Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 591

Archive 585

←

Archive 589

Archive 590

Archive 591

Archive 592

Archive 593

→

Archive 595

Do I use a 3-book 2D image, or a complete 7-book 3D image?

I've been trying to look for a 2D image of a complete box set for a book series article, but I've only been able to find 3D images (for example, https://store.scholastic.com/content/stores/media/products/42/9781338045642_default_pdp.gif). However, I've been able to find a 2D image of a 3-book box set. Which one is preferable in this scenario? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That link just puts me to Scholastic's site, The Verified Cactus, so I can't tell what image you are referring to. But it seems to me that the relevant policy is WP:NFCC no 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Unless one of them passes this test and the other fails, then I don't think it makes any difference. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine is on the right track, but not entirely correct. If the article is about 1 book only, using the covers of all 3 makes it fail WP:NFCC#3. Additionally, using a 3D image of 2D objects (book covers) makes the image fail WP:FREER (for some rather technical copyright reasons, but they have been tried and tested nonetheless and proven correct). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion and how I can improve the article

My draft for the movie, "Hakwe's Vengeance" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hawk%27s_Vengeance) has been deleted due to "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." Can someone explain what this means? is there a way around it? It looks like in the past, it was not notable, but I have added more sources that I found online. How can I improve it in order to be accepted? Is there any site that cen be recommended?SpiritofFire (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi SpiritofFire. One of Wikipedia's bases for deletion of a page without the necessity of a discussion, what we call "speedy deletion", is where a prior deletion discussion was held about Wikipedia containing an article a given topic (here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawk's Vengeance), and where the result was that it was deleted because the topic appeared incapable of meeting one or more of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines. You can read this speedy deletion criterion here. The crux is the requirement that recreations be "sufficiently identical copies" of the page that was discussed and deleted, to be within the ambit of the criterion.

One issue that comes up here is that since the prior page was deleted, typically only administrators, and other with access to deleted content, can see whether the recreated page is "sufficiently identical" to the prior content. When interpreting this criterion, it is important to understand the bases for deletion considered at the discussion on the merits, in order to assess whether the new content addresses the issue. Here, the discussion found that this "direct-to-video" film did not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, or the subject-specific extension of that guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (films).

I have looked at the deleted content and the content in your sandbox, and I don't see much difference between them that would address the issue of evidencing notability. It's true that you have added one source at the draft that didn't appear in the deleted article (which only cited IMDb), but it is a source that does not help with establishing notability whatsoever. It is not a reliable source but rather some person's blog. If instead of a source like that, you can and do cite reliable, secondary and independent sources that write about this topic in some depth (not just passing mentions) – the types of sources we need to exist for notability of a topic to be established, which goes hand in hand with the ability to include only verifiable content – only then would writing a "keeper" article be possible. If those sources don't exist, please don't use your valuable time working on a topic that cannot sustain an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

See my contribs on each space

I -some time ago- saw a tool that showed you the contribs by space and the number of contribs on that space, it was interwiki, and it had some other details, can someone link me to that tool?. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dashy. I guess it was the "Edit count" tool [1] at the bottom of user contributions like Special:Contributions/DashyGames. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was! Thanks. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 22:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Another question

There is a tool to see how many non-automated edits i have, what is the name of that tool? --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 22:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How about the nonautomated edit counter tool? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to *write* a book review or article response, right?

I've been working on cleaning up Nicole Hahn Rafter all afternoon. Upon looking more closely at the /* Major works */ section and references for it, the entire section is the article creator writing an original response/essay on Rafter's work and their own summary of the book. This isn't the appropriate place to publish a review, right?

How do I handle something like this?

gwendy (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Gwendy, you're right. The proper way to handle that section is to list the books in order of publication (in prose form, not just a bulleted list) with maybe a one paragraph summary of each, and a bit about how critics and readers received the book. (Like whether it was a New York Times bestseller or something.) You may be able to edit what's already in the article or you can just remove it if it's really bad. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How do i publish my sandbox?

Hello! please help, I created an article that has been created by other user and deleted several times I am a just come and I please wanna know how to get this page back and publish it properly. it is in my sandbox, I noticed it s been created by other user and deleted several times how can I do to create this page please. this is the page Atis Constant. Help me HostBot.Helpeachother (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atis Constant; log of deletions and salting.

@Helpeachother: the best thing is to submit it for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to your sandbox where you draft can be assessed for suitability and if it acceptable it can be moved by an administrator to the correct place. Nthep (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Nthep i'm going to do it Helpeachother (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Page access

• Lora Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi...is there any way to stop people from messing up the page about me (Lora Johnson)? Lora Elise (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any obvious problem with this article. Do you disagree with what it says? EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for replying...I made a few fact corrections concerning dates and events (the page is about me) and someone I do not know modified it, causing me to have to correct it again. I k=just added a 'connected contributor' banner at the top but do not know what else may be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lora Elise (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add a photo...how do I do that? Lora Elise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lora Elise (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to these changes by User:RJay (official)? If so why not explain on Talk:Lora Johnson what your concerns are. (The changes seem to be very mild so I don't see what the problem might be). You speak of 'correct it again' as though that person had introduced a mistake. See Wikipedia:Images for how to add a photo. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The former issues were with something written earlier by someone else, and added back by the more recent contributor. I changed the year from 2005 to 2008 and corrected to better reflect the nature of my transition. Some items in the former content were derived from a Chicago Now blog published last summer, which did not have everything correct. I wish for the Wikipedia entry to be as factually correct as possible. I have also now added a photo and made a few minor grammatical corrections. Lora Elise —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! Lora Elise —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lora Elise. Wikipedia articles are, for better or for worse, things that anyone anywhere in the world can edit at anytime, so there's not really anything the community can really do to prevent anyone from editing the article. In certain cases, an article may be protected to prevent serious disruption or vandalism, but those cases are pretty well-defined and only considered to be a last resort. Articles by there very nature are considered to be imperfect and it is hoped that mistakes will be fixed through collaborative editing. In addition, even though the article is written about you, you do not have any sort of final editorial control over the content of the article as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. I suggest you take a look at WP:COIADVICE, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and WP:BLPSELF for information about what to do when you find something in error in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lora Elise, I did not mean to make any mistakes. I have since retired from Wiki, hence my page doesn't exist. I was not aware the previous editor(s) on your page was you yourself; I simply found the article of one of my favorite authors (huge fan of Ice since I was a kid, no I'm not gonna fanboy here, promise) and thought I could improve it. I did look up some dates on the web I thought reflected actuality, and I'm sorry I got it wrong. I thought I did improve the article overall. Sorry for encroaching. It was a good faith edit, and I never thought you were the editor of your own page. Peace. -rJay 184.47.211.83 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

History of a former business

I am interested in creating a page on the history of a business which operated for 26 years in my hometown (1961-1987). It was a cheese factory, but the larger story is around the rise and decline of the dairy industry in that area over time. I found no references to the business on the internet. A story about the business is included in a town centennial atlas. Will this pass the notability test? TCGuy76 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

TCGuy, it would have to have more references than just the atlas. I'd suggest looking on Google newspapers archive or something like that. It's a great resource for older people or businesses. If you still can't find anything, then instead of making an article specifically about the factory, you could write an article about "Dairy industry in Xxxx County" which would be easier to reference and probably easier to write as well. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

TCGuy, don't limit you search to Google. Go to the town library, contact the County authorities ask if they have public archives, also look for publications at the state level, a nearby college history department may have useful sources. You can even ask the local and state agricultural organizations and the chamber of commerce. Just keep in mind that all sources you use must be accessible to the public, any private documents someone shares with you as a "special favor" are not usable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to be like google

I want Wikipedia to be almost like Google but more of an encyclopedia version.

Time235236 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Time235236: Hi there.

Wikipedia mostly concentrates on being a great Encyclopaedia, not a search engine. Other companies, such as Google, do searching so much better.

You can use Google to search only on Wikipedia, by putting "site:en.wikipedia.com". For example, try googling site:en.wikipedia.com Thailand

The Wikimedia Foudation (Wikipedia's host company) have done some work on developing a search feature called the Knowledge Engine - but it's quite controversial. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Time235236: because your question (if it is one) is vague, I wondered if what you meant was that you would like to have a browser search-box to search Wikipedia instead of Google by default. If so, various browsers already provide the option to search Wikipedia in their preferences. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Tools/Browser tools. But also see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, if the query was about general Wikipedia content. PaleoNeonate (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the big editors

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you get to be one of the big editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwags323232 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The only way I know is by making a lot of useful edits, Mattwags323232. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mattwags323232: If you mean becoming an Administrator, they are elected by the other editors. The process and their role is described at Wikipedia:Administrators. Of course, it still depends on doing just as ColinFine describes above - "administrators are expected to have the trust and confidence of the community, so requests from users who do not have considerable experience are not usually approved". --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mattwags323232: Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates says: "Successful candidates will almost always have edited Wikipedia for at least one year, will have thousands of edits in various 'maintenance' areas of the project, and will have made measurable contributions to articles." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Viewing contributions of other users

I recently initiated an SPI against a paid editing Syndicate and many of the Sockpuppets were blocked. However when I try to look at the contributions of the Sockpuppets, no results are returned [2]. Her talk page however indicates that the person has made many edits. Why are her contributions missing? Jupitus Smart 11:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jupitus Smart That contributions list does not include deleted edits i.e. edits on deleted page, or edits otherwise deleted. Here shows they have 0 live edits & 1 deleted edit on English Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank for the prompt reply Joseph2302. Issue Solved. Jupitus Smart 11:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: The link to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec is on "Edit count" at the bottom of user contributions but the tool is often very slow or broken. The link on "accounts" is efficient and reliable but only gives the total number of edits with no distinction between deleted and visible edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Viewing draft article from outside WIki

Hello. I'm working on a draft article which is almost complete. Is there a way to allow a non-Wiki user to view the draft without sharing my login info? Thanks, Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Theresa at Indevelopmeant and welcome to the Teahouse. If the article you are talking about is Draft:Edgardo Miranda-Rodriguez then you could just send them the URL ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edgardo_Miranda-Rodriguez ). Of course, if they look at the History of the article they can see who has been editing it (as anybody can do for any article). --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the speedy reply and for the welcome! That's fine about seeing the history. I just didn't want to have to give out my login info if it wasn't necessary. Thanks again! Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Gronk Oz is correct, and you must definitely not share your login info, as to do so would be a breach of the Terms of Use. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David. That felt like the case to me, but I wanted to check. Best, Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There are no private edits or pages at Wikipedia, unless it's later deleted by a user with the required permission and then you cannot see it yourself. Anyone knowing your username can click the "User contributions" link under "Tools" in the left pane of User:Theresa at Indevelopmeant. You have a shortcut to it on "Contributions" at the top right of any page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, PrimeHunter. Yes, I've been using Contributions. I meant that I wanted to have a friend who knows my subject read it over for me. It's not published yet, so wanted them to view it in the context of the Wiki page, if possible, without having to give them my login info. Thanks for following up! Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theresa at Indevelopmeant: Anyone can see any Wikipedia page, no matter who you are logged in as. For example, not only can you see Draft:Edgardo Miranda-Rodriguez, you should also be able to see user drafts by others, such as Draft:Alfred Jean Garnier, Draft:Amy Malbeuf, Draft:Brenda Francis Pelkey, and so on; anyone can edit them too. They don't show up in the normal Wikipedia search, but they are still available.

If your friend (or anyone else) goes to this address;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edgardo_Miranda-Rodriguez

...then they will see your draft. They don't even have to log in. Best of luck, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for following up! I can't wait to get this page up and published soon... Best,Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

need help to submit my article

hello, I am new to Wikipedia recently i submit my article (Ahad Raza Mir) which was declined I need advice to edit the article for resubmitting. SaqibK (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@SaqibK: Hi there. In the box at the top of it, there is a button to "resubmit". If you think it is ready for a review, click that and follow instructions. It may take several weeks to get it reviewed, because there is a big backlog.

If you want any other help, please ask again. Best, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Double transclusion

If I transclude a template onto my user page that is transclusions of other templates, will it work properly? Thanks! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi A lad insane, welcome to the Teahouse. That works fine. You can test how something will look with the "Show preview" button. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

adding photos/iimages

hello, thank you for this help forum. i am interested in adding pictures to articles, and wondering what i need to know beforehand (ie. how to obtain permission, best practices, etc.) thank you Stirpicult (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stirpicult: Simplified answer: Because we want Wikipedia to be free to copy, images (almost always*) needs to have a licence saying anyone can copy it. If you take the picture, that's quite easy; you can upload it to commons, giving permission. Most pictures from elsewhere don't have the right licence; you can ask the copyright holder to give permission.

There's a basic guide at User:R. Baley/Acquire a free image, and much more detail in Wikipedia:Uploading images. If you get stuck, please ask again.

• Certain 'non-free' images can be used in limited ways, such as a company logo; see WP:NFCI and the links from there. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm new here and not sure what edits are allowed

Hey, I would appreciate some tips and advice on what I can do to get started. I really want to help Wikipedia :) Thanks please get back to me asap SeriousBlackkk (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey SeriousBlackkk. I'm pretty new also, and I've just been searching for articles on topics I'm knowledgeable and passionate about, and diving in. My three main offerings for you are, 1) Don't add significant details without having sources to cite. Most facts must be verifiable to the reader. 2) Take a look at talk pages and edit histories (although the latter can be very long) to see if what you want to add has already been discussed, altered, or deleted. 3) Use Wikipedia Help a lot. Open a new tab and search "WP:____", such as "WP:Citing sources" and it will guide you. Also, Teahouse is equally useful for the really tricky questions. RM2KX (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

BE BOLD! - Quite a good place to start is, Wikipedia:Cleanup - for example, try anything in Category:Articles needing cleanup from March 2017. Once you get started doing things, you'll learn more - and have lots more questions :-) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

how do i improve my page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maurizio_Pellegrin

my page Maurizio Pellegrin (link above) was turned down twice, how can i improve it? I put many citations from reliable sources (press, galleries and museums) can you please help me? What else should I add?

Thank you!

Maria Grimana Maria Grimana (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maria Grimana, you have "over-referenced" the exhibition list, it has 44 references, but the entire rest of the article has only two! Reliability is not the only criterion that sources must comply with, they must also be Independent. A gallery writing about their own exhibition or an interview with the artist are not independent - for Wikipedia's purposes such sources only prove existence, not Notability. So you need to firstly find sources for all the biographical information and then you need to find actual critical review articles about the exhibitions, and get rid of the interviews, adverts and announcements. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

thank you so much for your suggestions. i worked on it. i eliminated non relevant citations and added articles and writings of critics. do you think what i did is enough? do i have to submit it again and go back to the end of the line of drafts waiting to be evaluated or i don't loose my position

thank you!

Maria GrimanaMaria Grimana (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Citing Australian Government Web Archive

Hi all, I want to reference a government report which is no longer hosted by the Department, but a cached version is available through the Australian Government Web Archivewhich is a project of the National Library of Australia (and I would assume a trusted and reputable source). Is it okay to directly link to that? Do I need to put any protoccols in place? And can anyone point me to where I'd find this answer already answered (as I am sure it must have been). Saludos Trishhepworth (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Trishhepworth,

There is no problem using an archive to reference the document's contents (it could still be problematic for assertions such as "the report was posted on the government website on date X", of course). A reference is a particular document; a web link is merely the means to obtain it. Of course, it is still better to use a reputable archive service such as a national library than other sites because it is less likely to have posted a forged document or to undergo WP:Link rot; but even a link to a personal website would do if there is no better alternative.

To take a purposefully silly analogy: when referencing a book, you give information that identify the text such as ISBN/edition number/etc. but you do not add "borrowed from the Sidney library" or similar - any book with the same edition number will do. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Trishhepworth,

The {{Cite web}} template has fields for the original URL and an archival URL. You may be able to access it from the toolbar above the editing box. Pelagic (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you [[Tigraan] and Pelagic that's exactly what I needed to know and more. Much appreciated, apologies for the slow response Trishhepworth (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How to create subsections

I am working on the history section for Eugene, Oregon. I need to do a little more work on footnotes but am nearly done. I've begun to explore how to create subsections and would appreciate advice regarding whether or not I have done it correctly.

"This page is automatically cleaned every 12 hours." In my explorations I also ran across this phrase. I am really hoping it does not mean that the Sandbox is wiped out. It doesn't seem to be but an explanation would be helpful.Silver Water (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silver Water, firstly the sandbox under your userpage is safe, it is not deleted except if it contains a major transgression. I've taken a look at User:Silver Water/sandbox, the section headings are not working because for some reason they have "nowiki" tags - I suspect it's due to an error in the Visual Editor. I have removed the tags and also fixed the formatting - Wikipedia uses sentence case in section headings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Silver Water: There are two ways to make edits: The source editor where you write and see markup code to do things and have to click "Show preview" to see what it will look like, and the VisualEditor which has menus to do things and always tries to display what the result will look like. Most of our help pages are written for the source editor. You use VisualEditor. Often it automatically places <nowiki>...</nowiki> around attempts to write markup code. This instructs our rendering software to display the code instead of activating it. Adding to the confusion, VisualEditor doesn't display the nowiki tags because it tries to display what the rendered page will look like to readers. Click the "Paragraph" button in VisualEditor to get a menu where you can add a heading. User sandboxes starting with "User:" and a username are not cleaned automatically. Some sandboxes like Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting/sandbox are not specific to a user but can be used by everybody. These sandboxes are automatically cleaned but you can still find old edits to them by clicking "Contributions" at the top right of any page and then "diff" at your edits. Your own User:Silver Water/sandbox is the only sandbox you have edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Roger (Dodger 67) Thank you for your help, especially fixing the formatting. You've made my job much easier.

@PrimeHunter Thank you for your explanations. These are very helpful. I may be able to attempt the source editor now. Prior to your explanation it just looked like something only a techie person could do.

Silver Water (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How to edit a category page, i.e. add one line to an existing category page

I want to add "Little Buddha (1993)" under the "L" heading in the list of films at Category:Films about reincarnation

However, I'm a novice editor and quite clueless on how to do it. Please go ahead and make the addition if you like. Little Buddha [[3]]is a film about reincarnation, so it is DEFINITELY an appropriate addition to this category. Thank you.Dave S. H. (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dave S. H. and welcome to the Teahouse.

Categories on Wikipedia are collected from the articles themselves. So, to add an article to a category, what you actually do is add the category to the article.

More specifically, go to the Little Buddha article and edit it. Near the bottom of the edit text, you'll see the list of categories. Simply add the line.

[[Category:Films about reincarnation]]

in the correct place (Categories are most often in alphabetical order) and save. After a little while, the article will show up on the Category page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding employee disclosures and meeting requirements to avoid draft deletion and get approved

Hi, I've been working on the draft for Iglu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Iglu and now have been suggested that the draft be deleted.. The article has had several revisions in an attempt to meet the policies required. I also need to add a {{connected contributor (paid)}} but not sure how to do it exactly.. Any tips or advice would be appreciated

TimSensei (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have taken the liberty of changing your question so that it links to the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template rather than actually adding the tag to this Teahouse page. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cites

AM I allowed to write about another cite on Wikipedia? Wikipedian (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Wikipedian. It's not entirely clear what you mean by "write about another cite". Information in articles should generally all be sourced to relevant citations, which allows the content of articles to be verifiable for readers. If you mean "another website," as in a website that might have its own article, then that depends on whether it meets our standard for notability of websites. Maybe if you can be more specific about what you mean, we can be more helpful. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If you mean, can you use Wikipedia as a reference - no, you cannot. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank You! Wikipedian (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI question

I am trying to search the ANI to find a discussion about a specific article. Is this possible for non-admins to do or is this a restricted function? Ies (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out. Ies (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of information

How to determine which information is relevant for which page? For example, is a celebrity's political opinion relevant and should it be on their page? DylannStormRoof (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DylannStormRoof. There is no easy answer to that sort of question in general: it usually comes down to individual cases. What we can certainly say is that if their political opinion has not been reported in a reliable source, then it shouldn't be in the article. Beyond that, it will depend on the individual case. Have they themselves made a big issue of their politics? Has their opinion been widely discussed, or just mentioned in passing? Has it been reported only in one partisan source (sources that are not neutral may be used as long as they are reliable sources, but if they represent a minority view among the sources, that should be reflected in the prominence given to material from them). By the way, I understand that you are not Dylann Roof, but I find your choice of user name very disturbing, and possibly contrary to the policy in WP:DISRUPTNAME --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks 08:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylannStormRoof (talk • contribs)

Images

How do I upload a photo to the info box of a wikipedia page?Shubasketball (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shubasketball, welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on the license of the photo and where you want to use it. Where did you get the photo and which article is it for? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering too. DylannStormRoof (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

When will pages be fully protected

By what standard does Wikipedia apply full protection on pages? Level of fame? Power? Net worth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylannStormRoof (talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page protection policy is explained at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Fame, power, and wealth are irrelevant. Pages are protected if they have been subject to destructive edits. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So if nobody vandalizes Donald Trump page, it will be put on semi-protection? DylannStormRoof (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The article about Donald Trump was heavily and continuously vandalized before semi-protection (and now extended confirmed protection) was implemented; so it now not being vandalized is the direct result of the applied protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I get my new page Ella Thorp Ellis Accepted?

I am new to Wikipedia -- On a figurative "mission from God." What do I need to do to get my new page Ella Thorp Ellis accepted? 2601:648:8303:75A0:94DE:633D:4D2D:CCFA (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is 'your new page'? I can't see any page in the listing of your contribution. --CiaPan (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

CiaPan it's at Draft:Ella Thorp Ellis. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

THX, Roger. --CiaPan (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Flerkk Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. You need to establish notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of her in reliable sources. At the moment you have more content about her father and no sources which mention her? Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Latin American Economies Article

Hello, I am writing an edition for the "Latin America" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America). It is about the economies of latin america. I was hoping someone can read it and critique it. I particularly need help with making sure that my tone is not biased and objective and with identifying any locations where I should provide more citations. The article is in my sandbox Danicroi (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Danicroi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see any problems of tone or bias with what you have written at User:Danicroi/sandbox; but I doubt it will be accepted as an addition to Latin America. That article is about the region, its people, its culture, its economies, its last 16,000 years of history. Your sandbox is about the current state of its economies and their short-term prospects. Maproom (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Danicroi, just to "complete" Maproom's reply: Your draft could become a new separate article, rather than a section in the article about the region. It would need a title that clearly and unambiguously represents the subject, the current (as of 2017) state of the economy of the region. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

American Institute of Architects

I am trying to verify membership in the American Institute of Architects, especially the Chicago chapter, by Herbert Sobel (best known as the unsuccessful company commander in Band of Brothers).Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gaarmyvet. I see records for an architect of that name active in Chicago from the the 1930s to the 1980s. However, an interview with your Sobel's son mentions other careers, and his suicide attempt makes it highly unlikely that he was practicing architecture in the 1980s. My best guess is that there were two Herbert Sobels from Chicago, which is a big city with a big Jewish population. One was an architect and the other was your ill-fated Army officer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a real possibility. "My Sobel" did graduate with a degree in Architecture but it's possible he never practiced. Stephen Ambrose wrote that he was a clothing salesman before the War. Sobel's son wrote in what I have to call non-RS that his father was middle class and wore a suit to work every day. I think I need to back off from my absolute identification of Sobel in those two items based on the Tribune on his page. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My article was marked as may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion

Please what do i do? am new in this community and want to be here, my main aim is to help feed people with information they may need. thanksMarvelire (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Marvelire. Your article has been nominated for deletion because it is unambiguously promotional in tone. This is probably because it is copy/pasted from the main website of the subject of the article. Because of this, I have also nominated for deletion due to being a copyright violation. Content on Wikipedia needs to be restated in the authors own words, and with very few exceptions cannot be copied and pasted from other online sources. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article before giving it a second go. TimothyJosephWood 12:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy, will revisit and make correctionsMarvelire (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Article has been rejected, require advice.

I have had my article rejected due to tone, notability, and it sounded too close to the source.Please can you advise on how I can rectify this. Thank you. Kim Lintern Klintern (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kim. There are lots of passages currently in your draft that are promotional in tone. For example:

• They specialise in high quality mould made artists papers.
• ...renowned for its high end fine art papers
• ...are registered trademarks of St Cuthberts Mill.
• ...has become a highly lucrative business.

These are all the types of passages you would expect to find on a company website, in a commercial, or maybe a quarterly report, but it's not the type of language that an encyclopedia uses. Encyclopedias are written in a more-or-less dry matter-of-fact manner that avoids statements of opinion and colorful language. So all of this type of puffy language needs to either be removed or replaced with basically disinterested bare facts.

You probably also want to check out our beginners guide to referencing since your draft doesn't seem to currently follow our standard practice, and formatting all our references correctly will help to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability guidelines. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Double square brackets not working to cite wiki pages

I have checked the wiki page instructions on how to cite wiki pages within another wiki text. I am working in wikibook. Does that make a difference? I can't get the information overload page to come up as blue and then link to the appropriate wiki page What am I doing wrong please? Thank you Vickthestick (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Vickthestick!

The problem is that you are trying to link from Wikibooks to Wikipedia. Here at the Teahouse, a subspace of Wikipedia, [[information overload]] creates a link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_overload, but the same syntax in Wikibooks points to https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Information_overload, which does not exist. There is a Wikipedia page about cross-wiki linking that can help you on more general matters; in that particular case, the syntax you are looking for is probably [[w:information overload]]. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Vickthestick, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikibooks at https://en.wikibooks.org and the English Wikipedia here at https://en.wikipedia.org are separate wikis. You need an interwiki prefix to make a wikilink to another wiki. Wikipedia has wikipedia: or the shortcut w: so [[w:information overload]] at Wikibooks will link to our information overload. I don't know Wikibooks policies but you can write [[w:information overload|information overload]] to not dislay w: to readers. See more at Help:Interwiki linking and Help:Link. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Vickthestick (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Having my draft online

Hello, I am trying to add an article about Galeries Lafayette Haussmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Galeries_Lafayette_Haussmann) which is the flagship store of Galeries Lafayette in Paris. There are a lot to say as it's the birthplace of the brand, I did a lot of research and I'm disappointed it has been declined. I already updated the sources and rewrote the passages that could appear subjective but the article is still declined. I read it again but don't find it subjective, could someone help me re-writing or pointing out the passages that seems to have a POV tone? Thank you :-)

Arthemisbilon (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Arthemisbilon: almost all of it has a strongly promotional PoV tone. Are you connected with the store? It's very difficult to write neutrally about a subject you're connected with. Another problem is that it's unclear what the article is meant to be about – the brand, the building, or the business that operates from that building? Maproom (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Arthemisbilon. First of all, you should probably focus on developing the relevant subsection of the already-existing article (Galeries_Lafayette#Flagship_store) - your draft is bound to give a lot of duplicate information compared to the company's page.

Moreover, from a quick read of the article, multiple sentences sound unencyclopedic (and systematically casting the shop in a good light). See for example:

1. true but WP:PEACOCK claims: the iconic symbol of the store, offers shoppers a wide range of brands, from the most affordable to the most prestigious; ...offering a wide choice of snacks, drinks and cuisine from around the world.
2. editorializing It all began in 1893, when..., As soon as the swinging sixties got going, A new era began in 2001, etc. - replace by down-to-earth equivalents In 1893/in the 1960s/in 2001.

All in all, you should strive to write something more boring. That is how encyclopedia articles are supposed to be. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing a draft. How do I make it an article

I just wrote a book and would like to do a brief wikipedia entry on it. It's a draft but how do I make it an article? Sapphire the Dragon (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Sapphire the Dragon. Your page is located at Draft:Sapphire the Dragon (Novel). If you want it reviewed for insertion in the Wikipedia mainspace (i.e. that it becomes a "real" article), you should copy-paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft page. However, before doing so:

1. Check our pages about conflict of interest and promotion.
2. Prove that your book is "notable", by adding references to independent reliable sources (for a book, it usually means reviews of the book by newspapers columnists). As the draft stands now, it is likely to be rejected, because the references only prove that the book exist. Notice that if such sources do not exist, Wikipedia will not accept an article about your book (at least not yet).

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

redirect or delete?

I have revised an existing article in which I include content from other articles which makes them obsolete. Can I redirect the obsolete ones to the new one, or just delete them? Thanks, as always.TBR-qed (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi TBR-qed and welcome to the Teahouse. That would depend. First, if you took material from other articles you must indicate that in your new article, either in edit summaries (which you didn't do) or on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It is plagiarism to use other editors work without acknowledging it. The articles should not be deleted. Their history preserves the record of the original editors work. If everything is in the new article, redirect with Template:R from merge. Since you have been indicating what you are doing on talk pages, there shouldn't be any objection. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

reliable sources

May I know what kind of reliable sources that I need for my article? Anis2520 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Anis2520: have you read WP:Reliable sources? Take a look at that and let us know here if you have any specific questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How to add a person

Hello I have a person that I want to add to wikipedia how do I do this? FlaggTyokea (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi FlaggTyokea. Has the person been written about in some depth by reliable sources, that are entirely independent of the person? What is your connection to the person, if any?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

no he has not

FlaggTyokea (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no personal connection to this person. I just looked him up and did not find a wikipedia. I thought it was strange seeing how he contributed to a part of american culture but he has not been written about in depth

FlaggTyokea (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FlaggTyokea, the nature of an encyclopedia is we write about what has been written about a subject, not about the subject itself. So if nothing has been written about this person, there is nothing to write here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FlaggTyokea, can you tell us the person's name so we can look and see if we find sources that cover them? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit descriptions

What kind of things should I put on there? X4nMan20O() (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello X4nMan20O() and welcome to the Teahouse. Your username is rather tricky to type!

Your first step should be to read Help:Edit summary and perhaps WP:Edit summary legend. The goal of the edit summary is to allow other editors to more immediately discern the purpose of your edit: are you adding tags, correcting spelling, removing vandalism, etc. You should be concise, but you are allowed to put a fairly complete description of what you are doing. I think it's a good idea to check the preference box that pops up a warning if you don't supply an edit summary. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summaries so far look fine to me. It's no big deal; just, very helpful if you say something to indicate what you did with the edit. Which you've been doing.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

GA

Can you say if Green Bay Harbor Entrance Light meets GA? I nominated it, so if there are any issues, I can modify it. I think, the article seems fit for a GA. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll do a quick read and leave a talk message if I see any issues. (I have 6 GAs.) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am looking to draft a new page for a US House candidate. What should this page look like?

I have been rejected so far due to lack of citing evidence, as the statement is that a candidate is not notable until they win an election. I believe that this isn't entirely true, and the page I am trying to edit and expand is referring to a special election for a US House seat. To be fair, the first draft was a stub, but I hope to expand it to prove notability of the Libertarian candidate. What should I include to signify notability? are there any basic headlines I should follow? Thank you.

Fvwendt (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fvwendt, Unless you can show that he is notable for something other than running for Congress, he does not qualify for an article unless he wins. To show he meets the general notability guidelines, you would need to show that his life, entirely excluding his current candidacy, has been the subject od detailed coverage in reliable sources, totally independent of the individual, any of his employers or his campaign. These sources must not be interviews or written from press releases. However, if he has held an elected office at state or federal level previously, that would make him notable. Our notability qualifications are myriad, but they are fairly objective. If you would link to the draft, answers could be more specific. John from Idegon (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, Thank for pointing out the notability requirements. He is an author as well, with published work on Amazon, but to be fair his coverage is primarily tied to the Montana Libertarian Party's first convention in 30+ years, the link to the draft is here.

The main article I am attempting to improve is this: Montana's at-large congressional district special election, 2017 Fvwendt (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fvwendt: Please note that I fixed the indentation on your reply and made your url links into Wikilinks as an example for you. That being said, simply having written a book does not make a person notable. The special notability standard for authors is at WP:NAUTHOR. I doubt he would qualify, but I haven't done any research on my own. I avoid articles on politics like the plauge, so someone else will have to advise you on the other. Best. John from Idegon (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

How to place the tip of the day on your user pages

The tip of the day department develops and maintains helpful tips on how to use and get the best out of Wikipedia.

The July 21st tip explains how to display tips on your user page (or user talk page).

If you'd like to help maintain the tips (a great way to learn the ropes), there's a template that displays the tip of the day a day early.

We also maintain a library of the tips, arranged by subject.

If you have any nifty tricks that you rely on in your use of Wikipedia, please stop by the tips workshop and share them!

Have fun.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 05:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

submitting draft

Two of my articles are ready to be considered as an article. One of them is in sandbox w a push for draft but the other isn't. What code do we use on the page to get it out of draft mode? Songuitar333 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You may use the {{AFC submission}} template if you want your page to be reviewed and, if accepted, moved to the mainspace, more info about the template here. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 07:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I change my username

Can I? Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEricHarris (talk • contribs) 07:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can; see WP:Changing username. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone semi-protect the page "Onision"?

I do not have access to semi-protecting pages as I work on mobile and it's more than likely that the cause of a bot removing a semi-protection temple from the page "Onision" is because it has expired. Onision had told his fans to edit his Wikipedia page with silly information and so it should definitely be protected again. The last vandalism was 2 hours before this post. Depthburg (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The place where you can make such requests is WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Question from new editor

Hello,I am abizer,new to editing of wikipedia...please help me find content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abizer16 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added some links to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help editing a page: Gosei / Japanese Go Titles

I'm currently working on the English articles for Japanese Go tournaments, and I've found something I don't quite understand:

In all other Go tournament articles, the link to the article itself is blacked-out in the Go Competitions box at the bottom of the article, but not in the Gosei Article, and I don't understand why.

Patrick.a.mueller (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Convenience links: Template:Japanese go titles, Meijin, Gosei (competition). Maproom (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Template:Japanese go titles was linking to the redirect Gosei (game) rather than directly to Gosei (competition). Now that I've changed the template to bypass the redirect (and purged the cache), it appears in black (unlinked) as it does for the other articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Patrick.a.mueller (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, it's a general feature that wikilinks directly to the page itself are displayed in bold without linking. See Help:Self link. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

where did my question go?

I submitted a question and now can't see or find it. Help Chris Jarvis 1959 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is the first question which you have submitted, see Special:Contributions/Chris Jarvis 1959. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Jarvis 1959:, perhaps you weren't logged on with your User name at the time you posted your query. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

reliable source

Is this source considered a reliable source that I can use to add lines on Wikipedia?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In short, yes. This is a reliable source for basic facts. This website looks like it is intended for children. Remember to use multiple sources. Copernicus The Vigilante — User:CopernicusAD or my talk [User talk: CopernicusAD}} :D 14:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Super ninja2. For well-deleloped articles about major topics of art history, such as the Mona Lisa, I think that it is best to use high quality academic sources, rather than a website for children. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article about a politician from around 30 years back

I want to create an article about an ex-central minister of india. His name is Puli venakata reddy. The only thing that currently runs in my mind is this story, it is from long back and I have a doubt whether i can write article about him or not. PLease suggest and help me move forward. Thank you.2601:408:8000:F945:9C15:C048:6562:B9DE (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure! Draft an article! You are protected by the first amendment. Make sure you don't accidentally commit slander or libel. However to create an article it is best to Special:CreateAccount 🖤Copernicus The Vigilante — User:CopernicusAD or my talk User talk: CopernicusAD :D 23:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Any article would have to be based on reliable sources - not your memory. Please read WP:FIRST.

And "Freedom of speech" is utterly irrelevent; see Wikipedia:Free speech 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)