! Drdfp (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Great. I wish all queries here were that simple, Drdfp! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

My article was deleted and I would like to have the opportunity to fix it

Hello, my article draft, Scraperite was submitted for review on December 12, when Smmurphy declined the article for being more like an advertisement, and instructed me to make some changes and ask for help. Before I was able to do this, Beeblebrox blocked my username. After going through the process as a new user of unblocking and changing my username, I came back to find out that my article had been deleted by Beeblebrox for the same reason Smmurphy declined the article. I would like the article to be un-deleted ASAP please so that I can have a fair attempt of fixing the article up, as I really would like this to be a useful, informational article about a product. As a new user, I did not know all of the various requirements and rules as the time of creation, and would like the opportunity to make the article Wikipedia approved. Or, if I have to start the article over to achieve completely different tone, I would like to be able to at least reference my previous draft for formatting purposes, as it really took me a while to get it right in the first place, and it would be much easier to be able to reference back to my own work. Please get back ASAP, and let me know if you can please un-delete it. Thank you. TheImpatient (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

TheImpatient: You might be able to obtain the userification of the article by request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion; see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Undeletion. Hope this helps. — — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ping @Beeblebrox: for review. TimothyJosephWood 19:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 556#My article is too promotional? where we just discussed this a few days ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheImpatient. Having just taken a look for suitable references that would demonstrate notability, I do not believe that you should spend any more of your valuable time on trying add this topic to Wikipedia. As someone obviously involved with this product, you would know where the look much better than I would, so I can't say categorically that the sources that we require to exist for an article to be warranted, do not. Nevertheless, finding not one makes me think they likely don't exist. So you understand what is required, in order for an article on most topics to be warranted, there must exist sources (i.e., generally multiple ones) with all of these attributes. They must be:

1) reliable, published sources—

such as mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, magazines, scholarly journals, television and radio documentaries, etc.—sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means generally not random personal websites, blogs, forum posts, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, self-published sources like open wikis (including other Wikipedia articles), etc.;

2) secondary in nature (so not primary sources like the company's own writing, anywhere);

3) Written or otherwise published by persons or entities entirely independent of the topic (so not, e.g., press releases by the subject, even if appearing in a seemingly reliable source, people selling it, interviews with the company's principals, etc.); and

4) such sources must treat the topic in substantive detail (so, not mere mentions; think: at least two paragraphs of text directly about the topic).

Without such sources existing no amount of editing will make an article on Scraperite suitable, even if written in beautiful prose with a perfectly neutral tone and balanced content.

By the way, if you are going to continue working on adding this topic to Wikipedia, please comply with the Wikimedia Terms of Use's mandatory disclosure requirements for paid editing before making further edits. It's not difficult. You can post such disclosure to your user page at User:TheImpatient. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TheImpatient|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure i want to contribute to the English Wikipedia.

What's the next step I need to do? Yin Maung (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yin Maung, your question appears to have ended up in the wrong section. I see that you intended it to be part of the section now archived to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 558#need assistance in the new article. Perhaps if you still require assistance, you could post a new question? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding Content

I'd like to add my Mother and have my siblings help edit.

Is this possible? 

Or would it be considered a conflict of interest? Bettyssonnumber2 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bettyssonnumber2. Writing about your mother would be strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, so my advice would be that you don't try to do this. Thanks for being up-front about this conflict of interest, though. I'm sure there are many other useful things you can contribute to Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It would indeed be a COI. However our Conflict of Interest rules are, strictly speaking, a guide to behaviour and not an adopted policy. As such it is full of dire warnings about being objective and keeping to all the policies and guidelines that it does invoke. If this idea of yours is just a vanity project, then no, absolutely don't try it, you would quickly get yourself blocked from ever editing Wikipedia again and your material would be deleted. But if your mother is a notable person and your family have genuinely collected significant material from published and reliable sources, then, with care and tact, you might be able to help improve Wikipedia. But you are new here, you will make many mistakes. My strong advice to you is to first gain sound experience of editing Wikipedia and engaging with its community, by making small improvements to other articles for a good few months, before tackling anything as fraught with dangers as the project you describe. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

True enough, Steelpillow - it is indeed a guideline, and I am usually the first to point out that while it discourages COI editing, it doesn't prohibit it. Still, it's worth checking out the advice at WP:COI, Bettyssonnumber2. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanna point out that "quickly getting yourself blocked from ever editing Wikipedia again" is a lot harder to achieve than writing a vanity article. We're not that scary, and we don't block people for doing things wrong in good faith. The vanity article would certainly end up deleted, though, that much is true. --ASHENAI (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The thing to realise, Bettyssonnumber2, is that if Wikipedia has an article about your mother, then absolutely nothing that she, or you, or your siblings know, think, or want to say, about her belongs in the article unless it is also in a reliable published source by somebody who has no connection with your mother. It follows that unless there are substantial independent published sources about her, there can be no article (that is what we mean by notability). --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And on top of that, see also Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

{{English -or- table}}

I saw this in the code of a page. What is it exactly?LakeKayak (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, LakeKayak. Template:English -or- table appears to be a pronunciation guide altho I'm not 100% sure as the template itself has no documentation. For future reference, clicking on the template name will take you to its page. Generally, there is documentation there (or sometimes a link to it.) That seems to be missing here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the template's creator, Erutuon, could explain its purpose? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The template was a copy of a table that appeared in two different articles (General American as well as the article you mentioned). I created a template so that there would be just one version of the table and so that if someone made changes, they would appear in both articles. — Eru·tuon 00:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Or we can see it in use at English-language vowel changes before historic /r/#Mergers of /ɒr-/ and /ɔːr-/ (via Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:English -or- table). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's where I saw it used.LakeKayak (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the template page serves my own purposes just fine. And I thank you both for helping to answer my question.LakeKayak (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think I may know its purpose well enough. I think I needed the coding in attempt to create a similar table.LakeKayak (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding that template, shouldn't "Moorish" (/ˈmʊərɪʃ/ in UK) read "moreish"? Dbfirs 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

username style

how do you give your username a style so that it's unique? Wikiphoenix56 (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikiphoenix56. Please read Wikipedia:Signature tutorial for complete instructions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you so much! Wikiphoenix56 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump-Mexico Deal (Article nominated for deletion)

Hi every one.! The Article Trump-Mexico Deal, I just published on Wikipedia, is nominated for deletion. Trump "deal" with Mexico and Mexicans, started since the Trump (the person) announced he was running for President. Until is solved, the subject is an important matter. Is an important thing since this relation, and what happens, will decide the future of millions. Wikipedia does not have this subject. It will need much contribution since things will happen until it is settle in to what way they will go. Everything in the Article, is a compilation of what has being said by experts, the exact words said by experts was used and can be confirmed by reading in the links. That is wht they are many. The links are official, or credited, What you decide is fine, if it is to delete it, or if welcome and we keep contributing to make it better. HAPPY 2017 Thank you NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and does not use original research. Much of the interpretation in the article is not fully supported by professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, and some of the references aren't about actually any dealings between Trump and Mexico. All articles must cite at least two reliable sources that are independent of the subject but specifically about it. Primary sources are discouraged as they are open to original research.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote any views, because Wikipedia is neutral. This is not a blog for you to pontificate your views on the matter on.

Those are the most obvious reasons why the article is going to be deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, NORMAN PRINCE. The article is Trump-Mexico Deal. The article you have written looks like an advocacy essay to me. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. All of our articles must be written from the neutral point of view. Writing neutrally is a core content policy and is not negotiable. Also, your article title is not appropriate, since there is no deal between Trump and Mexico. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi The dealing started since Trump took the Mexican subject as a campaign the end of the deal, what will happen, we dont know. If you dont see that, I understand. But every thing in this subject has being part of the Deal Trump is negotiating. he is a great negotiator, he is doing that. In time you will see the result. There are 2 points of view in this and 2 possible outcome, I took the experts of each side, give the options of that by the experts. There is no possible side the result has not happen. Is a negotiation in process. The options are there of what experts say can happen. The sources please check them. They are the most credited in the subject, there are no better ones. Trump, the Mexican President, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the NAFTA, New York Times. I am not saying this is the case, but I did a previous Article on a person that did much in history. The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, he said, the sources, that the person did not do that, etc. when I demonstrated every thing was correct, that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it. has a page with stars, he is a publisher, etc. I just want to contribute Wikipedia if good information is welcome. What ever you decide, is fine for me. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Stuff like "great publisher" is why the article is going to be deleted -- you are not being neutral. Except for the New York Times, the "sources" you list are (at best) primary sources that require professional sources to interpret. That's another reason why your article is going to be deleted. Wikipedia does not speculate on the future -- "2 possible outcomes" is two too many, which is yet another reason why the article is going to be deleted. You don't seem to be paying attention to anything other people are telling you.

Your claims that someone else "published" the page and insulted you contradicts the page histories of the article, related pages, and talk pages for users you have interacted with. Now, is the computer generated records of all user actions lying? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson - In reading the comments of this editor the third time, I think that he is saying that he had a bad experience on some other web site, in which he did an article on a person that "did much in history", and then another editor marked his work for deletion, and they clashed, and how he says that the other editor on some other web site ripped off his work on that other web site, and as a result he is angry. That is what I think he is saying. If so, he isn't making false accusations against me, just raging in the wrong place, and having issues with another web site, and is importing his anger into Wikipedia. Maybe we should ignore his ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's... Not really any better. Since he blanked the article and hasn't been active since, I'm happy to let it go regardless of whatever he was trying to say. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news. Events will be written about when they can be viewed from a historical perspective using reliable published sources.Charles (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw the article at New Page Patrol and nominated it for deletion. There were then angry comments at my talk page and at the AFD page by User:NORMAN PRINCE, comparable to what was just said here: "The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, he said, the sources, that the person did not do that, etc. when I demonstrated every thing was correct, that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it. has a page with stars, he is a publisher, etc." I have no idea what they mean. This was their first experience editing Wikipedia, and I have no previous experience with them, unless they used a different account. I have no idea what they mean. I see that the article has since been deleted after they reportedly blanked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What photographs to include in biographical articles?

What is the etiquette regarding photographs of famous individuals - as in "should there be more than one?" or only try to use the most iconic one - especially in biographical articles? 185.24.123.143 (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The first consideration in adding images is always copyright. With biographies, often the issue is this:

1. If the biography is about a living person, and there are no free images (free, as in, either in the public domain, or specifically licensed under a free copyright license compatible with the dual licenses that Wikipedia's content it licensed under; a list of the suitable free licenses can be found here), then usually no image of the person can be used at all.
2. The reason for this is that Wikipedia aspires to present only content to its readers that can be reused in a highly free manner (the free copyright licenses Wikipedia content bears allows reuse by anyone, even for commercial purposes, with the only requirement being that the re-user provide suitable credit to the copyright holders (which can be done by providing a hyperlink to the location where the history of contributions can be found) and that the reuser also list upon the reuse the specific free license the content bears). We only allow non-free content to be used under the strict standards for the exception to copyright known as fair use. For the standards to meet fair use here, see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The reason images of living persons generally can't be used at all is because, while the person is living, a snapshot can always be taken and released, so images of them cannot meet the first criterion for a valid claim of fair use—that there be "No free equivalent".
3. This, by the way, is why so often you will see Wikipedia articles on very famous living people with either no image, or a far from ideal, user-taken image – but one that they have released into the public domain or under a compatible free license.
4. If the person is deceased, then a valid claim of fair use is possible, but generally only where: 1) to meet fair use's "minimal usage" requirements, only one image can be used (and yes, we would often prefer that an image be an iconic one); and 2) the image must be low-resolution; and of course, 3) fair use images cannot be used if there exist free images that can be used, regardless of whether the free ones are not so great and are inferior to non-free ones.

With that backdrop, the answer to your question is, it is highly dependent on whether there exists suitable free images or not; and whether the person is living or not. If none of this matters because there are loads of free images to choose from (a relatively rare situation) then the question comes down to whether the images to include would increase readers' understanding of the subject, would not overwhelm the text, and other normal considerations to take into account for whether content is "encyclopedic". See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Consider Abraham Lincoln, a lengthy and detailed Good article. It has over 20 photos and artistic images of Lincoln. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

When there are plenty of acceptable images of a famous person to choose from, then the first image in the article should show the person at the height of their fame. The ideal photo for this purpose, even of a person widely perceived negatively, should be a neutral portrait. Take a look at Adolph Hitler for example, which is also a Good article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Phyllis Diller's Biography

Question moved to Talk: Phyllis Diller

Galewindsnepal, Dbfirs: This is a help forum for new editors to get assistance with the skills needed to edit Wikipedia. Discussion of the contents of a specific article should take place at that article's talk page (in this case Talk: Phyllis Diller). It's completely off topic here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, you are correct, of course. I'd forgotten which page I was reading. I've now moved the question and answer to the appropriate page. Dbfirs 09:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-moving title text in collapsable wikitable

class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width:100%" ! Shake it shake it |- |As you can notice expanding and collapsing this shakes the title, and now the question is, how to stop it from moving??? |}

(Put that in any page and choose preview to see what I'm talking about)

5.134.110.61 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: I think this question may require testing using a smart phone. I see no issue using a desktop (Mac). To test, add {| to the beginning--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In Firefox and IE on a PC, the title does indeed shift to the right slightly when the box is expanded, and back when it is collapsed. I presume that this is what you mean by "shakes", IP editor? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So I guess there is no way to fix it for everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.110.61 (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There might be, but we at the Teahouse aren't technical experts (for the most part). The best place to raise this is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)