Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 657

Archive 650

←

Archive 655

Archive 656

Archive 657

Archive 658

Archive 659

Archive 660

How to list a company

Is there a way to get a company's history and basic information on Wikipedia? Jaclyndeltamobile (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jaclyndeltamobile: Hello and welcome. First, I would say that Wikipedia is not for merely listing information about companies; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is more selective about its content. Wikipedia articles about companies must indicate with independent reliable sources how the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. We are not interested in what a company says about itself, but what third parties state about it. If the company does have independent sources indicating how it is notable, then there can be an article about it.

From your username, I assume you represent a company called Delta Mobile. If you intend to edit about your company, you need to review the conflict of interest policy first. If you work for the company or are otherwise paid by them, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare your paid relationship(that means you can be blocked from editing from Wikipedia if you do not do that). If you truly feel that your company merits an encyclopedic article about it and that it meets the notability guidelines, it is strongly advised that you, as a representative, do not directly write about the company. You can visit Articles for Creation to write and submit a draft for an independent review, but if you just want to tell the world about the company, you will have to find an alternative outlet to do that. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of Mahatma for Mr. Gandhi in wikipedia

Mahatma is a popular title for Gandhi in India. This title means great soul, a praising word away for neutrality and writing it seems someone is favouring the subject but this word is used in wikipedia multiple times. Praising is not allowed in wikipedia, should this word exist in proper wikipedian content? Sinner (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Mahatma Gandhi is his common name in English. We don't use it to praise him but because we want English speaking readers to know who we are talking about. I know him as Mahatma Gandhi and had no idea what the name meant. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter, the confusion has come to end. Sinner (talk)

Exactly. WP:COMMONNAME can have that effect, not often, but it happens. U Thant is another example. The purpose is simply to make it more likely that the english-speaking reader understands who the article is talking about, and Mohandas Gandhi is less well known. If you look at the Mahatma Gandhi article, you'll see that almost all of the Mahatmas appears in quotes and things named after him, and removing those Mahatmas would obviously be wrong. Similarly, if there´s a quote in a WP-article that says "Muhammad, peace be upon him", we would not remove the "peace be upon him". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, would that what you say about peace be upon him was allowed here but please read WP:PBUH#Muhammad. Sinner (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång was referring to wording within a quote. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, look at the first sentence at WP:PBUH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Femto thanks for all of you, Sinner (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

And one thing more, should Mahatma be written when Mahatma Gandhi has been mentioned before and reader understands here Gandhi means Mahatma Gandhi? For example "Mahatma Gandhi is founding father of India. On 30 March 1948, Gandhi was shot died by ..." in second sentence, it is clear Gandhi means Mahatma Gandhi. Sinner (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In general yes, at least that is my thinking. One exception can be if other Gandhis are mentioned in the same section, then you might need the whole name for clarity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Meaning I agree with your example, Mahatma first, then just Gandhi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Need help posting the Joseph H. Beasley Page

I am new to Wikipedia space. I need help with editing and launching my page. Any suggestions.JendayiLareine8 18:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JendayiLareine8 (talk • contribs)

@JendayiLareine8: Hello and welcome. I have put the appropriate template on your draft so you can submit it; however before you do that I would suggest reviewing Your First Article to get an idea of what is being looked for. I suspect that if reviewed you would be asked to tone down some of the complimentary language in the article such as "celebrated throughout North America"(unless you have evidence of this, I've never heard of this person) "extraordinary service", as well as unencyclopedic language like "It was during this phase of his life that Beasley began to set high expectations and committed himself to a life of service" which is impossible to verify. Additionally, links to other Wikipedia articles should be added(which you can do by placing the target page's title in double brackets like this: [[Page name here]]). This person may merit an article, but I think more work needs to be done. Good luck 331dot (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Im a new user trying to add a photo to a page not created by me but about me.

hi, im a new user and im trying to edit my Wikipedia page. i am an artist and the page was set up by my old manager. im trying to edit the page but i dont seem to have the option to add a photo. ive been a user a week now and have made more than 10 edits. please could somebody help me, id really appreciate it, thankyou THEKTNA (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@THEKTNA: Hello and welcome. I would first note that the page is not "your page"; it is a Wikipedia article that is about you. No one owns any article here, even the subject. I would also note that editing your own article directly is highly discouraged, though not forbidden(and adding an appropriate photo is probably OK). Please review that page if you haven't already. I'm not knowledgeable enough about adding images to know why it isn't working for you. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, THEKTNA. Adding images is done in two stages, and is quite complicated because of copyright. The copyright holder (who is probably not you, unless it was produced under a contract that says you do own it) must explicitly release it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA (which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose), or it will not be permitte in Wikipedia. Please see WP:Uploading images for the ins and outs of copyright and the process of uploading; once an image has been uploaded it can be used on a page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion references our own website as proof of copyright infringement...?

I simply saved a page and got a "speedy deletion" notice citing our own website as copyright infridgement. To be honest, I was trying to start the page in the Sandbox...not sure why it didn't go there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Freedom_Coalition Calfree (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Even in your sandbox, copyright violation is not permitted. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Calfree. I am sorry, but I have deleted the article you wrote. I understand that the source is your own website, but your website is copyrighted, and we do not allow copyrighted content anywhere on Wikipedia, including sandbox pages. Brief quotations are allowed, in quotation marks or formatting in a way that makes it clear that it is a quote, and if it is properly referenced. But quotes should be a small percentage of the content you add here. Write original prose which summarizes what reliable sources unaffiliated with your group say about it. Use the Articles for Creation process, since you have a conflict of interest. Read and study Your first article. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict Welcome, Calfree. There are two ways to address the copyright violation issue. The first way would be to post a notice on your website where the material you copied appears stating that it is either under a CC-BY-SA license or in the public domain (either would grant anyone, anywhere, the right to use that text; the CC-BY-SA option would just require anyone using the text to link back to your website) — but you would still have to cite every copied sentence or paragraph to its source. The second, preferred way is for you to rephrase the vast majority of the text in your own words, with maybe a few phrases such as part of a mission statement kept as direct quotations — but again, everything would have to be cited to its sources.

Before you get started on that, however, there is an equally serious issue, and that is notability (click here to learn about the special sense this term is used in on Wikipedia). Every article on Wikipedia is expected to cite a minimum of three sources which are each independent of the article's subject (so your own website doesn't count), published in reliable sources (click here to learn how reliability is determined for Wikipedia purposes), and which cover the article subject in some detail — more than a passing mention. If there are not multiple independent, published, reliable sources to cite in the article about your organization, then there cannot (yet) be an article about it on Wikipedia.

Finally, there is the issue of conflict of interest (click here to find Wikipedia's guidelines regarding editors associated with the subject of an article). If anyone at your organization is a paid employee and wishes to edit an article about the organization, they must also comply with Wikipedia's paid editing policy (click here for details). You should be aware that Wikipedia username policy (click) forbids shared accounts (i.e. only one human may edit Wikipedia using a given username), and also forbids usernames implying shared use, such as... Calfree; however, a username such as "Leslie at Calfree" is acceptable.

I'm aware this may seem a bit overwhelming, but I wanted to make you aware of the issues at hand as soon as possible. You are more than welcome to ask further questions about anything you don't understand, and to ask for help creating an acceptable article (assuming you can clear the notability hurdle). —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

GrammarFascist: Thank you for the thorough response. It is all becoming much clearer now! The CFC is 100% non profit, volunteer, no one gets paid. We have been covered in numerous articles on LAWeekly, BusinessInsider, Sacbee, AP and others. They are real articles by real journalists, I have spoken to many of them personally. I will add the references (when I re-create the page). There is another group doing something similar and they have a Wikipedia page...so I think we should have notability. Please comment if you don't think so.

2602:30A:2C3F:760:A041:5BD4:4096:A4B9 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Cullen, I think I understand now. Will re-create and address the issues. I did read the First Story article several times...a lot to digest :)

2602:30A:2C3F:760:A041:5BD4:4096:A4B9 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Information boxes

I've made a edit to the Zee World article in the Coming Soon section, but it's appearing in the References section. Can somebody help me with this? I don't want my edit to be reverted. Cheers. :)

When life gives you lemons... (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue was that the table tag for the 'Coming Soon' section was left open. I have closed the tag, which appears to have resolved the issue. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for solving the issue, it looks much better now. Cheers :D Axcii (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: "The template Infobox organization is being considered for merging"

PLEASE keep information boxes active, as they are an excellent go-to and keep articles structured, IMO. Thank you! Ybram24 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Creation

How do you create an article? I would also like to ask for some help on an article.Jak474 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jak474: Hello and welcome. I would first caution you that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. I would suggest first reviewing Your First Article for some tips and then using the Article Wizard. If you want to ask for help on an existing article, you can post to its talk page; click "Talk" at the top of the article to access it. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

page deletion

Hello! The page I updated has been deleted due to unambiguous advertising or promotion. Why is the page completely deleted instead of deleting my updates only? I could have easily deleted any info which administrators may consider promotional if I knew what is wrong. I have no idea what looks promotional and would like to know it, as well as the page undeleted. I have already contacted the administrator, but have no reply so far. What else can I do to solve the issue? Thank you. Katerina 198109 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Katerina 198109: Hello and welcome. I'm not sure which page you are referring to; since you say you only updated it(as opposed to creating it) I assume it is not the page listed on your user talk page. If you could give the name of the page it would be helpful. Whether you created the page or not, if it was tagged with a speedy deletion tag and an administrator feels that the claimed criteria is met, it can be deleted without delay. It doesn't matter who created it or edited it or how many people edited it(although a page that has been around longer is less likely to be speedy deleted). Since I cannot see it I can't tell you what the issue was(though an administrator can, either the one who deleted it or another who can look at the deleted page) except to say generally that the deleting administrator must have felt it was promotional. If you feel that the speedy deletion was in error you can request a Deletion Review, though I would first contact the deleting administrator to see what their explanation is. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Than you. The page is Yuri Gurski. I did not create the page, but just made a few updates with reliable sources. Katerina 198109 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you got notified of the speedy deletion of Yuri Gurski if you didn't create it, as that notice typically goes to the creator. Did you move the page from one title to another? (that would make you the "creator" of the new page even if you didn't start it) Again, without seeing it I can't say specifically, but generally speaking based on my experience the sources you added must not have indicated how the person was notable per notability guidelines or were only basic mentions without the in depth coverage needed. If they were press releases or some other sort of announcement, that would not establish notability and could be seen as promotional.

Looking at the deletion log of the page(which you can see by clicking the link to the article on your user talk page), it appears that the page was speedy deleted twice, once for being promotional, and the last time at the request of the page creator. Perhaps the page creator decided the subject did not merit an article or had some other reason for wanting to delete it. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Company's Page

Hello! 'd like to create a page for my company but it keeps rejecting my articles. I've seen other real states companies with wikipedia pages. Why cant I have my own? Please kindly inform. THank you! Paolaeb (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Paolaeb: Hello and welcome. I would first tell you that if the company is your company, then you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest; please review that link, but in short that means that you are likely too close to the subject to edit about it objectively. Please note that Wikipedia is not social media for every company to get a page. Wikipedia is more selective about its content; not every company merits a page here, even in the same field. All articles about companies must indicate with independent reliable sources how the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Please review them. If you have reviewed the notability criteria and truly feel that your company merits a page, you should create one using Articles for Creation; this is likely the only way you will be permitted to edit about your own company. I would stress that Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about your company, but for telling with a neutral point of view how it is notable.

As I state above, please review the conflict of interest policy before you edit further, you will also need to review and comply with the paid editing policy if it is your company. Doing the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid to edit Wikipedia or doing so as part of your job. That means that you would be prevented from editing if you failed to comply with the paid editing policy. I don't mean to sound harsh but these are important policies. If you have further questions, please post them here. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm in trouble inserting Authors on citations

I'm in trouble inserting Authors on citations Francesco Galli (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Francesco Galli and welcome to the Teahouse.

Can you describe in somewhat more detail what difficulty you are having inserting authors on citations? Is someone else undoing your work? Or are you getting error messages when you preview the page? Which editing interface are you using? One thing to be aware of is that the lastest versions of the citation templates prefer to have authors listed one by one with first and last names separate:

first1=Richard|last1=Strunk|first2=E B|last2=White

. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Updating Living Artist Page - at his request

I am new to editing wiki and have been asked by a living artist to update his page.

How best to expedite this process, and is there a direct approval I can get from Admin to do this? The artist is available to confirm his intent to update.

Please advise.

Thanks!

HansGrenade (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you don't need admin approval to begin editing, just go to the page and press the edit button, may I suggest doing this to acquaint you with the basics. EvilxFish (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Though you don't need admin approval, what you do need is references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to support your changes. We are not interested in what the subject says about himself, but only in what independent reliable sources have published about him. If you are updating at his request, please read about conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, HansGrenade. I'm afraid that your artist friend is making the very common mistake of supposing that he has any kind of responsibility, ownership, or control, over Wikipedia's article about him. He does not, either in person or through his friends. He, and you, are welcome to suggest improvements to the article, by posting them on the article's Talk page, but it is a consensus of uninvolved editors who decide what goes into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David B.

HansGrenade (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

creating a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon page

Dear Wikipedia, I want to host a month long edit-a-thon for Native American Heritage month. I work at a state college library, so I have access to reference materials, computers, and snacks. I just want to make it "official" by creating an event page. Where can I begin? wikisbaldiviaWikisbaldivia (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikisbaldivia. You can begin by contacting the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Native Americans and reading Wikipedia:Edit-a-thon. I'm not sure where a page like you are talking about would go. Maybe you can work on it in your sandbox and then move it to mainspace later. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I handle hostile senior members?

I joined Wikipedia the other day because I was reading through a current events article and though that one of the sections needed clarification. So I made an account and posed the question in the talk section. Other users politely explained why the clarification wasn't a good idea and even suggested trimming it down. But one user started being belligerent towards me. I will admit that after he told me I had "hilariously ignorant assumptions" I poked the bear a little, but I thought it would make him see his hostility. It only made him more hostile and snide. I know I could have handled it better but I'm still getting used to the WikiTone, but I feel the treatment I was given was unwarranted.

I know that this shouldn't be the tone of wikipedia, and that I shouldn't be afraid to say something to an admin without fear of a more senior member being vindictive, but the "newby" area seems to be the only place where I can voice this. What is the proper avenue for either seeing what I can do better to contribute or voicing my complaints? GhostJackal (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just noting that, judging from Ghostjackal's talk page, the matter seems to have been resolved. But you should feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further issues you encounter, Ghostjackal, as well as if I misread your conversation with the other editor. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can other wikipedia pages be used a references?

I wanted to know if I could replace a citation needed for a date if it is accepted in a another Wikipedia article. It's not a major edit so I wasn't sure if it was acceptable or not. Matz44 (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Matz44: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. This is intentional. Find the source for the date in the second article and cite the source used in that article in the first one. If there is no source, then tag the date in the second article with a citation needed tag as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I still submit a draft for review if it requires administrator approval due to its previous repeat recreations?

The CEO of our company has asked me to fix his personal wikipedia page as it has been removed on account of violating Wikipedia's WP:PROMO and COI policies. I've rewritten the page in accordance with those policies but am unable to directly create it as it has been tried so many times that it now requires Admin access to be created at all. What do I do...I have the draft already prepared. The page is ANDREA IERVOLINO.

Mackenzie.wong (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you asked but I think there is too many external links in the article. It also reads in a way that could be considered either promotional or distasteful. I mean... "...and was anointed the President of Ischia Global Film and Music Fest..." Anointed the President? I think there's been some confusion between systems. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mackenzie.wong: Hello and welcome. If you are editing Wikipedia at the request of your CEO, you will need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies before you edit further. Doing the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are editing Wikipedia as part of your job. I would also note that Wikipedia articles are not owned by their subjects(i.e. "his personal Wikipedia page"), but are about their subjects. This is also not social media like LinkedIn for company executives or businesspeople to have pages or post their resumes; Wikipedia is more selective about its content.

Looking at the deletion log, I see that the page was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion(located here) which means that you cannot recreate the page unless you address the reasons the page was deleted. I see that you have written a draft in draft space; if you submit it for review it will be looked at to see if the issues have been resolved, but you must comply with the policies I describe above first. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, if the page reviewer decides that the draft is acceptable, they will contact an administrator(if the page reviewer is not one themselves) to help move the page into the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still working on fixing the lingo to make it as neutral as possible. Too many external links or too many external citations? I've disclosed who I am, my employer, and the client as the policy requires in the Talk section. Is there another step? Sorry, I'm a new editor...

Mackenzie.wong (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it; you may also want to add it to your user page. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mackenzie.wong: External links. External citations are a good thing; they show notability in unaffiliated sources. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Great thanks. My original question really pertained more to the fact that the creation of the page was protected by Admin access - would contacting the admin responsible speed up the reviewing process at all? I'm on a bit of a deadline

Mackenzie.wong (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. I don't know who the admin in question is but unless you stumble upon a few thousand pots of gold and/or have magical persuasion powers, no admin is going to care about any deadline that you're on for your company. I'm sorry, but it's really not in the core interests of Wikipedia to meet your deadline. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Mackenzie.wong, something you may have overlooked is that all articles also need to comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Practically speaking what this means is that you need at least three reliable sources, each independent of Mr. Iervolino, which each cover him in some depth — more than a sentence or two. You have one excellent such source already cited (this Toronto Star article), but I didn't see any other independent sources in Draft:Andrea Iervolino with nearly as much detail. So... you might want to show your boss this essay about deadlines and Wikipedia. All that said, you're still welcome to bring any future questions you may have here to the Teahouse. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Mackenzie.wong, I am an administrator and there is no way that I would approve your draft article in its current form. Several paragraphs are unreferenced, which raises red flags. Please provide a reference for every substantive assertion in the draft, or remove those assertions. You have external links in the body of the draft, which is not acceptable. Remove them. The claim that he is a "philanthropist" raises a red flag for me. Is every person who donates to charity and helps organize charitable events a "philathropist"? If so, I am a philathropist but do not think of myself that way. I checked a few of your references about him being a philanthropist, and they do even mention him. Remove all references that do not mention him. They are worthless. You need to provide a very high quality reliable independent source describing this person's philanthropy. Otherwise, remove all mention of him as a philanthropist. His main claim to notability seems to be as a film producer. Please be aware that not all producers are notable, since they are often wealthy behind-the-scenes figures who provide funding for films but receive little significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It is your obligation to provide those sources. Quality is much more important than quantity when it comes to establishing notability. What are your three best sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Company's name

Thank you very much for your response! I forgot to mention it is not my company. I work for it, and we would like to have information regarding our history, projects, and team. I also wanted to change my username, so it shows the company's name instead of mine, but it was also rejected. Paolaeb (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paolaeb. Such usernames are not allowed. To be clear, you can have a username that represents you as an individual but shows your affiliation with a company, such as Paolaeb at Prodigy Network but a username like "Prodigy Network" would violate both WP:CORPNAME and WP:ISU. Meanwhile, I have left you messages at your talk page regarding misuse of Wikipedia for advertising and the posting of copyright violations. More importantly, the last message I left at your talk page is a final warning. Do not edit further until you comply with mandatory editing disclosure, which I describe how to comply with there. It's really not difficult, but it is not optional.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that the thread above is also from you and that you've received some of the same information there. It's often best to keep conversations in the same place.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As 331dot mentioned, Paolaeb, if you work for the company you must comply with our paid editing policy, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It is not permitted to have a company name as a username, as that would imply that multiple people were sharing the account (which is also not permitted), but you could probably change your username to "[your name] at [company name]". —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please understand, Paolaeb, that you and your company have essentially no role in maintaining a Wikipedia article about your company. You are welcome to suggest improvements to the article (preferably with citations to independent published sources) but the decision as to what to do with those suggestions is entirely out of your hands. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How can I add a non-free Scout logo to the List of William T. Hornaday Award Gold Medal recipients page

The pre-existing William T. Hornaday Awards page includes an approved image of all of the awards, combined into a bit of a collage, in a single file. I would love to include a derivative of that file... simply by cropping out the image that matches the content of the "List of... recipients" page and then posting the thumb on the page. The viewer is intended to see the image of the medal while reading through the list of recipients.

If the original content o the image is controlled, I understand that it cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia... which (unless I am more confused) means that I have no place to list the {{Non-free Scout logo|BPSA}} tag.

How do I upload the image straight to the Wikipedia article and properly include the tag that is necessary? Can I do that if the image is clearly a small sample from a previously approved image?B93 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, B93. Non-free images must be uploaded to Wikipedia, not to Commons. But their use must meet all the criteria in the WP:non-free content criteria, and I'm dubious that this use will meet all of these. I may be wrong, though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your response, ColinFine. ...But I am still confused. Does this mean, then, that the list cannot have a visual image to show as reference for the reader as they read the list? I guess I am suggesting that you really haven't answered the question, sufficiently. An earlier page - the main page for the history of the subject (which was written by someone else), already has an image attached to it. Again, I am questioning if a cropped version of the same, previously posted image (from another contributor) is appropriate. It would be a derivative work from a previously permitted image. If that is not acceptable, then is the original image authorized in the other article?

I am seeking the "how to" instruction for doing it right. I don't want to violate copyright law or open Wikipedia for lawsuit of unlawfully allowing a controlled image to be posted. The image in question is a low-res image of a medal that is awarded by the BSA. One could argue, as it is with any other numismatic, that once the medal is issued into the public sphere, a simple educational record of what it looks like is or can be strictly intended for educational use. ...which is certainly my intent for including it in the Wikipedia article. The image I would post is a low-res image that otherwise confirms to Wikipedia's requested guidelines.

Please advise further. --B93 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, B93. The criteria in WP:NFCC are, I believe, stronger than the law requires. The criterion I was referring to obliquely was "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." The logo of an organisation is often used in this way in articles about the organisation; I am less sure that this is met in an article about a whole load of awards. But that is a judgment call. The "how to" is given in WP:Uploading images. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Many thanks. I appreciate your candor on this. I will see if I can figure this out somehow. Thanks for doing what you do.B93 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Related question and follow-up... If the legally licensed, trademarked, and otherwise controlled logo is the sticking point, what is you opinion on excluding that (just the logo) in the image? (Luckily, we are not talking about a logo that considered divisive, but I want to be respectful.) The BSA logo is a tiny part of the design for this numismatic. My thought is that a generic fleur-de-lis could be tastefully superimposed over the BSA logo, and resolve that problem. Am I trying to force a square peg into a round hole?B93 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does one upload a non-free logo

Hello, I need to upload a non-free logo for our radio station to wikipedia. Where do I do this? KENW-Mike (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey KENW-Mike. You can request the image be uploaded at WP:FFU. It's pretty backlogged at the moment, but I plan on working through the list of pending requests over the next week or so. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy, is there a place for registered users with the required number of edits to upload the file using the "Non-free use rationale" template? KENW-Mike (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're on a computer in desktop view...Scroll to the top of any page, look in the 'Tools' section on the left, and you'll see 'Upload file' - X201 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks X201, got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENW-Mike (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, good on you KENW-Mike. You seem to have figured it out pretty well on your own (no small feat actually). I would just add that since the logo consists only of text and simple geometric shapes, it can be uploaded to Commons under Template:PD-logo. This can be easily done by using Commons Helper (just make sure to click the Authorization link). That way it can potentially be used by Wikipedias in every available language, and not just in English. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy, I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENW-Mike (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Need a opinion

I just published a page translated from the French Wikipedia. The English version is Mohamed Abdennour (Ptit Moh). It used a way of linking to pages about records that I haven't encountered and that I kept. A message from a bot appeared, "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." I guess I can convert all to refs, but want to be sure that the way that I did it isn't ok.Jacqke (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The message wasn't from a bot, but from this edit by User:PRehse. It certainly looks as if your article does include external links outside the External links section. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok , I misread the history. I liked the way it looked but will get them turned into refs. Thank you'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqke (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jacqke: hello! I noticed that in your first edit on the page you correctly attributed the material you translated to the original article – and very diligently included the revision number! I have added this information into the template {{Translated|fr|Ptit Moh|version=139603212|insertversion=795513537}} on the talk page, which is a little easier for other editors to spot. (The numbers are the respective versions of the original and translated page.) Please keep-up the good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I appreciate it. This was my first translation done that way and I hadn't encountered that tag before. Thank you!Jacqke (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jacqke: I've done copy edit on a couple dozen translated articles, and attributing to the original was often overlooked (and may technically be plagiarism). You noted it in the edit summary which is the important part. Adding the translated template is then just a cleanup issue. Nobody is expected to know about all of these templates, but it's handy if you plan on doing more translating. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Questions (Rhetorical)

I would like to ask some questions about the process for deleting articles. These are probably rhetorical questions, because I am almost certain that I know the answers. However, some editors may benefit from having the answers restated tediously. First, is having spent considerable time working on a page a reason not to delete it? Second, is the desire of one's employer to make the page available to the public who may be interested a reason not to delete it? Third, is it useful to explain to the editor who tagged the page for deletion, on their user talk page, why the page should not be deleted? Fourth, is a request please not to delete something useful in general?

Now, first, I think that the time spent on the article is just a sunk cost, and that notability and neutrality, not time spent, are considered. Second, I perversely think that the desire of one's employer does make a difference, but only in that it makes it more likely that the page will be deleted, but that is only my opinion. Third, I don't think that the reviewer's talk page is the right place to make the argument. (The article talk page, for CSD, or the deletion page, for AFD, are good places to make the case.)

Maybe one or two editors may be paying attention. Maybe this isn't just preaching to a choir. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A nice list of FAQs. We should put that somewhere so we can point to it as needed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all the opinions you express in your second paragraph. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I agree that a FAQ page is a good idea, and these questions are a good start; maybe it could be an essay?

• 1. Unfortunately, amount of time spent on an article is irrelevant if the topic isn't notable. Neutrality, however, should be fixable if there are sources to demonstrate notability.
• 2. I have also noticed that many editors are more inclined to delete articles (and decline drafts) if they are aware that someone who is, or is connected to, the article's subject wants the article to stay on Wikipedia; I think this is unfortunate, as we should focus on the content and base our judgments on that.
• 3. I agree that the reviewer's talk page is not the ideal place to make arguments regarding deletion (or AfC review), but after an article has been deleted, there's no longer an article talk page for such arguments to be made on. I am not aware of a better location, aside from deletion review.
• 4. Politeness is always preferable to the alternative, and certainly a politely-worded request ("Please don't delete article X") is preferable to a demand ("Don't delete article X"); attempts at collegiality are to be encouraged. That said, however, no amount of politeness can overcome strong reasons for deletion (or decline) such as lack of demonstrable notability or copyright infringment.

Thanks for engaging us in this semi-rhetorical discussion with you. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Red links

Hello! I am a relatively new user. Not long ago, I wrote Blagaj Castle (Croatia). Shortly after writing it, some semi-automated edits were made to it that made me rethink my knowledge of red link usage. I have re-added the red links that I intend to create articles for in the future, leaving the rest. I was wondering if a more experienced editor could review the article, including the previous version, and give me any suggestions on red link usage for the future? Note: I am aware of most other shortcomings. Inatan (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Inatan, and thank you for your contributions. As Wikipedia's red-link policy states, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." You say you are aware of other issues with the article you mentioned, but I'm not sure you understand that that article is in serious danger of being deleted due to its current reliance on a single source. Although policy does not say so explicitly, in practice articles are expected to cite a minimum of three reliable sources which are each independent of the subject.

Back to your question: Your use of red links in Blagaj Castle (Croatia) is consistent with policy so long as there exist multiple independent reliable sources from which to construct the missing articles. That's not to say a bot (or a human) might not delink them again between now and when you create the new articles. If that happens, you could post on the article's talk page regarding the links so as not to run afoul of Wikipedia policy on repeated reverts. As always, feel free to return to the Teahouse should you have any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Inatan. I would not generalize from the other user's removal of the red links. I don't know what the very new user RajkGuj was thinking when he or she did so, because the edit summary left was fairly opaque, but red links are important to invite creation for topics that you think are clearly notable ones that do not yet have articles. It is also not at all uncommon for people new to Wikipedia to view red links as some kind of error that needs to be fixed (well, they do need to be "fixed", but by being turned blue by creation, rather than by removal). I have not done any research to learn whether the bulk of red links you had included do in fact warrant articles, but place locations, such as Smrčković, are likely to warrant them. Many well known castles would also. One thing to keep in mind is that in order to create highly effective red links, the correct title of the inchoate article should be used, which will get more accurate the more you become familiar with Wikipedia:Article titles (I am not at all implying you did not do so here, just mentioning it). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, both for the clarification! Sometimes policy articles get confusing, and it helps to hear from editors who understand how they work in practice.

For the above-mentioned issue, I placed a banner over the "references" section warning the reader that the article relies primarily on this source not long after creating it. I added some information from two other sources an hour ago just in case (now that the article is receiving more editor traffic from being placed here), but I am afraid that without a trip to the library there will be no additional major sources to corroborate my work (O, the state of Balkan digitisation!). The article is written on a minor [yet notable] geographical location, and Radoslav Lopašić (a 19th century medievalist with a reputation for being non-partisan) relied almost entirely on primary sources. So I think it should be good for now.

Once again, thank you! Inatan (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit for noticing and for explaining the real essence of red links. I will remember not to make this error again. RajkGuj (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

we received some warnings and some of our edits were removed

Our WIKI page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Center_for_Population_and_Development_Studies

We started it in January and then made some edits to it recently. Several rounds of the edits were removed and we received a notification that there were multiple issues (that we might be too close to the subject). We are a research center and we did indeed create this page about our center, it's history, etc. I would like to be able to add back in the edits that were removed, but don't want to do this and have them removed again. Do you have any suggestions on how we could improve the page and how we should proceed? Hcpds (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hcpds: Hi there, I've had a chance to review the article. There are few main issues that are important to understand in this situation:

• There is an expectation that topics covered on English Wikipedia will have some coverage in independent sources. Currently, the sources in the article are from the Center's own publications or from Harvard University generally, neither of which fit the criteria for an independent source. Are there any other publications not associated with Harvard that discuss the work or history of the center? If not, the article may not be appropriate for inclusion on English Wikipedia.
• Editors generally shouldn't be writing articles that they are directly associated with, such as their workplace. This guideline is to help keep articles neutral; articles about an organization written by folks involved with those organizations generally carry some promotional overtones that aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. For folks who find themselves in this position, it's usually better to wait for someone else to write the article and make suggestions on the article's talk page for changes in content (with appropriate sources) and work with uninvolved editors to make desired changes. In this case, as the article has been written already, I'd recommend using the article talk page to make suggestions from now on.
• We actually don't permit usernames than imply shared use by an entire organization, but I'll get in touch with you on your talk page about changing it before moving forward on these other issues.

I'll also take a look into what independent sources might be available to summarize the organization. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I create a page?

I've tried before but it doesn't work (I didn't have my account at the time). I tried making the pages , Mini Psycho Clown , Mascara Divina , Dinastia , Niño Hamburguesa , Big Mami , Venum (second version) , Ludxor (second version) , Argos , Ludxor (first version) , Lady Shani , Stuka , Mascára Maligna , Mamba (wrestler) , Polvo del Estrellas , Yuriko , May Flowers (wrestler) and the CMLL 84'th Anniversary Show (also tried to recreate the page Australian Suicide) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantherfan243 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC) ,

Hi Pantherfan243. First you have to find sources on the subject, like newspapers or magazine articles, and rewrite what they say in your own words. This is easier to do in your sandbox or draftspace than mainspace. See Wikipedia:Your first article. You have a lot of subjects above, but it will be easier to work on them one at a time if you choose to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. You're correct in thinking that IP addresses can't directly create articles. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Notabilty

At what point is an article notable? It would seem that two sources are sometimes enough. yet other editors will argue for deletion with 8 or 9 good references. what is the consensus on this, and why is there no way of finding what the past consensus on something is, or am I missing some archive where they get filed? A Guy into Books (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aguyintobooks. (I like and am well described by your username.) There is no simple formula to assess notability, and the mere number of sources cited or in existence is a very gross measure that tells you little. The issues redound to, non-exclusively, the reliability of the sources, whether they are primary and independent or secondary (or tertiary), their depth of coverage, the manner of coverage, whether the coverage is direct or indirect, other sui generis matters that will depend on context, and sometime the type of topic (e.g., what is considered reliable may depend [example: sources for an article on an actor, versus sources for an article on a medical topic], and whether, even though there are secondary and independent sources cited, it is just a brief bursts of news coverage, etc.). In sum, the assessment of a topic's notability is always highly contextual and not a counting exercise. Some oft-seen matters:

• 40 primary, non-independent sources cited = no evidence of notability provided whatever, because—notability is about the world taking note of the topic by writing about it independent of the topic.
• 40 secondary, independent sources cited, but that merely mention the topic in passing = saying that this provides " "no" evidence of notability whatever" is not quite right, but it's not far off, and if this is coupled with no other sources appearing to exist that treat the topic in some substantive detail, it may actually be thought of as evidence of lack of notability.

  In short, when we see such "mere mention sourcing", it is taken as a badge of a non-notable topic, that needs to be overcome. (It also implies a profound misunderstanding of sourcing by the person placing them, as if sourcing is some name checking exercise for their probably original-research-filled, anecdotal write-up, rather than content composed based on what sources actually sustain, which is how it should have been written in the first place.) We need sources to exist that actually cover a topic in some depth, from which an article can be written with verifiable content.

• A common problem with both of the circumstances above is that, if there are good sources actually present among such large numbers of useless-for-demonstrating-notability sources, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess the topic's demonstration of notability. (See citation overkill in that regard.)

I think if you listed some of the specific pages you came across that prompted your post—where you saw the seeming contradiction in interpretation of notability in application—that concreteness would likely anchor a more nuanced discussion of this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

that is very well explained, i think the general confusion i had was trying to find a concrete rule in what is very much a discretionary matter. I am reasonably new to Wikipedia but have noticed in the Afd area lots of 'argument'. to quote some, there was this Afd which clearly was notable, although several people didn't initially think it was. and then this Afd where the subject has ~200 references on google, but nothing that could prove notability (I'm pretty sure it will be deleted or stubified). all this is combined with the guidelines that someone put some effort into making nicely ambiguous. I think i have some idea whats going on, i'm sure it will be more obvious over time. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: I can see why the first notability discussion you cite might have been confusing. One of the issues that cropped up early there was lack of compliance with WP:BEFORE. In a nutshell what people were saying by invoking that is to the effect of: "I don't think we should even consider whether this is notable or not, because the person who nominated it did not do basic due diligence to try to check for sources themselves, before nominating".

In this regard you may already understand this but it can be a point of confusion—especially since it is not true of CSD A7/A9/A11 (or of other speedy criteria) which are often conflated with notability but is true of notability—which is that notability does not turn on what is currently in an article, but regards the merits of the topic itself for having an article. So the existence of sources (and their depth, quality, etc.), out in the world, should be the sole focus, but you'll see this misunderstanding cropping up in many AfDs. (That is, when the notability deletion discussion is about sourcing and not some other notability ground provided at one of the subject-specific notability guidelines [all of which I would trash and think are a great detriment to the project and to sane administration and to honoring verifiability which is supposedly non-negotiable <even though I wrote WP:BK; which I would trash too>].)

Anyway, because of this, if you are going to nominate an article for deletion based on lack of the existence of sources for a given topic, you are expected to run some basic checks first, such as a Google Books search so that you are not going to waste the community's time with a nomination that might be one that cannot succeed, and one that does not start with the benefit for everyone of presenting the results of a sources check.

There are also quite a few opinions there from users whose !votes were completely un-moored from guideline and policy and so added a lot of noise to the discussion. And for another, some people gave their opinion before more sourcing was found, so what was at issue changed at a point, but with the prior opinions still present. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How to avoid being blocked

How can I avoid being blocked? I don't understand the Blocking Policy.Monosodium23 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Monosodium23: Hello and welcome. What specifically do you not understand about it? Unless you are out to get blocked, I wouldn't worry about it. As long as you act in good faith and work with other editors, you should be fine. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!Monosodium23 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Monosodium23. Simple. Edit with common sense (which for many people will avoid even a hint of ever being even threatened with a block, without any need to ever read a single policy or guideline). Still, some familiarity would be a good step to know what to avoid doing, so I suggest taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial and then reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia.

If you do run afoul of some policy or guideline, and receive some type of warning, try hard to understand the issue and read the underlying policy or guideline so you can avoid the pitfall. We do not casually block people from editing, and we mostly only do so when they continue to engage in the same improper behavior after multiple warnings for it.

Low hanging fruit: Don't vandalize; don't edit war and read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; don't post copyright violations; don't harrass anyone; try not to be a dick. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How to report threats

How does Wikipedia deal with threats such as this? 32.218.44.128 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I've just alerted emergencywikimedia.org regarding this material. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Attention to references

Hi. I took TRIM14 from the GOCE list of articles needing copy edit and improved the grammar of the article. There is a long list of references below. Would I want to improve the format of these scientific journal publications? Many thanks, Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Myrtlegroggins: The formatting for the references looks well enough to me. In general, a single citation format should be adopted for any given article, and it looks consistent to me. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks again, Myrtlegroggins (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding an artist or actor

After adding an actor to Wikipedia with imdb sourcing their credits, I was told it was deleted for lack of sourcing. Since it seems like IMDb seems to be the major source to verify an actor, and many pages I see are only sourced with IMDb, what other source I guess would one need and why is IMDb enough for some actors?Rmmaas (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rmmaas, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you've stumbled across one of the frustrating things about Wikipedia: the fact that other articles with the same or worse problems exist does not mean that the article under discussion is exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Lots of people create articles, and new articles that have serious issues (such as lack of reliable, independent sourcing) often pass unnoticed for some time. Other times a new article will be noticed, and flagged for deletion, very soon after creation.

In any case, IMDB is not a reliable source. But... if you can find a few reliable sources that are independent of the actor and that cover him in some detail, you can use those sources to recreate an article about him. If you can't find such sources, then that actor isn't yet ready to have a Wikipedia article about him. Feel free to return here with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I would add that IMDB is not a reliable source largely because it is user-editable; it's the same reason Wikipedia is not a reference for other Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)