Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 735

Archive 730

←

Archive 733

Archive 734

Archive 735

Archive 736

Archive 737

→

Archive 740

personal interview

Luvtoteachart (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)So, I am writing wiki pages on the founding members of AIR Gallery. For some of the women, there is almost nothing. In fact, a few of my new pages were shut down because of information. One of the founding members, Susan Williams, should have a wiki page - but there is very little written about her. I reached out to Barbara Zucker and asked her for some biographical information on Susan. She generously provided this information. Now, how do I cite this interview? as you can see from this interview - there was nothing written about women artists during the time Susan was working. https://vimeo.com/27435656Luvtoteachart (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You may not "cite" the interview, since it is not a published, reliable source. Please read No original research. General Ization ^Talk 14:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Luvtoteachart, that "there is very little written about her" is pretty well a definition of "not notable" (in the special Wikipedia sense of the word). This is not a statement about her importance or influeance, just a recognition that unless there is substantial material about her that is reliably published, and indendent of her or her associates, then there is literally nothing which can go into an article. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Posting an article about a business.

What is the best way to post information about a business on Wikipedia without ng across like an ad? Additionally, representing this business, how can I utilize my logo, as well as pictures featured on my website without postings for deletion?Ciroamiranda (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't, Ciroamiranda. This is an encyclopaedia, not the yellow pages, and you are clearly editing with the intent of promoting the company (Draft:The Spot Barbershop). The vast majority of companies are not suitable subjects for Wikipedia at all. If your is an exception, a volunteer will write an article about it in time. – Joe (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Ciroamiranda. I'm afraid that the answer to your question is probably "By not posting anything". Wikipedia may not be used for Promotion of any kind, and has no part whatever to play in your business's online presence.

If you wish to persevere, please start by studying your first article, which will show you (among other things) that writing a Wikipedia article is difficult; and conflict of interest, which will show you that it is even more difficult to write an article about something that you are connected with. The next stage will be to find several places where people who have no connection whatever with your business have chosen to write in depth about it and been published in reliable places. If you can find such sources, you can start writing a draft by forgetting absolutely everything you know about the business, and writing an article solely based on what these independent commentators have published.

This probably sounds as if I am trying to discourage you from doing this: the truth is, I am. If you would like to become an editor, and help us improve Wikipedia, you are very welcome. But if you are here only to tell the world about your business, then I suggest you could spend your time more profitably somewhere else. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

uploading a picture

Can anybody upload a picture for me? I have has several goes at doing it without success. It is to go with the entry for poet Maria Jastrzebska. The picture has been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons but I can't get it into the article.

Here is the authorisation from the person who took the picture:

I hereby affirm that I am Deborah Price, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of

[the work depicted in the media as shown here: in the attached images and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. DamesnetB (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey DamesnetB. Assuming you are referring to the file from this discussion, it looks like it was deleted because the license was not valid. The copyright for an image is usually retained by the person who took the image, and not the person the image was taken of, and so it would need to be the photographer who releases it under a creative commons license, and not the subject. GMG^talk 15:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

GMG, I don't think you're looking at what DamesnetB has posted above: that permission is from the person who took the picture, and is exactly what is required. What I'm not sure about is whether posting it here is acceptable - the problem is that The Mediawiki Foundation has no way of knowing that it is from the person it is claimed to be. The recommended way of doing that is for Deborah Price (herself) to mail the permission to WMF, as expolained in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... well if the user is claiming that they are the author, and the image had not been previously posted online, they can simply put a note on their Commons page to that effect, and upload it as their own image. If they are a particularly noteworthy person, they may need to verify their identity via an email anyway. If the image had been previously used online, yes, then an email of the type you reference would be needed. As to an image already being on commons, I'm not sure what else it could be in reference to. GMG^talk 17:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to add a reference to a book which includes the topic of jewish prostitutes, the subject of Zvi Migdal

The article about Zwi Migdal does not mention the book by Nathan Englander, The Ministry of Special Cases. The main character is Kaddish Posnan, the son of a prostitute is Buenos Aires, who, presumably, was a prostitute in aa brothel associated with Zvi Migdal. Thee are references in the Wikipedia article to movies about this topic, but no mention of Englander's book. This book should be added to the cultural and literary references to the topic. 2601:200:C100:4B75:7C23:A21F:C40C:C73B (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done - I mentioned it briefly for you, with a reference. In future, you would likely make faster headway by suggesting such edits on the article talk page, which for this specific scenario is located here. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Chaz Ortiz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I reviewed Draft:Chaz Ortiz and declined it as not showing the subject’s notability. User:Hturnt inquired on my talk page, saying:

I am requesting a review because i believe this subject to have adequate notability; perhaps not to everyone, but the topic of skateboarding is a very large one and it is growing rapidly. The fact that one of the most famous skateboarders, Chaz Ortiz, does not have a Wikipedia article was surprising to me, as he is known by anybody who skateboards or watches Street League. Also, the sources that I listed are ones that cover all sports, and some that cover all of skateboarding. These sources both have coverage of a specific person of the sport of skateboarding, so I believe it is notable.

I am a little puzzled by the comment that he is well known by anybody who skateboards or watches skateboarding, when the draft says that he is ranked either 23d or 13th, depending on ranking. Will other editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The draft does not establish notability to an adequate standard. Referencing is poor in my opinion, with a heavy emphasis on primary sources and minimal application of reliable sources. Therefore, the article itself does not do enough, in my view, to establish notability for the subject, irrespective of his ranking internationally in skate parks. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. There are two solid cites in there, from Rolling Stone and ESPN, providing the subject substantial coverage, and that's absolutely enough for a GNG pass; there is no way an article with those two cites would fail at AfD ... quite aside from that he's got nearly five hundred Google News hits. [1] I agree that the draft has some issues, but that's a content problem, not a notability one. Ravenswing 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have invited the author to join us here, but am inclined to accept after a resubmission, based on the general notability assessment by User:Ravenswing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: and @Ravenswing: Would I be permitted to edit the Draft:Chaz Ortiz? Or is that considered "bad form"? Since the two of you have decided it is notable, I would like to help this editor get their page accepted. They haven't edited since the draft was declined. The external links in the tables need to be changed to text and wiki linked, if possible. Let me know if it is #1: okay to polish this up and #2:submit it for @Hturnt:. Or I could "polish" and wait and see if they return. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Tribe of Tiger - Huh? Why wouldn't you be able to edit it? If it were accepted, you would be able to edit it in mainspace. The author hasn't responded to my invitation to come here anyway. Draft space belongs to the community. Go ahead and improve it, either before or after it is accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

+1. Anyone working on an article to improve it is a good thing, and you need neither Robert's permission, my permission, or anyone else's to dive in and help. Ravenswing 04:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, great! Thanks for the replies! Cheers, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the changes that were made to my draft and believe that since the external links were removed and my sources were confirmed to be adequate, my article should be reconsidered for publishing. Anything else I can fix to make sure it can be published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hturnt (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hturnt: I think everything is good to go! Great job! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference not showing up correctly. Josh Bernstein Talk Show Host

{{cite web|url=https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-josh-bernstein-show/the-josh-bernstein |title=Josh Bernstein Show on Stitcher

is how the reference is showing up...how do I fix this so it only uses the title? I even copied and pasted from an accurate one only to have it just glare at me like I offended something! Littlelady007 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you add the ending }}...? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above, I notice that your edits in January to Josh Bernstein (talk show host) introduced a number of misplaced external links. If you intended them to be references, please read Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sarah Nyendwoha Ntiro

Can someone please review this? (Another woman from Uganda.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Reviewed, accepted; this is a WP:POLITICIAN pass. Ravenswing 23:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rhoda Kalema

Will someone please review Draft:Rhoda Kalema? The subject belongs to a class, female African politicians, that is underrepresented in Wikipedia. I would like to accept this draft or to have recommendations made for what needs to be done for it to be ready for acceptance. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tidied it up a little, it could probably do with some more sources, but would pass at afd I think. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Considering that she served in a national parliament, I'd have some strong words for anyone who took the article to AfD. Ravenswing 23:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't originally clear to me on reading that she had served in a national parliament. Thank you for noting that. I would have immediately accepted if I was sure that she had (and that is one of the reasons why I requested more reviewers). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sun Wukong

An Ip address made a change to this article the ip is:108.54.223.220 they have made several changes to this article. i just wanted someone to check these changes to make sure there not vandalism. As i find them suspicious. (Please do not be offended.) Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

They're not vandalism. They're not necessarily ideal, but they're not necessarily wrong, either. The IP editor does have a valid concern that article doesn't quite this figure as a deity who is still worshiped to this day. I'm not certain that their approach is the best way to fix that, however. But they are operating in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Ah okay. Thanks for clarifying. Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Agnes Nandutu

Will someone please review this draft, also on a Ugandan lady? (She is said to be the Speaker of something called the People's Parliament, but it isn't a real parliament, so that she isn't ipso facto.) Thanks for the previous reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider accepting it before a rewrite; among other things, this "People's Parliament" appears to be a talk show of some sort, and the phrasing as is is quite misleading. I'd also want at least one other good source. Ravenswing 04:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please Review my article

Hi,

I added to this article for my Advanced Writing Class (Blocks to access, Legislation, and Current access)

Please comment on the talk page with any edits/comments you may have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_to_medicines

67.86.106.191 (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The only recent edits to the article is from various logged-in users. Could you have made those edits under one of those accounts, instead of anonymous IP edits? Ravenswing 04:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are ChiaO then there seems to be a copy of the article in User:ChiaO/sandbox. Is this what you are asking about? Your sandbox is not part of the main Wikipedia, but you have also made some edits to the live article and these have been accepted. Dbfirs 07:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Help restoring a biographical article

Hi, I've monitored a biographical article for several years, and it was suddenly deleted, with what I find to be very suspicious reasoning, as even a three page Google search reveals the newsworthiness of this biography, as it is a writer/journalist who has greatly impacted the modern fitness industry as a pioneer during the 80's and 90's and recently published a rather revolutionary book, BioLogic Revelation, that many experts believe will greatly disrupt the modern fitness industry. I can't help but believe this was the motivation for "someone" to remove a meaningful article. I have discussed this with someone at the Help Desk, and after sending a wealth of verified third-party references that I found in just a couple minutes of Google searching, they said they would "move it to restore it as WP:DRAFT where it can be improved to address the issues identified in the deletion discussion before being re-submitted to article space." I personally have only made minor edits in the past, so is there someone on your team that can right this wrong, even if it has to cite just new web-archived articles? I wouldn't even know where to begin. I know the deleted article cited mostly hard copy magazines and newspapers that have never been archived on the web, but I read somewhere that those are entirely acceptable, as evidenced for the 5+ years the article remained on Wiki with no interruption or objection. Thank you KaySorin (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Help desk discussion, the deleted article Wayne Caparas, and the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Caparas. --bonadea contributions talk 23:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, KaySorin - the article was deleted as a result of a discussion at Articles for Deletion - for posterity, that discussion is here. The admin who deleted the article has made over 43,000 edits here, so I would be hesitant to claim that their rationale for deletion was because many experts believe will greatly disrupt the modern fitness industry. The article was deemed, by consensus, to fail the general notability guidelines, meaning that it was not sufficiently referenced, and lacked citation from reliable sources - online or printed. As evidenced by Bine, the length of time with which the article was on the site means nothing, unfortunately, so this rationale (as evidenced for the 5+ years the article remained on Wiki with no interruption or objection) is worthless against a lack of compliance to guidelines, which the deleted article apparently suffered from. It is also worth noting that Wikipedians are specifically instructed to not right great wrongs, as you have urged us to do. Finally, disputes are not handled at the Teahouse - for a prompt AfD-related response, try the talk page - just don't expect to overturn consensus without a substantive reason to do so. I am sorry if this is not a satisfactory answer, but it is the best I can offer. On an unrelated note, you mention having made edits to Wikipedia in the past, but your account's first edit was mere hours ago. Please divulge any alternate accounts you have used, as at present you are a single-purpose account. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• As a long-time contributor at WP:AFD, it's quite common for people who disagree to ascribe malicious motives to the people proposing deletion. Trust me that there are very, very, few Wikipedians who go around cackling "HaHa, today I will destroy another few random articles for No Good Reason!" and trot over to AfD to do their dastardly work. Generally, the explanation is far simpler: nominators run across articles they do not believe meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Without access to the deleted article, and just what I can find looking up Wayne Caparas on the web, I'd agree with the nominator. I could find only two reliable sources on a Google News search, and both quote him only in passing; neither provide the "significant coverage" of Caparas himself WP:GNG requires. This new book of his (published last April) hasn't cracked the top two millionth of Amazon's book sales ranking, nor the top 700 of the sub-sub-sub category of quick workout books, and there are zero mentions of it on Google News; if "many experts" believe that this book will have an impact on the fitness industry, there's little evidence of them saying so publicly. A straight Google search of Caparas doesn't fare much better: the top hits are his Linkedin page, his Facebook page, his YouTube page, his IMDB page, the original Wikipedia article, his book's webpage, his Twitter feed, his Allmusic page, and the various other sites we normally associate with devoted self-promoters. Ravenswing 23:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the book is a new publish, and I believe the PR effort has been held up by a companion video series that is due to launch next month. You can find the expert endorsements at the publisher site and several other sites. I know the author is a senior now like me, so most of his most notable accomplishments were documented before the internet started archiving everything. I guess that's an unfortunate reality. Whatever the case, as a fan of Wikipedia, I believe the article is justified. If you read the publisher's content or the interview I found, I "hope" you'd agree. Finally, I really had no idea how Wikipedia editing works. When I suggested there might have been a malicious reason the article was deleted, I was inferring someone exposed in the book came to Wikipedia and deleted it themselves. Now I know better. Glad to see real gatekeepers exist around the clock. Keep up the great work. KaySorin (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And to answer Stormy clouds' question above, I didn't know until this session that there was a login, so when I made my minor edits I must have been able to do them without logging in. I guess that explains why I was never alerted to the deletion discussion even though I clicked "watch this page" at some point in the past. Thanks again for all the clarificationsKaySorin (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words, KaySorin. A couple things to mention: as a general rule, reviews on a publisher's website are solicited by the publisher, often from other authors in the publisher's stable, or for other considerations, and are usually not considered independent reviews, such as can be found in newspaper or industry sources. Another is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance -- as an encyclopedia, we can only take notice of what reliable sources say, and therefore whatever the reasons for the book not catching the public eye, the fact that it hasn't means it has no bearing on the author's notability. Ravenswing 23:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• I echo the gratitude expressed by Ravenswing, and agree with their two caveats mentioned directly above. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, KaySorin. Because I am an administrator, I was able to read the deleted article and the deletion was completely appropriate. The article had a highly promotional tone in violation of our neutral point of view policy and was poorly referenced. I read the various links you provided at the Help Desk, and none are adequate for the purpose of establishing notability. We need significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Passing mentions, blogs, IMDb, publisher bios and book endorsement blurbs are useless for showing that this person is notable. By the way, the deleted article contained a number of edits from your account, but those edits were removed from your history when the article was deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the thoughtful replies Wikipedians. It would seem like the standards for "notability" have changed over the past decade, is that the case? I'm really enjoying Wikipedia through this process, as I had no idea how engaged on so many levels you all are. I'd love to start working toward joining your forces for more than just an occasional edit on a subject or person of interest. So thanks for the inspiration and the speeding of my learning curve. For future reference, since the article was considered to be "poorly referenced," how would I use a magazine or newspaper article as a "quality" reference if it is not archived on the web? I see that most the references in Wayne's old article appeared to fit this category. Is there a place in your database that answers that question? Also, is there a place where "notability" is addressed methodically? In order to avoid diverging subjective standards, it would seem necessary to have some sort of empirical milestones involved in the decision-making process. If so, I'd love to learn more about that as well. Thanks again all! KaySorin (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, KaySorin. There have been no significant changes in how we assess notability in the last ten years, although there may have been a few minor adjustments. Please be aware that this is literally "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and that includes writing new articles. With over 5.5 million articles, there are at least a million or more with very significant problems. Although millions of people have edited Wikipedia, there are less than 5000 highly active editors who maintain article quality. It is entirely possible for a low-visibility article to sit there without an experienced editor noticing it for years. In this particular case, the article came to the attention of Edwardx, a highly experienced editor with over 88,000 edits on a wide variety of topics. I assure you that this editor has no grudge at all against Caparas, but is just working very hard as an unpaid volunteer to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia.

To learn more about notability, read that link, plus Notability (people). The shortcut to the section about authors is WP:NAUTHOR. One important place where the disputed notability of specific article topics is addressed is through the Articles for Deletion process (abbreviated AfD), where we discuss and debate dozens of articles every single day. The shortcut to today's debates is WP:AFDT.

Printed newspaper or magazine sources which are not available online are perfectly acceptable, as long as they are properly cited with complete bibliographic detail. For a newspaper article, that bibliographic information would include the complete article title and subtitle, the author's name, the newspaper name, the city of publication if not part of the newspaper name, the date of publication and the page number. It is also wise to include a one or two sentence quote from the newspaper in the reference, that helps verify the content. Online sources are preferred when available but not mandatory.

Inevitably, there is a certain amount of subjectivity in all of these assessments, which is why we operate on the consensus model of decision-making. Administrators or experienced editors close debates and make decisions, but they do not count noses or count "votes". Instead, they evaluate each editor's arguments based on how closely they adhere to our established policies and guidelines. If someone advocates keeping or deleting an article based on personal preference rather than solid reasoning, their opinion will be "discounted", which means it will be pretty much ignored.

I hope that I have answered your questions and given you useful information. I have taken the time to write such a detailed response because your questions have been insightful and perceptive. I also hope that you will continue to edit Wikipedia, and you can ask other questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Edwardx, since I messed up the original ping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• KaySorin, I regretfully disagree with Cullen328 on a couple points ... more by way of that he's articulating the ideal, and I'd like to acquaint you with a little more reality. He's right in that the standards of notability haven't changed much over the years, and most of those changes are technical fiddles. There used to be a one-size-fits-all notability standard for sports biographies, for instance, and several years ago that was devolved to the various sporting Wikiprojects. What has changed, however, is the community's willingness to enforce them. Deletion discussions used to be dominated by head-count decisions, and knee-jerk Keep votes along the lines of "Seems notable" or "The article could be improved" were both common and often devoid of any critical examination. This doesn't much happen any more, and in particular, our practices on how biographical articles of living people are handled have tightened up considerably over the years. Ravenswing 04:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• With all due respect for Ravenswing, I see things a bit differently, at least based on my participation in AfD debates over the past eight years. Yes, there are a few ill-informed votes, both now and then, but those are usually ignored by closing administrators. The main change that I see is far fewer nominations of obviously notable topics, although that happens occasionally. In my opinion, the debates are usually of a fairly high quality and most contributors make policy based arguments. When reviewing old AfD debates, I see the type of thing that Ravenswing describes in the 2003 to 2006 time frame. These days, disagreements arise mostly from editors with strict interpretations opposing editors with more lenient interpretations of policy. I rarely see what I would call "slam dunk keep" nominations these days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to laugh at some of these comments, when you consider that Jack Carlson (rower) as an article is allowed to persist on the project. BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Carlson (rower) says basically "Notable but needs improvement." Hardly unique around here. WP:SOFIXIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that's a terribly curious comment. There has never been a point in Wikipedia's history where a medalist in the World Championships in a significant sport didn't qualify for an article, and never will be. Sorry if you disagree that sports is a notable field of endeavor, but you're rather overwhelmingly outvoted. Ravenswing 18:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your right I was outvoted, Apparently as of 2012, since 1896 29,216 Olympic medals have been awarded. They are all worthy of inclusion no matter how fringe or elitist the event may be. IMO team team Rowing in the USA and GB is a minor sport practiced by a minority at elitist colleges, and therefore a (lesser) significant sport. It's sour grapes on my part when my article about the one of the largest film studios in the world got kicked out (in part) as not notable.BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks folks... every enlightening discussion. Glad to see diverging views. KaySorin (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, and apologies for the delay in joining in. I have started plenty of new articles on businesspeople, and there are still many more needed, as evidenced by John G. Smale that I created last month. More recently, I have been nominating what I believe to be non-notable businesspeople for deletion. Often these are people who are claimed to be experts in marketing or branding, executive/personal coaches or suchlike. After the first few pages of search engine results, one gets a pretty good idea as to whether or not there will be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. One tip. To help determine if something is a reliable source, go to WP:RSN, scroll down to "Search this noticeboard & archives" and enter the name of the website/magazine/journal. With 239 pages of archived discussion, there is an excellent chance that the source has been discussed before. If not, start a new thread! Edwardx (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Graham Crowley page lost

I was hoping to open this and edit but all I can find is the draft that isn't styled.

Will Harvey (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Will Harvey: Hello and welcome. Are you referring to Draft:Graham Crowley? You should still be able to edit it. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

How can i write my articles and upload information on Wikipedia?

I am writer, motivational speaker and young entrepreneur i wanted to showcase all my work, stories, struggles and research to the world. I am trying to do this all on Wikipedia for last 3 weeks but get failed all the time. kindly, help me to get through this all, thanksBilal Nasir Mir (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bilal Nasir Mir: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I saw your text on your user page before it was deleted; I can say that Wikipedia is not for doing what it is that you want to do. You cannot use Wikipedia for promotional purposes such as spreading any religion or educating about it, and it is not free web space for you to post your work and research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which has articles about subjects written about in independent reliable sources. It is not for posting original research or to provide a forum for you to promote your work. You should use social media for that purpose. I'm sorry that this is likely disappointing for you, but content on Wikipedia must comply with our guidelines. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Similarly Draft:Bilal Nasir Mir is totally unsuitable and has been nominated for speedy deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

20/20

Is it possible to change List of animated feature films of the 2020s (new page) to List of animated feature films of the 2020s I try but it will but let me do it can someone else give it a go P+T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To change the title an administrator would need to move the article, see WP:Moving a page, but it may be felt that it is too soon for such a page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fanoflionking: I have moved it to List of animated feature films of the 2020s without leaving a redirect. I haven't judged whether the list should exist. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

References in a foreign language

Hi, a page on an Icelandic artist who spent most of her life in Washington DC has been rejected due to lack of source material. The source material is all in Icelandic! What can I do? Anna Benga (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Anna Benga. As far as sources go, per our relevant policy, English language sources are preferred, since they're more easily verifiable for readers, but non-English sources are allowed where no English source of comparable quality is available. If you do not speak Icelandic, you may consider requesting help from the editors listed here, who are fluent in both languages.

Unfortunately there is also a second issue here, which is one of copyrighted images. When it comes to faithful reproductions of two dimensional works (like photos of photos, or photos of paintings) taking a photo doesn't actually affect the copyright at all, and because there was no substantial creative contribution on your part (legally speaking), the copyright to the photo is still effectively owned by the original author (or in this case presumably their family or a trust). Per US and Icelandic copyright law, these paintings won't fall into the public domain until 2068, which is 70 years after the death of the author.

It may be possible to contact the family or the relevant trust who owns the copyright since her death, and have them release an image for public use, so that it can be used on Wikipedia (see instructions at WP:CONSENT), but barring that, I'm afraid we will need to delete the images from Commons in the meanwhile, and wait until a suitably licensed image is available. GMG^talk 13:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

References in the lead of a section?

Apologies if this is a dumb question, but I can't find the answer. In the article lead, references are optional (per MOS:CITELEAD), because it summarizes what is in the body of the article. Does the same approach apply to one of the sections within an article? Each section basically starts with its own lead which summarizes what is in its sub-sections, so are references also required there? Gronk Oz (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gronk Oz. As a matter of practice, generally yes. CITELEAD is overall a fairly unique exception to a rule, rather than a rule in and of itself that can be generalized to other similar but distinct situations. Beyond that, CITELEAD is part of the manual of style, whereas WP:V is policy, and takes precedence, including in cases where material in the lead itself is highly likely to be challenged, and should therefore come with its own inline citations, even though the content in the lead may still be supported by citations in the body. GMG^talk 15:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Medical/Health articles tend to have references in the lead. In general, as articles get longer, the leads tend to get longer, to the point that if will help subsequent editors who may wish to contend or amend the lead an opportunity to see the supporting citations without having to scan through screens of subsequent text. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, GMG and David notMD. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoring old talk page sections?

Hello everyone and thank you for reading my post. A while ago, still inexperienced and unaware of the general policy that in Wikipedia one should not delete but instead archive one's old talk page sections, in a "spring cleaning" mood, I deleted the great majority of my old talk page discussions. Does anyone know of a way I can restore them? Thank you very much, ---roroke (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Roroke. The content hasn't been deleted, but simply removed from the current revision of your talk page. You can still find them in the revision history there. If you click on the previous revisions (clicking the time stamp such as 04:22, 6 March 2018) you can then click edit on the old revision, and copy the original content to paste into an archive. GMG^talk 14:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much GMG, I'll do just that. ---roroke (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

TODAY template not showing correct date in template page

Hello, i wanted to report something about the TODAY template. If you go to Template:TODAY, the TODAY template says 2 March 2018. It should be 9 March 2018. If you view the previous edits, the template says 9 March 2018. If i put it here (27 October 2024), it shows the correct date. Why is that? (Nevermind, i purged the page and it shows the correct date) PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

When I look at the template page I see 9 March 2018. Perhaps you've got an old version stuck in your cache and need to purge? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

one thing...

just before I go, how can I get good promotion? Noodlebomber (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive, Noodlebomber. Please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. After you said "I am done with Wikipedia. it is full of people who have no respect for new editors and they are rude, disrespectful and full of hatred. Farewell" [2] I'm not even going to bother trying to figure out what this mean. I think you are trolling us. Meters (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

At this stage, and given the consistent level of disruption, I think that a page ban, if not something more severe, may be in order. Thoughts? Stormy clouds (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done I went for the “something more severe” option and issued an indef block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft review

Hello! Could anyone go through this draft and give feedback on what I should improve? Thanks in advance. Nimbo.lo (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jan_Lexell

It'll need someone who can read Swedish, to assess whether the references establish notability. Maproom (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nimbo.lo: Since you'll need Swedish readers to look at references, you may want to post your inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I will do that! Nimbo.lo (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Story of Lee hee-beom as President of the Pyeongchang Organizing Committee for XXIII Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang 2018

Can help me make an article of his story about Lee hee-beom as President of the Pyeongchang 2018 Organizing Committee for XXIII Olympic Winter Games? Here's what you check. https://www.pyeongchang2018.com/en/organizing-committee-president-ceo

A Chris80 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Chris80. Wikipedia articles need to be based almost entirely on material written and published by people unconnected with the article: it has essentially no interest in anything said the by the subject of the article, or by their associates or employers. In order to establish that Lee is notable (in the special Wikipedia sense), and so that it is possible to have an article about him, you will need to find several places where people who have no connection with him or his employers have chosen to write in depth about him, and been published in a reliable place. (These do not have to be in English, though if there are such sources in English it is preferable to use them. Please see IRS. If there are no such sources, then it will not be possible for Wikipedia to have an article about him. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement over whether to include "The" in a radio program's title

This is a relatively minor point, but I would like some advice. When I created the article Mayor of the Town (radio program) I used Mayor of the Town in the title and throughout the article because that is the way I found it in old-time radio reference books. Several weeks ago someone added "The", making The Mayor of the Town in the article (but not in the article's title). The edit summary was "fixed title - heard at beginning of every episode". I did not feel that reason outweighed the reference books, so I reverted the changes. I posted my reason for reverting on the article's talk page ("The" in title of program?).

Today the same changes were made again, this time with the edit summary "correct title of program". I reverted again for the same reason as before and added a note to that effect on the talk page.

Am I wrong in reverting? Am I making too much of whether or not to use "The"? I know that I have no ownership by virtue of creating the article, but I want it to have as much accuracy as possible. The changes were made from an IP address, so I don't know how to contact the editor directly.

I apologize for going on at such length over one word. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eddie Blick. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) for guidance on this matter, and work toward consensus on the article talk page. Stop reverting, since you could be blocked for edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Teblick. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to be blocked; I enjoy contributing to Wikipeida. Rather than run that risk, I have undone my second revert, leaving "The" as the IP editor changed it. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Teblick: You were right all along. I fixed one of the "The"s after I saw your post. Then an admin reverted your revert! So, all is well, now. The sources prove your claim. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Thank you! I appreciate your support. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't feel bad guys. People argued for two years over whether the iconic rock band was "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". John from Idegon (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Also the Eagles (band) had to argue about "the" being added to their name by the press, etc.! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dates Database

Hello!

I am working on a project that needs several dates. I was hoping Wikipedia has some sort of open source database that houses dates (like WWI dates) that could be accessed by a script embedded in a site or program.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.111.139 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend asking this question at Wikipedia's sister project, Wikidata. Their discussion page is here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

John Fashanu

Hi, reading johns wikipedia page was quite shocked that the only brother mentioned on there was Justin. His 2 older brothers were adopted By a Family in south east london in the early 70's. their adoptive parents were Jean and Bernard Condict my grandparents the brothers Remi and Deli remained as part of our family until our move to australia which finally ended december 1993. My Name is Kevin Gibbons my mother Carol Gibbons/Condict spent many years with the two of them and i was raised knowing them as uncles. Jean Passed away many years ago now from alzheimers disease but Bernard(grandad) recently turned 90 and after burying his 2nd wife to the same disease isnt doing so well. I would give anything to find some way of contacting either of the boys for Grandad before he passes as they meant a great deal to our family. If anyone has any information i can be contacted at (REDACTED --NotTheFakeJTP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.4.62 (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia only prints information that has been previously published in a reliable source. Information you know through your family does not qualify, unfortunately. Is the information about his other two brothers published somewhere? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

concerned about "Remove supercategory" edits

Hi Teahouse hosts,

I'm concerned about edits I've seen recently in which are described as "Remove supercategory of existing category per WP:SUBCAT using AWB" , such as the most recent edit on the Clementine Hunter‎ article. My concern is that Category:American artists is being removed from articles that also have Category:African-American artists...this results in category ghettoization and should not be happening since Category:African-American artists is a "non-diffusing subcategory of Category:American artists. It includes artists that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent."

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up but since I've gotten good advice at Teahouse in the past I came here. Thanks in advance for your help Jscarboro (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about this particular edit, because what I believe has happened here is that Category:American artists is redundant to Category:20th-century American painters (not to Category:African-American artists). If you have more questions, you could follow up with the editor who made this edit at User talk:Mitch Ames. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ugandan Women

Is there an edit-a-thon for Ugandan women? I have seen several drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I was going to say "yes", but looking at my Talk I was mistaken and there's a edit-a-thon for Zambian women. At least a couple folks have pinged me, and one explicitly mentioned they attended a workshop by WikiWomen. I would not at all be surprised if similar has been done for Uganda, and come to think of it I have seen a similar uptick in Zimbabwean women. The commonality is practically all of these are for politicians and/or activists, so a clear trend. So far on AFC, at least 70% or so meet Notability even on first submission (though sometimes need further polishing), so a pretty solid ratio. There might be same for Nigeria, but it's hard to tell because Nigerians have really dived into Wikipedia over the last year and some.

If anyone knows anyone at WikiWomen, may be worth suggesting to them that they make some kind of template to label the drafts? And more confusingly, I've seen categories for these Africa WikiWomen AFC drafts, but not consistent ones.

I don't have any major problem with it, and honestly I've been singling them out of the AFC queue when I see names I can guess as being African women names, just as an effort to address inherent bias and whatnot (in terms of the dearth of woman and Africa coverage here). MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MatthewVanitas - Thank you. I mentioned above that African female politicians are underrepresented, and African women in general are underrepresented. Some of the drafts that I am seeing are poorly written, so that it isn't always clear if the lady has been a member of a national or state legislature, in which case the only real issue is that the source must be reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page - public figure in Madison County, Indiana

Hello,

I am working with Andrew Hopper - a public figure in Anderson, Indiana (Madison County). Hopper is preparing to run for the elected position of Circuit Court 3 Judge.

This person has been in various government positions for nearly a decade and believes that he will have future endeavors in Public Service.

As he continue working in public service, there are inquiries about his history - specifically as the county's District Attorney - where he has impacted policy. helped design and interpret legislation and generally impacted the overall community.

For these reasons, I believe Hopper warrants a wikipedia page, not for marketing and self-promotion, but for establishing historical record and documenting his direct impact on the community.

Does this seem inline with the mission of other wikipedia content?Ahopper2018 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahopper2018. Based on what you have stated above, I doubt that Hopper meets our notability guideline for politicians. There is definitely no presumption that an unelelected candidate for circuit court judge in a county of 130,000 people is notable. There is strong opposition among experienced editors about biographies of unelelected candidates except in exceptional circumstances. I also see a problem with your user name, which implies that it is a group account for a campaign committee. We do not allow shared accounts so I suggest that you change your user name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Subject matter updates and corrections

There is two men that lived in and around Danville, Kentucky in 1800 that had the same name of Edward Worthington. One was the Irish Captain for General Clark and the other was a County and State representative in Kentucky. I have proof of the two men but when I have uploaded it to the site and added my references, the corrections were removed and the contact that made the changes referred me to another group who has never gotten back to me. Please advise who I could contact to make the corrections to Captain Edward Worthington's article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.175.25 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the basis of the corrections? Are they supported by material published in reliable sources, either in print or online. If so, feel free to tell me what changes you would like to make, and direct me towards your references, so that it can be gauged whether or not the material should be included. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I will work on compiling my data again with references of the two Edward Worthingtons from central Kentucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.175.25 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The type of name confusion you describe is a real problem. I recommend that you read an excellent essay on this called Don't build the Frankenstein. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

For a specific example, please read a note I left at Talk:Frederick Meyer way back in 2010. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Indian painting and Indian tribal painting

Dear reader
If you are a NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING person, and if you have some spare time, please take a look on these articles, machine translated from French (fr:Peinture en Inde and fr:Peinture tribale en Inde). Don’t hesitate to log on as user, and make the needed language corrections.
Best regards
Andershus."Andershus (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)"

@Andershus: The proper place to report this would be WP:PNT. You can start by adding one of the templates {{cleanup translation}} or {{rough translation}} to the article, which, when expanded, will explain what to do at WP:PNT. There are also instructions at WP:PNT how to proceed with the templates. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

What should I do to submit an article translated from Chinese Wiki?

I was trying to translate the article "zh:理想人生" from Chinese Wiki and submit it as "Ideal Life (album)", and the draft was declined because "multiple sentences are not supported and verified by the (very little) sources that you provided. Hence, those facts may be invalid. Do add-in more sources." However, the page on Chinese Wiki doesn't seem to have the sources I need so I can do nothing to follow the request. What should I do? Linus Xu (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest:

a) Searching for sources for the unsourced material and adding them yourself – note that sources do not have to be in English, though that is preferred if there is a choice;

b) Adding 'citation needed' to material for which you think sources should be findable by others even though you have failed;

c) Removing material for which you cannot find a source and for which you think it unlikely that others will succeed.

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you anyway, but currently the issue is that the best source I can find is the corresponding page on Chinese Wiki (zh:理想人生), which don't have the source I need. I have included all the sources in it, but it doesn't seem to work.

Linus Xu (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

As I expect you know, another Wikipedia article is not a WP:Reliable source whatever the language. The original article would probably not be accepted by English Wikipedia rules, so if you cannot find any other sources, perhaps the subject is not notable in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 10:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The problem is Wikipedia is not (however ridiculos it may appear) a source reliable enough for Wikipedia. It's partly because Wikipedia is written by volunteers and verified by volunteers, so information in Wikipedia may be incomplete or even false, and stay for long time unnoticed. That's why we always need external sources. Otherwise we may well fall into a circle of false sources, such as en-wiki article references zh-wiki, while zh page references en as a source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability section, linked as WP:CIRCULAR.

Apart from the above, what is considered notable in one Wikipedia may not reach the treshold in another one. Wikipedias in different languages have their own rules, discussed and fixed by their respective communities. Some person, song, building or event famous in Greece may remain unnoticed in Russia, so ru-wiki may refuse duplicating information from el-wiki. Similary, to put a page about a Chinese song, singer or record in en-wiki you need to establish its importance for English-speaking readers by English-language sources. Even a nation-wide fame in China may not suffice if the subject is actually unknown in English-speaking parts of the world...

Best regards – and good luck! CiaPan (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
(Linus Xu Ping added. --CiaPan (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC))

Well, it may be a bit ridiculous, but every album by this singer (Lala Hsu) but the one I'm going to add (see Limits, Missing, The Inner Me, and Lala Hsu) has been added, and the editors simply skipped this one.

Linus Xu (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Linus Xu: I'm sorry, but I know nothing about that specific artist or her albums. I have no idea whether (and why) her albums should, or should not, be mentioned in Wikipedia, and I'm not going to discuss it.
I just tried to answer your question about the possible meaning of the message given along the draft submit decline. And the answer is simply: each article should be sourced on its own, and sources should establish notability of the subject, as described in our policies and guidelines.
What concerns the presence of some, but not all albums: this may result from a limited knowledge of people who described those albums; or a limited time they volunteered to describe them. Possibly they were desribed by different editors – none of them would be responsibile for keeping data complete. Anyway, for some guidance about arguments along the line "every album but this one", please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --CiaPan (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I have solved the problem. It seems that using the translating feature can sort of deal with the problem, but further edits may still be needed.

Thank You.

Linus Xu (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Linus Xu: Superb! :) CiaPan (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The articles would still benefit from the addition of WP:Reliable sources. YouTube is user-generated. Dbfirs 07:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)