Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 596

Archive 590

←

Archive 594

Archive 595

Archive 596

Archive 597

Archive 598

→

Archive 600

Advice

While doing some reference fixing at Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names I fell on the "Chris Kilham" article. I raised my perceived issues on its talk page, but then also noticed the other article, "Zoe Helene", and the two main editors which appear to be the same person under two nicknames (I'm avoiding to ping them here for now) which are mostly single-purpose. It is possible that one, or both have some notability, but I'm not sure, it looks suspect to me. Should I: a) tag the article(s), b) bring this at an appropriate location (where?), c) ANI (I've never used this before), d) ignore? Another thing which I am wondering: as a non-admin editor, when I encounter COI issues, or sockpuppets (these or others in the future), should I still ideally warn them myself, or report? It would seem easier for me if I did not have to confront them myself, considering my limited experience level with such procedures. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PaleoNeonate. I agree with you that both of these biographies have problems with promotional content. Chris Kilham looks notable to me as the subject of a lengthy profile in the New York Times and as a TV personality. I am unsure about the notability of his wife Zoe Helene. That biography relies far too much on things she has written herself, and there is definitely promotionalism and citation overkill. I do not see the two accounts you mentioned as sockpuppets. One stopped editing early in 2013 and the other started editing late that year. That is not sock puppet behavior but rather may well be a case of a lost password.

As for advice, please do not take this to the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents, commonly called "ANI". That is a sometimes aggressive forum for dealing with serious problems needing immediate attention. You would probably get "thrown out of court". Instead, I suggest that you start by trimming and pruning the promotional content out of the Kilham article, and try to determine whether Helene is notable by reading the sources. The first step in such cases is to try to improve the articles in collaboration with other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: thank you very much. Since I have no immediate interest to work on those articles myself, I will probably add the {{Advert}} tag for now (and keep them in my notes), unless that is discouraged. Since you confirmed that I should not take such non-urgent issues to ANI, is this still a proper place to report things I find suspect in the future? PaleoNeonate (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, you can always ask questions here at the Teahouse. If you discover solid evidence of sockpuppetry, present it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you encounter something serious and flagrant that requires immediate attention from administrators, go to ANI. We have many dispute resolution venues, depending on circumstances. These two articles you mentioned here are biographies of living people, which is a type of article subject to strong policy restructions. Concerns about how that policy is enforced on specific articles should be taken to the Biographies of living people noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Noted. I was mostly concerned with the gravity of those avenues, where before recoursing to them I'd want to be sure it wasn't a mistake (i.e. for a trivial matter, as in this false-positive, about my sock suspicions). About the "thrown out of court" above, I've indeed read logs of some ANI discussions where this occurred (i.e. only a heated content dispute), and cases of boomerang, which is somewhat scary.

The last time I asked a question on the Tea House (which may not have been a newbie question, it was about template proposal and writing), noone answered, but I eventually managed to find what I wanted. I then wondered if this was only for very basic questions. I seem to remember of a project, or maybe more than one, of experienced editors "adopting" or "sponsoring" less experienced ones, although it seemed to not really take off (and I never tried to get a sponsor so far). If that was a viable option, I'd likely first contact such when I have these questions, but if the Tea House remains an equivalent, I'll gladly continue to ask here. Thanks again. PaleoNeonate (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, template editing is pretty sophisticated stuff and the Teahouse is oriented towards basic editing of the encyclopedia, and helping new editors to develop an understanding of our content policies and guidelines. I have been an active editor for almost eight years and have never once edited a template. For questions about this type of advanced editing, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The Village pump has five subsections, each of which may be of interest to you. As for adoption or mentoring, these days those programs are usually "last ditch" solutions for highly problematic editors in danger of being blocked. I see no signs that this applies to you. Just ask questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: super. Thanks again for your advice and patience. PaleoNeonate (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Make a Wikipedia of my name

Plz help me for make a Wikipedia of my name but it's extremely difficult — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hira Laraib (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless your name is WP:Notable, there should not exists a Wikipedia article for your name. What particular article did you wish to create? Dbfirs 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hira (surname) is an article about your first name, assuming it's "Hira". stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 07:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request Feedback - How to submit

I'm a new editor - first article. Been working with editors in the Help IRCChat. The feedback was to remove 2 sentences with 2 sources that didn't reflect encyclopedia tone. Otherwise it was good feedback. Made the changes. How do I Request Feedback or a review from an editor in Teahouse that would indicate it's an acceptable article to move to main space? Do I need to type in subst: submit at bottom of draft?Ktlnlindler (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your draft was moved to article space at Mary Whyte soon after you posted here, but you have been subsequently editing the draft. Perhaps you could update the live article with the latest alterations? These are the changes. Dbfirs 09:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Reply

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! nathanlucy (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, N mc lucy. WillKomen isn't actually a real person, but if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, please do ask them here and we will do our best to help. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually...if this is a wordplay on the German "Willkommen", welcome...why is it written with just one 'n'. For German speakers this looks weird :). Lectonar (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request feedback on Draft

This is my first article. I think the draft is ready to move to the live que or main space for acceptance but I am relying on Teahouse feedback if you believe it's acceptable. The last items that needed additional editing are the following: Per suggestions from an editor, I removed quotes and 2 blog sources and put in a credible newspaper source in it's place. Source 3. I've addressed all previous suggestions from editors. Can you please provide edits and/or approval? I appreciate your time very much. Draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ktlnlindler/draft Ktlnlindler (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ktlnlindler. There's a seeming embarrassment of riches to draw from. Why not move this to the next level with some of these?: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For my first time - I wanted to see if it was acceptable to move into main space as is and then once it's accepted go back in and continue adding to/editing with the sources you've included. What do you think? Appreciate your time!Ktlnlindler (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You will see that your draft has been moved into main space at Mary Whyte, so you should continue editing there. Dbfirs 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Musician classification

Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm editing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_E._Brown. The artist is categorized as a jazz musician but based on everything I read I think he is just a regular musician. How do I change his classification? I'm referring to the classification "Jazz musician" which appears directly below his name when I view his page on mobile. Is it possible to change "Jazz musician" to "Musician"? JazzKatherine (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. Though generally, original research is discouraged, in small cases like these, I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Editing categories is a little trickier than regular body content - I've gone ahead and made the edit for you, but when editing categories in the future I strongly recommend you enable HotCat by following the steps here. Cheers, Kevin12xd 19:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JazzKatherine. Brown performed in jazz saxophonist David S. Ware's band and was reviewed by All About Jazz. It seems that categorizing him as a jazz musician is accurate. Such categories do not exclude performing in other musical genres. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JazzKatherine. I see that you have discovered that the "subtitle" that appears in the mobile version does not derive from categories, as Kevin12xd implies, or from anything in Wikipedia itself, but from the Wikidata item corresponding to the article, and you have edited that. (I'm putting this answer here, even though Katherine does not need it, for other people's benefit). --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What is a portal?!

I am new and wondering...What is a portal? Nova003 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nova003. For the full explanation and lots of related links, see Wikipedia:Portal. But in a nutshell, a portal is a collection of articles related to broad topic area. So, for example if you wanted to read articles on science generally, you could browse through Portal:Science to find articles that might interest you. For the full list of Wikipedia's portals you can visit Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Rules on uploading photos

I just created a bio page on an artist, Debra Yepa-Pappan, and I am a bit confused about the rules/how to upload photos. Can someone explain? 17:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

PetJ (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey PetJ. For full guidance see Wikipedia:Uploading images. In a nutshell, the first thing that has to be done is finding an image that is either 1) licensed in a way that would make it free to use on Wikipedia, or 2) able to meet our non-free content criteria. You may also want to check out our tutorial on finding images for Wikipedia.

At the end of the day, uploading images is easy, but finding images Wikipedia can use is often pretty hard. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi PetJ If the subject is currently alive only photos that are completely unencumbered by copyright restrictions may be used - then non-free content is not an option. In the vast majority of cases the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, this presumption holds unless it is conclusively proven to be otherwise. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is the rule to discourage editors from claiming credit by name?

History of the Spanish language has acquired a recent edit saying "(Created by Nikki Reynolds)". I know this is inappropriate, and I'm ready to delete it, but I want to quote a Wikipedia policy rule to support my action. Where is that rule? Kotabatubara (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

At WP:SIGNATURE I find "When editing a page, main namespace articles should not be signed, because the article is a shared work, based on the contributions of many people, and one editor should not be singled out above others." Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That claim was added by an IP from Buckhannon, West Virginia, who has made no other edits - whereas the article was created in 2004, by an Australian editor, who currently has 11,500 edits, so I have simply deleted the claim. - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation, based on the edit summary, was that the IP was jokingly claiming credit for inventing the Spanish language, not for creating the article. I would just have reverted this as vandalism, Kotabatubara. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is that community live online help page?

HEllo, I'm new and am looking for the community live online help page where you can post questions and have real time volunteer support. I found it once and didn't bookmark it. Please advise, thx! BESH 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentMBeshara (talk • contribs)

Hello @BrentMBeshara:, you are probably referring to the IRC chat channel for online help. A link to this channel is available in the upper right box at Wikipedia:Help desk. Of course you can also always ask questions here or at the help desk. GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @GermanJoe! That's the one, cheers! BESH 18:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentMBeshara (talk • contribs)

Species distribution map?

Hello. Is there a template that can be used to create basic species distribution maps? If there is no such templates, what should I do? Note that it would be for the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaharituber. AWearerOfScarves (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. At this time, I don't believe Wikipedia has a native template for representing regional distributions of any sort. Most editors use third-party cartography/image editing tools for these types of applications. Cheers, Kevin12xd 20:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

AWearerOfScarves (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

my first article is nominated for deletion. on the issue of copyright and publicizing an individual. how do i solve this this

my first article is nominated for deletion. on the issue of copyright and publicizing an individual. how do i solve this this Soplux (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Soplux. As to the copyright, I saw what you wrote on the talk page, but it misses the issue. Even if that content is owned by the individual:

1. we could not use it here unless it was released by him into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license – his permission for our use here is not what we need;
2. such as release would have to be done in a verifiable manner and not by you claiming he had given permission, because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how this might be done), but;
3. this material was blatantly promotional, so we could not use it here even if it was released, without a major rewrite; and
4. it is unclear whether this individual is notable in the special sense we use that word here to mean being the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic; and if he is
5. The way to write an article is to look for those sources first, and then only if they exist, write the article in your own words, citing those sources for their information, but not for their sentences, essentially including nothing that is not in them, and leave out every bit of evaluative and flowery promotional language. Just. The. Facts. (Which should speak for themselves.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Good day formatting my article

I was rejected for my lack of MOS. Is there a cliff note version. I certainly hope so.

Thank you Sharen Sierra (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sharen Sierra and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Writing better articles may help, but read Wikipedia:Your first article first. The article has been marked for deletion as not having been edited in over 6 months, so you will have to start working on it if you want it to stay. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to improve my hometown's Wikipedia article

The article in question is Lake Tahoe, it's one step away from being a ga rating, and I want to try and push it in that direction. I have two main questions:

1. Is there a good place to find geographical and city maps in creative commons?
2. Is there a definitive guide that states the criteria for a good Wiki article? That could really help.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks - SpiderGnome (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SpiderGnome. You can find a full set of resources and tools regarding maps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria for a detailed description of what is expected for a Good article.

Please do not think of Lake Tahoe as an article about your "hometown". It is an article about a geographical feature, the physical lake. We have separate articles about each of the various populated communities around the perimeter of the lake, such as South Lake Tahoe, California and Zephyr Cove, Nevada. By the way, I have visited Lake Tahoe many times and you are fortunate to live in such a beautiful place.

This article went through a Good article review in 2008, but that was not a successful process at that time. Although I am sure that the article has been changed a lot since then, you may want to go back to the archived 2008 discussion to see whether all the problems identified at that time have been resolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Where to ask for help on an article?

I am creating an article about Timothy Caughman. It is the first time I have done one from scratch and I'm discovering it's pretty challenging. So far I am just collecting links, sources, quotes, data. What I have is a total mess.

Is there a place to invite Wikipedians to chip in?

Lucas gonze (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lucas gonze: There are already article about Timothy Caughman and Stabbing of Timothy Caughman. Can your material be worked into one or both of those articles? If not, then the Talk pages of those articles seems like a good place to outline what your article will be about and ask for help. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip, Gronk Oz. Timothy Caughman is the article I am working on. Stabbing of Timothy Caughman is an article I want to replace, or merge with, under the reasoning that murder victims should be known for their lives. See the talk page for conversation on that.

Lucas gonze (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lucas gonze: I see that the merge has been done now, so this is moot, but it might be helpful to know for later. That feeling that everything is a total mess is normal when creating a new article - it means you're on the right track. But even before starting the project to write a new page, you first should assess whether the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word). That will determine whether there should even be a separate article on the subject. There are general notability guidelines, and there are also specific guidelines covering particular situations. In this case, the appropriate guideline is Crime victims and perpetrators, which describes how "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event" normally will not be the subject of an article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I will bow to convention on notability, because it has so much thought and consensus building behind it, even though I believe it is in harmful in the case of victims of racist violence. I will put work into improving the writing about the life of this person on the page about his death. --Lucas gonze (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

New Article

I'm currently making this article on the game 60 Seconds! heres the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bunsdome/sandbox Bunsdome (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bunsdome and welcome to the Teahouse.

Normally people come here to ask questions, but you've simply announced something you are working on. I took a look at the draft in your sandbox. You need to find more references that help establish that this game meets notability standards. I also saw that you went so far as to create a disambiguation page, but that was not needed and has been deleted. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert or leave it?

Hello again. I'm wondering if I should revert the Ma Barker article to its March 19 revision. I don't personally have a problem with the recently removed material, and already have reverted two other major changes (one marked as "minor") on other articles made by the same editor in a short time (which I found unconstructive or even destructive). I also wouldn't want to be considered to "stalk" if this third revert was unwarranted. On the other hand, I only noticed these edits because of other destructive edits, one being on a page on my watchlist. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, PaleoNeonate. I took a quick look at the recent major reversion but did not spend a lot of time studying the history of the article. This looks like a situation where serious talk page discussion is in order. The issue of whether Ma Barker was just the mother of some murderers, or herself a criminal mastermind, should be described in the article based on summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say. I am unfamiliar with the literature on this topic so will not express my own opinion. The article should not reflect the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors but rather what the range of sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to meet you again. I also can't really evaluate the quality of those sources and claims in a reasonable time, and am not particularily interested in the topic. As for the editor, he just blanked the two comments I left on his talk page without answering back, apparently moving on elsewhere to censor what he doesn't like. Maybe I could take the chance to revert his changes to this Barker article, and leave a message on the talk page as well, then, hoping that it has regular editors who will know better. I'm tempted to track this editor's future edits, but maybe should not. Or, should I, and report to ANI the next instance (which would be my third message to him) I find is obviously inappropriate? It appears that he was blocked twice in the past, for disruptive editing... Thanks again, PaleoNeonate (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the changes and left a message on the article talk page for now. PaleoNeonate (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks again for your kind assistance. PaleoNeonate (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Need clarification with WP:RS and with WP:SELFSOURCE

Concerns with understanding WP:RS and with WP:SELFSOURCE are in regards to a new article for Talalima Mobley - basically, I've written an article about myself, Talalima Mobley, and now it has been flagged as an Article for Deletion because the sources provided aren't from fully reliable publications. However, under the WP:RS it's explained under WP:SELFSOURCES that the self-published materials may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. As long as the following criteria are met.

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

I feel that each criteria has been met, then again, I'm new to this and possibly could be wrong. If anyone can assist in verifying that my understanding is reasonable or far from it, please let me know. Please refer to the Wikipedia Article for Deletion/Talalima Mobley discussion to get the full scope of the proposed article. You're more than welcome to reach out to me at talamobley[at]styleheirs[dot]com Thank you in advance.

Inherit Love, I AM, Talalima Mobley. Talamobley (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Talamobley. Self-published sources can indeed be used in limited circumstances (i.e. to confirm uncontroversial details about a subject), but the issue here is that in order for us to have an article in the first place, our notability guideline requires there to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability problem: two music artists by the same name, one is on WP, one is not...

The artists in question are:

1 - Solomon King (aka Allen V. Levy, Randy Leeds) Born August 13, 1931 in Lexington, died in Norman, Oklahoma, January 21, 2005.

2 - Solomon King the contemporary blues guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter with 4 independent LP releases since 2008, one of which was nominated for a "Best Contemporary Blues Album" Grammy; two songs used for a massively popular HBO original series; played the leading role in an independent feature film about the night Phil Spector murdered Lana Clarkson; frequently booked at blues festivals, iconic nightclubs, etc. from Hawaii to Chicago; reviews and write-ups in numerous publications over the last 9 years.

Because of WP notoriety rules, the former artist who is deceased over a decade, hadn't recorded anything for over 30 years, and never wrote a note of original music is considered notable because he had a couple of songs on the UK charts in the 1960s.

The latter artist is not considered notable because he isn't on a major label, didn't WIN a Grammy, his movie was not produced by a major studio and didn't win any major award, apparently licensed reproductions in major television series' are not considered a factor for notability, and the publications that have reviewed his work are mostly dedicated to the blues genre and therefor not "mainstream" press outlets.

I always thought of Wikipedia as a triumphant example of crowd-sourced curating, capable of telling the true stories that matter in this world of media hype, legal payola, and "fake news" (whatever that even means anymore). But, as I am digging deeper into the criteria that WP uses to determine it's content, I am finding that it's not based on relevance, accuracy, completeness, or merit at all.

WP's primary criteria is "public interest" which obviously translates directly into search hits, so I understand the importance of that content to WP's bottom line. But, don't they have an obligation as an unbiased compendium of human knowledge to include information that is RELEVANT to a subject, even if it, in itself, is not POPULAR??? Isn't the regurgitation of already-popular content, i.e. content which has "public interest" as measured by agencies of the mainstream media exclusively, just more of the same rather than being a source of complete, unbiased, uncensored information?

I came to WP to get accurate information to help differentiate the works and history of these two namesake music artists. It became a project for me after noticing that both Amazon and iTunes have no method for delineating artist identity in search results. So, in order to know whether a song or album was recorded by Artist A or Artist B, I would have to know their discographies and songbooks already. So, in trying to obtain that information I came across numerous numerous entries on sites like allmusic.com that were not accurate. An example:

The songs "Frankie & Johnny" and "Jack Me Up" are attributed to the deceased Solomon King on his record in the allmusic.com database, when in reality they were written by the living Solomon King and both were on the soundtrack of the HBO series "True Blood".

This was not at all apparent though. It was only after carefully examining the songbooks of both artists from several sources and spotting the mismatch, researching the song titles, and finally contacting the living artist and asking him if he knew anything about an artist by the same name recording two songs with the same titles as his recent recordings, that I was able to finally conclude that someone must have just copied the song list off a site, like Amazon or iTunes, perhaps without even knowing they were looking at two different artists' work listed in the same search results.

So, I am trying to disambiguate a frustrating tangle of erroneous songbooks, album releases and recording credits across the internet that have occurred because of these two artists having the same name. I was counting on Wikipedia to either provide an accurate source of data to reference, or be a venue for publishing the correct data in a trusted publication if there wasn't already an entry.

Now I find out why Wikipedia was unable to help me research this information. It's because one of the two artists wasn't "notable" enough. Well, if you are searching for one artist and another artist's work comes up right along with the one you're looking for, that artist becomes pretty damn "notable" to you.

So, being that Wikipedia is supposed to be a research tool, not an anthology of popular media icons, I suggest they append their "notability" policy to at least include an exception for non-notables with the same name as notables. Ideally, I think they should expand their criteria to include more than just mainstream success, and take into consideration timeliness and notability within a subtopic. By that I mean: for those who interested in contemporary blues artists, the living Solomon King is very notable, whereas the the deceased one is completely irrelevant.

Brown Miller Brownianproductions (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Brownianproductions and welcome on Wikipedia.

I will start by the unpleasant stuff first, but please, keep reading. I suggest you change your username, because organization names are not allowed as usernames. Moreover, I suggest you give a read to our policy on conflicts of interest and paid editing. Also, try to be more concise in your posts - I think the above could have been cut by half while keeping all the important points. Finally, in Wikipedia as in other venues, starting off in a new circle by telling everyone how they should behave when you are the new guy in town is not a great idea, even if it is a genuine offer for improvement - a much better strategy is to come with "I don't understand why..." so that if there is a good reason it gets explained to you, and if there is not it gets changed easier because you did not trigger a fight or flight response.

Now for the bottom of the issue. First thing: you found a mistake in Wikipedia (misattributed songs); great, go ahead and correct it!

One criterion Wikipedia uses to determine the content is notability, which is not quite the same as "public interest", although the difference is subtle. You obviously took some time skimming through our guideline pages, but you probably missed this part and that part, which give some advice about how to weight various measures of "public interest" (there are countless others, I will not link them all).

It is extremely unlikely that Wikipedia will adopt a rule to have articles about homonyms of notable people; to me it seems like a form of "inherited notability" (which is not valid grounds to have an article, nor should it be). If you want to propose such a rule, you should do it at WP:VPP or WT:BIO, but I would not bet a lot on you managing to get that change.

However, if as you say there are reviews and write-ups in numerous publications about the living Solomon King, these can prove notability even if not from "mainstream" sources under current rules. What matters is that the sources be reliable for their particular context. For instance, an editorial in Diapason (a French music magazine) would probably not be a reliable source for analysis of the political situation in Germany, but it would certainly support notability of a rising classical artist.

How to manage the various "Solomon King" articles if the new one is created is a merely technical issue, I can take care of that for you if you want. For now, I suggest you create Draft:Solomon King (blues artist) and add the references you know; you can read this page for the basics of article creation. Drop me a note when you are finished and I will give you further advice / submit the draft. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi I am trying to create an article on Dr Suresh David. I have received some help from people, It's really challenging to add, edit etc. I am trying. Need some help. When you find some free time can you please give me suggestions on how to add date of birth, award pics. Thank you so very much. Yourgirl (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi,welcome to the Teahouse. We'll try to help you. We add reliable references in articles. I suggest you to read these two pages:

• WP:RS and
• WP:YFA

Please go through these pages, and feel free to ask if you have questions. -Tito Dutta (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Yourgirl is asking about the mechanics of adding a date of birth and pictures to a biographic article, Titodutta (although a date of birth should be sourced). Dates of birth are typically added in brackets after the person's name at the start of the article, Yourgirl, as described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Opening paragraph. Adding images is a bit more complicated, but Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial tell you all you need to know. I would suggest working on ensuring that all of the content of Draft:Dr Suresh David is fully referenced to reliable, published sources first though, before trying to add images. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, remember that you are writing an encyclopedia article, not a CV. We don't need to know about every conference that David has presented at, for instance. Most of the bullet-point list items should be removed from the draft, in my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so very much everyone

I will go through the pages and make the necessary changes Yourgirl (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you create a Wikipedia Page?

I would like some assistance in creating a Wikipedia page.Macynthomas (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Macynthomas. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User has created a totally inappropriate autobiography Macy Thomas with personal details that should be removed ASAP for her own safety. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I did that...@Macynthomas:...please do not recreate this here. You are giving away too much personal information. Lectonar (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Search engines finding new Wikipedia page

Hi. A Wikipedia page I created -- 'A. M. Pattison' -- went live last Monday but search engines aren't listing it yet. Should they be by now? The artist's full name is 'Albert Mead Pattison' and searches using his full name do return results of other sites where his art appears, so I'm wondering whether I should have named the page using his full name instead. Thanks for your help!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. An article title should be based on the subject's common name. The choice of title doesn't govern when it gets indexed. As of a change last year, each new article is now NOINDEXed until it has been reviewed through the new page patrol process. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I marked the article as reviewed BTW. But the whole thing is quite weird. Since User:SwisterTwister is autopatrolled, my understanding is that the article should have been automatically reviewed when it was published by them at AfC. Not really sure what went wrong there. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll check to see if that has fixed the issue.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that by marking the article as reviewed, it is now the first item on Google, so thanks again Timothy for doing that. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating info on Fiji Times Wikipedia page

I need some help updating Fiji Times Wikipedia page as the current information is outdated and I've tried but kept getting reverted. This is an urgent issue because the information has been outdated for over 7 years now. Would really appreciate if I could have this update. Foster679 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Foster679. You should probably discuss your concerns on the article's talk page in the first instance - which I see you have already started to do. A major issue with your edits is that they removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced material. The former might have been out of date, but the solution to that is to update the article with content that is supported by sources. Some of your wording wasn't particularly neutral, either, such as "The Fiji Times is synonymous with news in Fiji". Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain that kind of commentary - or at least not expressed in Wikipedia's own voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My article was moved to redirect

Hello! I was in the process of editing my article. I had to put it down for about three weeks and I came back today, it has been moved: The pages in this category are redirects from moved (renamed) titles. I am not sure how to find it and complete my edits for submission. My article is Constantine Mavroudis, MD. This is my first article and am learning a lot about the process, as a first timer and a clinician by trade I am quite slow at navigating the system but am really trying! Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!Amr247rn (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article can be found at Draft:Constantine Mavroudis. ~ GB fan 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I would send you a barnstar or something cool if I knew how. How about a smiley face emoji :)Amr247rn (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Amr247rn. Just for future reference, at the top of almost every page here you will see a link for "contributions", which will show you all (non-deleted) edits you have made. Other ways to access your contributions include searching for Special:MyContributions or, when at your user or user talk page, clicking on "User contributions" from the links in the "tools" menu on the left-hand side of the page. This last one is also the way to see other users' contributions, e.g, if you went to my user or user talk page, that link would show you mine. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User Page Move

I'm not a newcomer. I drafted my new user page at User:CopernicusAD/about and am ready to move it to User:CopernicusAD. However it won't let me. I need someone to delete User:CopernicusAD in order to move my page. @ thx User:CopernicusAD or my talk User talk: CopernicusAD :D 16:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of...mostly. There ended up being some...unexpected G6s, but I'm sure they'll disappear soon. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My article was declined: how can I identify the parts I need to change?

Hi there and thank you in advance for the help. I submitted an article for approval but it has been declined because it "included copyrighted content". I wrote all the content - everywhere - for that project, so I need some help in identifying the bits that are considered copywright so I can change them. How can I do that? Fronfin (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fronfin, and welcome to the Teahouse. The copyrighted sections have already been removed, so you can carry on working on the draft (although there isn't much of it left). It's important to note that, even if you wrote the original text, we can't use it if it has already been published elsewhere. You can, however, amend the licence of the site where it initially appeared to allow it to be used under Wikipedia's licence - the instructions on how to do so can be found at Donating copyrighted materials. Alternatively, you can just recreate the page using sourced information and phrasing it in original language. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Yunshui! Fronfin (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

how can edit some semi-secreted articles

some semi-secreted articles like homoeopathy - how we can edit it, because like these articles are written by some criticizer persons without proper informationDrhishamct (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Drhishamct. You should request that a volunteer add the information by posting {{edit semi-protected}} on the article's talk page along with your request. When you do this you should be as specific as possible (for example, Please change 1877 to 1897 because the date is wrong.) and you should include reliable sources to back up the information you would like change.

Broad suggestions like Can someone fix this article because it's biased? or requests that don't include sources that meet, in this case, our exceptionally high standards for medical content will almost certainly not be accepted. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drhishamct. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not compatible with the edits you want to make. You wish to treat patent pseudoscience as if it is not. Whether you disagree with me on whether it is or not is not the issue. The issue is that the majority of mainstream, reliable, high quality, peer reviewed, scientific sources disagree with you, and at Wikipedia we follow what those sources hold. We do not provide a false balance to take into account fringe theories and fringe sources, but strive to give due weight, as reflecting in the world. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a user page: need more details

I started to create a user page and I'm having trouble 1) putting in colors and borders and 2) minimizing the skill badges I've received. I have looked at the instructions for designing a user page and they're not helpful enough for me Dustmouse3 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dustmouse3, welcome to the Teahouse. You could for example place {{collapse top|Wikipedia Adventure badges}} before your badges and {{collapse bottom}} after them like the example below. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure badges
Communicator Copyeditor Neutrality

Hi Dustmouse3. I made a few changes to reduce their size and clean up the display. That could be combined with what is suggested above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thank you Dustmouse3 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Using blogs as sources

Hi, I'm back with another question! Currently I'm working on writing an autism-related article, and I'm aware that citing blogs is generally frowned upon; however, I'm a bit uncertain about blogs of activists who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages (e.g. the blog of Lydia Brown or Amy Sequenzia). Would those be considered sources I could use (albeit not preferred ones), or should I not even cite them as a last resort? - Galactic-Radiance (Talk) 03:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Galactic-Radiance. Definitely a grey area. Activist implies someone with a distinct point of view, so that could be a problem. You are required to represent all mainstream viewpoints. Blogs are generally a poor choice for sourcing due to the lack of editorial oversight. Two types of blogs can be used with a judicious dose of care though. Blogs of recognized reporters hosted on newspaper and magazine websites can be used, as well as blogs from recognized experts in a field of study. Just be careful to choose sources representative of the major viewpoints, and since autism is a medical issue, remember that WP:MEDRS applies. John from Idegon (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of gray areas in the policies here! Thank you for letting me know - I'll keep that (and MEDRS) in mind while looking for sources. - Galactic-Radiance (Talk) 04:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing Title of article. Name of scholar/Jesuit priest

I recently created an article for the American Jesuit priest and Hegel scholar, Quentin Lauer, S.J. I now realize I probably should have written the title as "Quentin Lauer." I instead wrote "Quentin Lauer, S.J." I now think it would be better for the "S.J." (Society of Jesus) to be after his name is first used in the body of the article and not in the title. This seems to be format for all other Jesuits with Wikipedia pages. How do I change the title of the page? Do I need permission to do so?

Johnwhalen (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Normally, you'd use the move tool to change article titles. However, this requires the autoconfirmed flag, which is granted automatically to users after 4 days and 10 edits. Seeing as you don't yet have this flag, I've gone ahead and moved the article for you. Cheers, Kevin12xd 10:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Johnwhalen. We do not use titles or post nominals in Wikipedia. It would be fine to state in the lede that he was a member of the Society of Jesus, but appending the initials SJ to his name would not. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Social Media as a source?

Could I use a tweet as a source, if the account is verified? The Verified Cactus 100% 22:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey The Verified Cactus. With use of sources, it almost always depends on the specific context. Even seemingly extremely reliable secondary sources can be poor sources in certain contexts. For uses like this, where you are looking to apply the exception to the rule, it is even more context-specific In its absence please see WP:TWITTER. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

One context in which social media is generally acceptable is finding out birthdays of notable people. It's often tough to find a birthdate in a more acceptable source. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would take White Arabian Filly's advice with a pinch of salt, VerifiedCactus. Unless it's from a verified account of the subject, I would say that a birth date on social media is pretty well worthless; and even if it is on their own account, celebrities do not always tell the truth about their birth dates. Independent reliable sources are always to be preferred. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that, if you can't find a notable person's birthday anywhere else, and they post on Facebook saying, "Today is my birthday" then it's ok to cite that. I wouldn't trust a fan's post, but finding birthdays can be a huge pain. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, White Arabian Filly. I'd have to disagree with even your last reply, especially for a celebrity. A living person's date of birth just isn't significant enough information to accept their word for it. There are multiple reasons why a person, especially a celebrity might not want their true age known. Unless you have a reliable secondary source, just omit it. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

assignment work

Hello i am a university student and i have an assignment to publish a Wikipedia page of a female leader in our community. I did write a draft but till now there are no reviews that it will be published or no. It has to be done this Friday. Can you help me in publishing this page. MichelleGrace01 (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi MichelleGrace01 and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid your teacher does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a blog where people post articles. The person must already be well-known to have an article as shown by sources such as newspaper articles, books, etc. published by reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Did your teacher offer you any training on writing for an encyclopedia before making the assignment? I am putting a welcome message on your talk page which will have some helpful links about writing articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please ask your teacher to change the wording of the assignment to "write an article in Wikipedia style ..." so that the task is possible within Wikipedia rules. Dbfirs 07:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello can you please view my article in the draft section and give me a feedback if it can be published.

Hoping for a favorable reply. MichelleGrace01 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again MichelleGrace01. The short answer is it cannot be published. The longer answer is that a person who is only locally well-known and had not been written about extensively elsewhere is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Your teacher asked you to do something which cannot be done. I am sorry. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What is and is not appropriate language for a Wikipedia article

Hi, I have been following what looks like the beginning of an editing war, which I do not understand. My general question though, is first of all, is there some reason that just because someone said something, that that something has to be quoted on Wikipedia? The quote I have been following here:Anthony Scaramucci/Politics, seems to be unrelated to anything about this man, ie, totally irrelevant, and to top it off, contains a profanity that should be avoided to the greatest extent possible on an encyclopedia that prides itself on its neutrality. It appears to me that the entire paragraph in which the profanity appears is gratuitously placed there in order to make the subject of the article look bad, ie, does not add anything to our understanding of the subject. Doesn't this violate BLP standards? Pangera (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Pangera. There's two broad principles that come into play here. The first is our policy on verifiability, meaning that the content needs to cited to a reliable source. Our goal is not to present "Truth" per se (capital T, Truth in a philosophical sense), but to present things that are verifiable and thus likely to be true.

The second is our policy on relative weight, meaning that just because something is in fact verifiable, doesn't mean it gets automatically included. It should be verifiable and important. We judge importance based on the relative prominence (not simply existence) in reliable sources.

The first point seems like a go, since it appears to be pretty reliably sourced. So if you wanted to argue that the material shouldn't be included, you have to argue that doing so would be providing undue weight, because the content is presented in only a single or very view sources when compared to coverage of the individual as a whole. TimothyJosephWood 12:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Yes, undo weight seems like a good argument. I wonder what you think about using "common sense" to argue that any reasonable person can see that the entire statement is out of place. It is not connected to anything about the subject, and seems clearly there only to make the subject look bad. I actually disagree with your first point- just because there is a good source for the statement, does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia, this is just common sense. We do not include in a Wiki article everything a person is quoted as having said, even if it appears in the NYTimes. Another point has to do with the profanity involved. I just looked up Wikipedia's policy on profanity, and found this statement: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I believe it is clear that the removal of the offensive statement in the Scaramucci article would not in any way make the article less "informative, relevant, or accurate." Do you think I have a leg to stand on here to remove the paragraph? Thanks so much for allowing me to discuss this with you. I appreciate your time and expertise. Pangera (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

How to change image of a page?

I want to ask you how can we change a title card picture of a drama serial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza590 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hamza590. I'm sorry that your question has gone unanswered so far. I think this might be because it's not entirely clear what you mean by "title card picture". Do you mean an image at the top of an article (perhaps in the infobox, in the top-right)? Could you tell us which article you want to change? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I want to change image on the top left corner of the page. The page is Sasural Simar Ka. Please help me. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza590 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have moved your reply here, Hamza590, so that it is in the same section as your original question. You can change the image by editing the code that currently reads | image = Sasural Simar Ka.png to the name of the image you want to replace it with. If the image isn't already on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, then you will need to upload it. See Wikipedia:Uploading images on this. My understanding is that images from TV programmes can only be used in quite limited circumstances, as discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox government agency

Hi I recently tried to change some names in the infobox for this article Board of Admiralty I added |type = Board so that it reads Board Overview which then changed the officials to Board Executives instead of agency executives however preceding this board was an office it now reads preceding board and superseding this board was another board it now reads superseding agency both of which are not the correct term this government department was consistently changing names of its subsidiary functions and sometimes eventually going back to the original name I would like to know how you can change it or adapt it to included additional options for the following, Board, Branch, Council, Department, Division, Office, Section. You can see another example where its a division and the same problem occurs here: Anti-Submarine Division many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Have I placed this request on the wrong help board?--Navops47 (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Navops47, this is a proper forum for newcomers to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia, but for the life of me, I have no idea what you are asking. Your question is almost all one run-on sentence and it is virtually indecipherable. Sorry. Please re-add with clearer syntax. John from Idegon (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Navops47. If I understand your question correctly, it would require an extension to the definition and implementation of Template:Infobox government agency. I suggest asking the question (perhaps a bit more clearly) on Template Talk:Infobox government agency. If there is no response there, try WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi apology for not making myself clear I'm not that technical and have difficulty explaining myself properly. I think Colin you are correct the solution to my problem is that the current template is restrictive, it does not provide me with the number of options I need to insert correctly either preceding office, branch, division and so on. I also need the same choices for superseding. If you look at the infobox in these two examples Board of Admiralty, Anti-Submarine Division you will see what I mean.--Navops47 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please create article

Where to request creation of an article that I have not found on wikipedia. Serjatt4 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Serjatt4. The place to request an article is WP:Requested articles. But there is quite a backlog, and like everything else this is operated by volunteers, so it is worth you doing a bit of research first. Try and find some reliable published sources, independent of the subject, that cover it in some depth. If you can't find any, then the subject is almost certainly not notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and it is impossible for anybody to write an acceptable article on the subject. If you can find some, then citing them in your request will make it more attractive for somebody to pick up. --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)