Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 762

Archive 755

←

Archive 760

Archive 761

Archive 762

Archive 763

Archive 764

Archive 765

Naming articles

Hello. I have a question regarding article names. Is it correct for a name to not be full? I've seen some pages where the name is in the style of "John F. Kennedy", only the person in question are ather known in the press and such as either just their first and last name (i.e. John Kennedy) or by their full name (i.e. John Fitzgerald Kennedy). If there is such an article, should which one should it rather be corrected to, if it should at all be corrected? --DeeM28 (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DeeM28. The general principle is that Wikipedia articles should have the title that best corresponds with what most reliable sources use when discussing the topic. In the case you mention, almost no reliable sources call the U. S. president who was assassinated in 1963 "John Kennedy". Instead, almost all reliable sources use either his middle initial or his middle name. It appears most of those sources use his middle initial, so the title John F. Kennedy is the correct title. The analysis is not always so simple. Should recent sources be given greater weight than older sources? Should academic sources be given greater weight than mass media sources? How much weight should be given to the preferences of the subject of the article? And many similar questions. In short, we decide by consensus among editors interested in that article, informed by the guidance at Wikipedia:Article titles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that article names are typically determined in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME; in other words, the name most commonly used by reliable sources to refer to an individual is the one used for the title, with the full name often being mentioned in the lede, the main infobox, and sometimes for the first mention outside of the lede. That is why Wikipedia has articles titled Tom Cruise, Bill Clinton, Jeb Bush, Ted Kennedy, John Wayne, LL Cool J, Dr. Dre, Judy Garland, Raquel Welch, etc. where the more commonly used name (stage/professional name) is used instead of the birth name. Even fictional characters like Indiana Jones or Darth Vader are treated this way.

In some cases, a person may be often be referred to an initialism or their full name (first middle last) like FDR, JFK, George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King Jr., George Bernard Shaw, etc. so their middle name or middle initial is often included in the title. In other cases, it may be a combination of reasons or the need to distinguish one individual from another like in the case of George W. Bush (perhaps for being commonly referred to as "W" and also to distinguish him from his father George H.W. Bush) as well as being the name used by most reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In rare cases, the WP:COMMONNAME isn't exactly a "name": Mahatma Gandhi, U Thant, Lady Gaga... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your very helpful and detailed responses. I will research and see what is more appropriate. DeeM28 (talk)

I want to start a new article but do not know how

I recently got into Fountain Pens and Japanese made FP in particular. I found that the resource on Wikipedia is very lacking and intend to try to expand this with a new article. I have been making a few edit here and there. However, I am still not clear on what I should prepare for an article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murakenta (talk • contribs) 05:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Murakenta, and thanks for your edits so far. Instructions on creating new articles are available at Wikipedia:Your first article. I'm sure that you'll be able to make some good contributions with specialist knowledge of such a niche topic, but do ask here if you are unsure about anything. Looking at your edits, I have a couple of tips for you. First, it looks like you tried to reference another Wikipedia article here, but Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source, because of the risk of circular referencing. Second, when posting comments on a discussion page such as this one, please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Can transfermarket.com be used as a source for transfer prices paid

All,

I was wondering if this website can be used as a source for transfer prices paid on a transfer of a football player from one team to another.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testudo1968 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)‎

Hi Testudo1968. Since your question deals with reliable sources used for soccer articles, you might try asking at WT:FOOTY instead. The members of that particular WikiProject might be able to best assess the reliability of that particular website for soccer transfers and may even be able to suggest other websites which can be cited if The "Transfermarket" site in not considered reliable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A question about making/undoing no-edit requests

While I was searching around Wikipedia, I noticed that some pages, notably the PETA wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals) didn't have the usual "edit source" next to the subtitles of the page. After doing some research, it turned out that some wiki page authors give requests so that the site itself wouldn't allow other users to edit their pages (otherwise known as no-edit requests). But the only thing I didn't find was the way how to request for a page to be un-editable. So, how do you file a no-edit request? And is there a way to undo one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkovtun (talk • contribs)

Looks to me like you're talking about page protection - you can ask for pages to be protected/unprotected at WP:RFPP. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Vkovtun, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is what is known as "semi-protected". This means that a user must be auto-confirmed to edit it, that is, have made at least 10 previous edits, and had an account for at least four days. The logged reason is Excessive vandalism. So most editors can edit the page, but relatively new editors, and those not logged in, cannot. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for a fuller description, and when and why such protection may be placed on a page. As Yunshui, says above, such protection is requested at Requests for page Protection. Most such protection is temporary, and any admin may undo it at any time, for good reason. Protection is only imposed for good reason, most often frequent vandalism or persistent edit wars. It is never imposed because someone wants to lock an article into a fixed version. Users who want to make changes but are prevented by protection can use {{edit request}} on the talk page to ask a more privileged editor to make the change for them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC) @Vkovtun: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that explains it. So far I am still a new user (I started 3 days ago) and have made roughly 10 edits. I see how this works now. Thank you for answering!

Why can't i see my topic on Wikipedia

Hello I have created a page on Wikipedia yesterday but could only see it in my contributions sections not on wikipedia . I want to know after how many days it will be displayed on wikipedia Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khushjsbrar (talk • contribs) 12:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You haven't created an article. You created User:Khushjsbrar, but the content is not appropriate for a user page. If you want to create an article you need to read the guidance at WP:Your first article and ensure that the topic is notable and supported by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject, then submit your draft through the AFC process for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Worthy of an article?

Greetings. I was wondering about the eligibility of an article about one Desmond Amofah, an internet personality with a significant following, known as Etika mostly on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh0SxnImUvpWs_ZfEoyhkMA). As you may see I have attempted this before, but perhaps now compared to then an article with Etika as the subject is more appropriate. I don't want to write anything or search for many sources until I can confirm he is a viable figure for this site. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramenwik (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ramenwik, and welcome to the Teahouse! But you need to look for sources. That's because articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Conversely, no sources means no article. If there has been a measureable increase in the availability of sources since you last created the article, then go for it and re-create it. If not, then it's probably not going to happen this time around either, I'm afraid. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Making an addition to my hometown of Leamington Ontario

Hello, so I've done some reading, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems perhaps I should be able to have the updated population as of the date of December 31st 2017, as I do have it properly sourced, so long as it's an addition to the wiki page and not a replacement of the latest federal census as it states in the WP:CANPOP page:

  "Between censuses, properly sourced intercensal population and demographic updates from a government source such as Statistics Canada, a provincial statistical agency (such as BC Stats in British Columbia) or a formal municipal census (such as those in Alberta), may be provided in addition to the 2016 census data. For example, as long as the figures are reliably sourced, it is acceptable for an article to say that  

      In the Canada 2016 Census, the City of Vancouver had a population of 631,486 and Vancouver census metropolitan area (CMA) had a population of 2,463,431. As of 2017, the city had an estimated population of 637,083 and the CMA had an estimated population of 2,493,452."

my sources are provided direct from the "Annual Performance Report Leamington Distribution System Drinking Water System # 220004992" annual report that clearly states it is for The Municipality of Leamington, and is for the Municipal Residential. This is Ontario Regulation and law (O. Reg. 170/03) which is should be treated a valid source. As this is clearly not unofficial and shouldn't fall under "population estimates such as the "Welcome to Jonesville" sign at the city limits or the local Chamber of Commerce business directory, do not perform your own statistical analysis to arrive at an original research estimate, and do not round population figures or demographics off" as it was mandated by the Ontario government, is this alright?

The report:
https://www.leamington.ca/en/ourcommunity/resources/2017-Leamington-Distribution-System-Annual-Report.pdf

(O. Reg. 170/03) Government Website:
https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=12765

Specifically the law, and the reasons why they need the population:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32#BK13 (Part 3, section 11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.JM.McNeil (talk • contribs) 08:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Justin.JM.McNeil. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the Teahouse. We do not resolve content disputes here at the Teahouse. Instead, we give new editors advice on how to edit Wikipedia. My advice to you is to discuss this with Hwy43, an experienced editor with knowledge about Canadian census issues. You should also discuss it at Talk:Leamington, Ontario, where no discussion has taken place for fifteen months. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Justin.JM.McNeil: the above is largely a copy/paste of the same at User talk:Justin.JM.McNeil. No need to triplicate it at Talk:Leamington, Ontario. I will respond at User talk:Justin.JM.McNeil as soon as possible, but real life is real busy, so maybe it will be this weekend. Stay tuned. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

How solicit additional judgments of policy violation charge.

Two editors have challenged revisions I have made to the article "Natural kind." They object to wording I have used in lede section and to my form for references. I do not find their reasons convincing. How can I solicit additional judgments. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

TBR-qed: one of those editors, DESiegel, started a discussion of your edits on the article's talk page. You should respond there. Maproom (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help

I used to be an active editor of many Wikipedia articles (especially on grammar, punctuation and word choice), but I haven't edited in such a long time that I forgot my old account and have already changed my email, forgotten the other and to be honest, now I've forgotten how much of it works. It's much different than the last time I was on here actively. Can someone help me get started being active again?

--OdysseusTroy (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey OdysseusTroy. You may want to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which should get you pretty well brushed up on the way most things work. Welcome back, and if you have any specific follow up questions you've found the right place. GMG^talk 20:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you GMG! That really did help me and I'm thankful for the support and glad to get back to editing!

A question about self-editing a page

I've recently stumbled upon a biography page edited mainly by one user, and checking their contributions, I find that all they have done over the last months is edit that single user page. The type of writing also looks like they might be writing their "auto biography", since that article is the only one they've edited in their Wikipedia history. Is it allowed to edit a page about yourself? If so, should it be mentioned and reviewed by other users, as to ensure there is no bias? --DeeM28 (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DeeM28. In a case like this, it is extremely useful to know which page and which editor you are taking about. In most cases, the editing behavior you describe is not appropriate. There are certain rare scenarios where it might be OK. When you say "user page", do you mean an encyclopedia article or an editor's personal page? Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for more detailed information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I do not like accusing people, but while reading up pages about institutions in Europe, I got to Robert R. Spano, and checking the history I discovered that a user going by the name of Lexminimis made many significant changes. Upon checking said user's contributions, I also discovered that their only contributions were made to that page, as well as to a page directly related to it. I remembered hearing that Autobiographies we not encouraged on Wikipedia (and confirmed now thanks to the page you linked). To me, looking at the style and everything, this looks very much like a possible autobiography (at least some elements on the page). What should be done in order to conserve neutrality on that page? DeeM28 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Early in the article's history there was another User, Siberlibrarian, who only contributed to this article, and it also has a number of IP sole-article contributors, some quite prolific (I'd guess at one or two IP users utilising several devices, some with static and some with dynamic IPs). However, some of its other contributors have a conventionally wider spread of contributions to multiple articles.

This is certainly suggestive of autobiographical contributions circumventing the usual procedure (Talk page edit requests to non COI editors), but I don't see any firm proof, and even if so it may be that the subject/editor is not properly aware of the conventions or the procedure on English Wikipedia (which may differ from those on the Icelandic Wikipedia).

I don't think there's much question about the subject being notable, although some of the text resembles a CV or borders on trivia. I'd suggest an experienced Editor taking a close look at the article's sources, pruning the deficiently-sourced material and the cruft, and sternly reminding the most recent and prolific single-user contributors (where not obviously dynamic IPs) about the relevant policies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2390.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Universe collision

question having nothing to do with editing Wikipedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What would happen if 2 universes collide with one another — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniper10192 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC) We would probably stop editing Wikipedia, Sniper10192. Until then is there any help you want on how to edit Wikipedia? This is not a forum for hypothetical questions about the universe. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

spoilers

can someone please respect the creators of the new avengers movie and remove the plot that one idiot has published in the page?

what's the point of removing all articles that a person writes citing copyright infringement when something like this allowed to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmia89 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:Spoiler. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot summaries in the editor's own words are not copyright, though the actual script would be. If you think the summary will spoil your enjoyment, then don't read it. Dbfirs 20:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

greetings

hello

Hello to you too, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you have any questions regarding editing on Wikipedia, do not hesitate to ask. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hehe hello! Also, don't forget to put those 4 tildes (~) to sign on talk pages and the Teahouse!―YoloMaxi ☎ ^(contribs) 20:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictures on Wikipedia

How do you edit in pictures on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniper10192 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Sniper10192. If you want to know how to insert pictures into Wikipedia articles, see Help:Pictures. For how to upload them in the first place, see Wikipedia:Uploading images. If you meant something else, please clarify your question. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, in future please sign posts on talk pages, and discussion pages like this one, with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with notability

I been following Kevin Wendell Jones for a minute and he's more known for being one of the founding members of the band Essence in Germany. They won the top military band competition that's held every year in 7th Corp USAREUR. I found one article in Stars and Stripes and have a paper clipping from another Stars and Stripes paper. I'm trying to locate it online but have to search the news archive. Since then he's been producing albums and working on short films that won various awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livinginthepink (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Kevin Wendell Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In future, Livinginthepink, I would advise starting with a Draft. As you can see, the article has already been proposed for deletion, although any editor can decline the proposal.

It may be that Jones is notable, but if so, the article doesn't yet show it. Please read WP:CITE again. When you mention, say that Jones won an award or appeared in a film, it is not enough to cite as a source a web page that is more or less about the film or th award, but that does not mention Jones at all. The cited source should directly support the statements in the article.

As you can see in our guideline on the notability of people we most often measure notability by how often a person has been written about in some depth and detail buy independent published reliable sources. If there aren't several of these, each with some significant discussion of Jones, then that route to establishing notability is closed. I advise you to find additional sources and add cites to them to the article. Note that sources need not be online; the title, date, publisher, author (if known), page (if relevant), and containing work (name of the magazine, news paper, or web site, not used for boo-length sources) would be sufficient. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Combining articles

How do I nominate for 2 articles to be combined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoloMaxi GT (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@YoloMaxi GT: Check out Wikipedia:Merging and follow the instructions there for proposing a merge. RudolfRed (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, in future please sign posts on talk pages, and discussion pages like this one, with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bottom footer

When you go to a user's contributions, at the bottom is a footer that allows one to look at the accounts and geolocate, for ips,. What is it called/ 66.128.150.14 (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If you mean where the code is located then our software automatically displays MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon for IP's and MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer for registered users. The English Wikipedia uses these messages to display {{Anontools}} or {{Sp-contributions-footer}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette

Hi there!

Wondering what is the best way to manage talk pages? Is it okay to remove discussions that have been resolved or to consolidate discussions?

For example, on an article about HIV/AIDS prevalence, there are several small discussions about inaccuracies for specific countries but first a larger discussion should take place about a single, consolidated, reputable source. Also some of the inaccuracies initially brought up for individual countries have been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emwu584 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Emwu584 and welcome to the Teahouse.

In general see Talk page guidelines. On almost all talk pages, new threads are generally added at the bottom. If the overall length of the talk page becomes a problem, someone will add archiving parameters to the page so older threads are shuffled off to archive subpages where they remain, but are not obtrusive. There are plenty more guidelines about how to add to threads on a talk page and a few conventions have arisen for "hatting" or using the {{collapse}} family of templates to suppress display of threads that are resolved or perhaps off-topic. Until you get a feel for how this is done, I would not suggest you attempt to "consolidate" threads yourself; you could, though, add a new thread that proposed a general consolidation or general resolution of commonly seen problems and referred back to earlier threads as resolved or still needing work, especially if you were stepping up to do some of that work. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

What is DS?

Hello, this is regarding this post on my talk page by an editor who is not an administrator. I followed the link given, but my username was not even mentioned in the discussion. Can someone please explain me what are discretionary sanctions and how does the editor got rights to impose that thing on me without any administrator involvement? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 01:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

As the message says, it's not imposed on you, it applies to any pages discussing that topic. The notice is on your talkpage because you have edited about that topic before, so you need to be aware of the increased scrutiny that the topic will receive. Any blocks or bans will come from admins, based on the ruling from WP:ARBCOM. RudolfRed (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Anglo-Zanzibar War article is damaged

Just wanted to report that the Wikipedia entry for the Anglo-Zanzibar War is utterly destroyed. I checked the back edits and it's been messed up for quite some time. I tried to revert to an earlier, somewhat acceptable edit but was denied. Maybe I didn't know how to do the revert. Anyway I wasn't allowed to make any change.

Could somebody with the skills to pay the bills repair the article? I'm sure it's as simple as reverting to an earlier edit.

TobusRex (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@TobusRex:Somebody made the image huge. I fixed it. Thanks for letting everyone know --Meanderingbartender (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You missed this edit, Meanderingbartender. I've restored the article to the revision just prior to that edit. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 05:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance! Kewlgrapes/Meanderingbartender, you are both gentlemen (or gentleladies) and scholars!TobusRex (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help to alert WP Projects Biography &/or Musicians to need for article on recently deceased musician Charles Neville (saxophonist) of The Neville Brothers

Greetings,

An important musician died today and I was shocked he didn't have an article. Musician biographies are out of scope for me, but New Orleans culture is not. Jazz Fest begins tomorrow and Charles Neville is dead as of today. People will be looking online for news of the man. A biographic stub, at least, is needed ASAP.

All of the other widely notable members of The Neville Brothers have great articles, well structured and worthy of emulation - with extensive wikilinks, references, and well-formatted discographies - except for the one horn blower who died today, Charles Neville (saxophonist). (An upset friend who got his musical start with him at the age of 13 alerted me to the fact of his death - I was very surprised when I checked Wikipedia and found no article for him alone).

At first I added a notice of his death and link to a reliable news source on the Neville Brothers article Talk page. I boldly made that saxophonist redlink there and later in the Neville Brothers article's infobox. The Charles Neville disambiguation page at first (see History) made no mention of my Charles Neville, so I added Charles Neville (saxophonist. Then I discovered a redirect from Charles Neville (musician) (not on disambiguation page at the time) to theNeville Brothers. For the sake of searchers, I changed it from my saxophonist to the pre-existing musician qualifier, preserving the redirect but losing the redlink.

So, I have perhaps complicated things. One of the two will need to be moved to the other - I favor musician over saxophonist, as the man was versatile and there is no risk at present of searcher confusion. (For editor confusion: my edit summaries are full.)

Still, I ask: how can I bubble up the need for this article to those musician biographers best qualified to draft it? Thanks!

P.S. My redlink in Neville Brothers reverted with Talk page message:

The musician dab is the proper usage. More articles link to it. If a saxophonist dab gets created, it will also redirect back here, until the musician one gets started.

How helpful is that? No luck searching WP musician dab or Template musician dab -- Answered my own question on that one ;) Paulscrawl (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Paulscrawl and welcome to the Teahouse.

That's the thing about Wikipedia, while we, collectively, want the encyclopedia to be as comprehensive as possible, there are always subjects to be found that, while notable, do not yet have their own article. And no individual editor can be assigned to write about something they don't have the inclination to write about.

When creating dabs or disambiguation page entries, there's a preference for using the most general disambiguation word that can be applied, hence (musician) will be preferred over (saxophonist) until there turn out to be multiple musicians with the same name. Redirects are not as restricted and you're allowed to create plausible redirects, but one thing that happens when you have a redirect, as for the Charles Neville (musician) one, is that the links to it are now blue rather than red. This somewhat hampers the function of red links to signal to readers that an article on the subject might be desirable.

You are welcome to start a Draft:Charles Neville (musician) page. To start with, it need not have anything more on it than a one-line description and some possible sources from which the article can be written. You could add a pointer to this draft to the thread you added at Talk:The Neville Brothers to try to jump start the editorial process. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thanks. Good idea. It is a shame redlinks are not favored anymore. I've dropped that link on the Talk pages of WikiProject Musicians and WikiProject R&B and Soul Music.

BTW, exactly how do you link to a specific Talk page - can't find it on search of Help or WP Missing Manual. Thanks again. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We'll see if that stimulates anything, Paulscrawl.

As for your other question, links to talk pages look like [[Talk:The Neville Brothers]] or [[WT:WikiProject Musicians]]. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for MPs

Hey there everyone, I'm new to the English Wikipedia and was thinking about creating some articles about Members of the German parliament, but I'm not sure all of them meet the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Notability. What criteria does a parliamentarian (or politician in general) have to meet to be notable enough for the English Wikipedia? -- Peter Ambos (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Peter Ambos: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The guidelines for politicians are at WP:NPOLITICIAN. Generally, members of a national legislature merit articles. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you for the advice, that's good to know. I'll consult the guideline and go from there. -- Peter Ambos (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to both the Teahouse and to the English Wikipedia, Peter Ambos. I can assure you that no article about an elected member of a national or provincial or state parliament or legislature will be challenged on notability grounds. As long as any such article complies with our Core content policies, it will be kept. If you run into any difficulties, I will be happy to assist you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Peter Ambos, any such article still needs to be based on reliable sources, but such sources should be readily available for any such person, at least for a stub, if not more. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Limit on Submissions?

Hi there - How many times can we make changes and resubmit for review by an editor before we exhaust our chances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamannix (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no specific limit on the number of resubmissions, providing that you are obviously trying to address the issues raised in the previous review. Please read the advice given in the feedback, and the wikilinks to further detailed advice. As a starting point you should read the advice at WP:Your first article, and I have given you further useful links on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether my article has been submitted for review?

Hi,

I wrote an article day before yesterday. Once I finished with the editing, I submitted publish. I haven't received any feedback, so I was wondering whether it has been submitted for review or not? If not, how do i ensure it gets submitted as it is urgent.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vroonmenon (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vroonmenon: If you're referring to your sandbox, you'll need to add {{userspace draft}} to the top of the page. Once you've saved the page, a button will appear to allow you to submit the article for review. I'm afraid, however, that review will likely take longer than a day or two, and no, it will not be treated as urgent, nor will pushing to get it done faster be looked at favorably. There are others waiting in line too. It can be frustrating to wait, but it's the same process for everyone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vroonmenon and welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that you state that publication is urgent suggests that your purpose here is promotion. Apologies if I have misjudged this. If you have some connection with the company, then you have a WP:Conflict of interest, and if you are employed by the company, or run it, then you are required to declare your WP:Paid status. Dbfirs 06:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Your draft has been reviewed, and has been declined, because it reads like an advertisment. However, I fail to see why getting it reviewed is or was urgent. It looks like just another advertisement, and Wikipedia isn't really a very good advertising medium; it is only an encyclopedia. I will comment that the obligation to declare any conflict of interest is not just a courtesy. It is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Beyond any of that, @Vroonmenon:, the backlog on approval of drafts isn't in hours, but in several weeks at the least. There are, on form, a few thousand drafts awaiting approval, and a handful of volunteer editors doing it. Ravenswing 17:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

FOTERA

Greetings! I added a page titled FOTERA to wiki yesterday, which was flagged for speedy deletion. The copy written to describe FOTERA, which was created by me Steven Weitzman, is similar to that on my website at Creative Design Resolutions. IS this the reason the content was removed? Do you need an authorization, or do we need to generate a description that does not too closely mirror that on the website? Any guidance/clarification you can provide will be greatly appreciated!Stevenweitzman (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Stevenweitzman:, and welcome to the Teahouse. First things first, if you have a professional connection with the edited topics, you need to read WP:COI and clearly disclose this connection (more details in the linked guideline). Regarding your question: copying previously published material into Wikipedia needs an explicit license by the copyright owner (usually via mail or with an explicit free license on the source site). But even if the license issue is resolved, such texts are often unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. They often include PR speak, a biased point of view, and excessive secondary details. It would be much better if you would craft a completely new article with a neutrally-phrased overview based on independent reliable sources (all Wikipedia topics must be based on indepedent coverage in multiple reliable sources). But please make sure to read and follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline as the first required step. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You'll also find a detailed step by step guide to create an encyclopedic article at WP:Your first article. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Springfield College is listed near the bottom of the Bill Cosby page as having not revoked Bill Cosby's honorary degree. It has revoked.

My computer hard drive broke and I don't have my Wikipedia ID written down. Here is the source. Also Springfield College told me verbally when I contacted it. The date is listed as October 26, 2015.

http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/10/springfield_college_bill_cosby.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.251.22 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Maproom (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Best way to reach out to other language Wikis

I was wondering if any regulars here know the best way to reach out to members of the Spanish Wikipedia? There is an article on the Spanish Wiki I have concerns about.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since it's a particular article, you could try leaving a message on the talk page of the article on es-wiki. While I'm sure they prefer to get messages in Spanish, a message in English might get the job done. Otherwise, I suggest going to the WP:EMBASSY pages and find one of the users listed as an "ambassador". They can probably put you in touch with the right place to answer your concerns. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply and advice, as always.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Endorsing above good, no doubt best advice from @Jmcgnh:, whom I do not second guess. But life is short.;) I've had fun and quick results as follows:

1. Create a short and grammatically simple Talk page, linking to your English WP User &/or Talk page and let Google Translate go to work. My German Talk page and back in auto-translated English, more or less.

2. Compose a very simple declarative statement for the Subject line of the foreign article's Talk page. Subject-Verb-Object. For example, "So-and-so died YYYY-MM-DD"

3. Insert a reliable source backing up declarative statement without translation or elaboration: Last, First. Date (YYYY-MM-DD). Title. URL. Source. Accessdate YYYY-MM-DD. Example

4. Sign off and expect action - took 20 minutes for my requested edit. YMMV ;)

Note, I assume your Metawiki Preferences, global account info is already set. If not, inquire here.

¡buena suerte! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

wrong dates

Please check first paragraph this page (dates make no sense): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Late_Middle_Ages Probably find out who messed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.241.155 (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism reverted. General Ization ^Talk 03:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked that editor as a "vandalism only" account. They have never made a useful edit. Thank you for the report, IP editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Help Needed on Protocol for Cleaning up an Article About HIV

Hi there!

Super new to editing Wikipedia so I'm looking for some help on how to approach cleaning up an article.

This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

Seems to have a number of factual errors.

Firstly, the USA was listed to have an AIDS prevalence rate of over 2%. The CDC website states that AIDS prevalence is 1.1M, or 0.003% of the population. The source was listed as the CIA factbook, which didn't have USA stats on AIDS when I checked it.

But the issue comes when I edited the USA stat, it no longer made sense in the backdrop of the list.

And checking some CIA factbook stats made no sense either. For example, South Africa was listed as having an aids prevalence of 18.9% in this article and the factbook, but with an absolute value of 7.1 million in 2016. Dividing 7.1 million by 55.91 million gives 12.7%, not 18.9%.

It seems like the article could use some better sources.

How might I start a discussion and properly mark the page for other editors?

The current cleanup tag says it needs an "update" but isn't that different from there being potential errors?

Thanks so much for your help in advance!

@Emwu584: I see you've been on the talk page, which is good. There are 64 people watching the page, so your edits won't go unchecked. I'd say, wrt the update tag, there's a set of other tags that can be used too (Twinkle is very useful for tagging!) It's just a matter of any editor can tag an article, so the presence or absence of a tag can just be oversight. I'd suggest finding some good sources and be bold, just go in there and start fixing it. When people start reverting you, discuss it. The time for discussion is when there's disagreement. You've already used good edit summaries, make sure, no matter how many edits you're making, you keep up the quality of the summary. You're a new editor, and sometimes an unexplained change, particularly of statistics, can look like sneaky vandalism|. It's not right, but new editors get scrutinized more. Keep the edit summaries up and you'll be fine. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Emwu584:, you might want to double-check your maths before you post: The 2017 population of the United States was (per that article), 325,719,178, so 1.1 million (AIDS sufferers per the CDC) would be 0.338%, not 0.003%! (Rough approximation, it's around 1/300, i.e. 1/3 of 1%.)

If you're deriving any figures from your own arithmetic rather than just quoting those published in Reliable Sources, you firstly need to be sure that your starting values all relate to the same years and populations, and secondly be aware that this borders on Synthesis. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:CALC, a section of our policy on Original Research, says; Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. I do not think a simnple division constitutes WP:SYNTH, althoguh the IP editor is correct that one must be sure that the years and populations referred to are the same. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s not just arithmetic, though. Who counts as “adult”: are local definitions used, or have all the countries‘ statistics been adjusted to a common demographic? Does “prevalence” come from counts of diagnoses, or is it based on extrapolations from samples? Were clinical definitions standardized among countries? And so on … these kinds of statistics should always come from sources that are qualified to assess such questions. In short, GIGO.—Odysseus1479 08:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The ENGLISH PROTESTAANT MYTH VERSUS THE LENAPE HISTORY

Many WIKIPEDIA articles about colonial America and “Native Americans” until the present were written by authors, who were taught the ENLISH PROTESTANT MYTH that America was a NEW WORLD inhabited by a few pagans. In fact an evaluation of the evidence shows that America had six centuries of settle. Thus many WIKIPEDIA articles have text that is not valid. A coherent history of the Catholic spoke NORSE can be found at LENAPE HISTORY, LENAPE LAND. How can we create a process to verify the LENAPE HISTORY, find the WIKIPEDIA articles that need text changes and resolve the two different versions of Colonial American History?

The LENAPE history took years to compile. I expect that the resolition of all the data will take years to resolve with authorities having firm opions through out the prosse.

How can we resolve two differing, extensive histories with passionate authorities on both sides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8401:C49:6079:FD99:E711:30B3 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's history articles summarize professionally-published mainstream academic sources. If you have some of those sources to present, go to the talk pages for the relevant articles and summarize them there. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The source of contention here appears to be a blog [1] which proposes that Norse-speaking Catholics reached the new land centuries before the Spanish and English explorers and colonists, and instructed the Lenape peoples. The person behind this theory appears to be Myron Paine, schooled as an agricultural engineer and self-taught as a historian of pre-Columbus exploration and settling of North America. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The NEWPORT TOWER

In the article on the NEWPORT TOWER the text reads,

“the remains of a windmill built in the mid-17th century.”

This text should be “the remains of a keep of a Catholic Church built in the 14th century.” Why has Holand’s very exhaustive research, including trips to Europe, been ignored?

<ref>Holand, Hjalmar R. 1958, Explorations in America Before Columbus, New York, Twayne Publishers, Inc.</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8401:C49:6079:FD99:E711:30B3 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not shout (as in use all capital letters), as it hurts my eyes. David notMD (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahosue. I take it you refer to Newport Tower (Rhode Island) (there are other articles about structures labeled "Newport Tower"). The article currntly cites several scholarly sources which support the conclusion that the tower was built as a mill. It also cites some sources that take a different view, in fact sevferal different views, and gives other sources that have disagreed in each case. I have not read and cannot judge the source you mention. I urge you to raise the issue on Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island), where interested editors can discuss the issue. If this is a reliable source, it might well be added to the article, but the other sources should normally remain also. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, in future plueae sign posts here and on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). And please do not create two sections here that are near duplicates. It just lengthens the page and confuses discussion. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• The view you express is already mentioned in the current article lead: [Newport Tower] has received attention due to speculation that it is actually several centuries older and would thus represent evidence of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Carbon dating shows this belief to be incorrect. It would be quite extraordinary if a building in America was a Catholic church from before Columbus, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

I have made a page for someone and need to be able to have it available to be searched for, I wish to publish the page. please help

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuiejd (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Stuiejd have you been paid to do so? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is abut Stuart Davidson (radio presenter) Stuiejd, I have deleted it as being promotional, and as not indicating in what way the person i9s significant. It was also almost totally unsourcd, which is not good for an article about a living person. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Article for review: Help

I have just submitted the article Draft:Morgan K Orioha and I need someone to help review it, so that it will be accepted.Nwachinazo (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nwachinazo, it is correctly submitted in the queue waiting to be reviewed, which will happen in due course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I created a page about the musician Noodle Bomber but it has been declined and i dont know why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Noodle_Bomber Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlebomberplays (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The pink box at the top of the draft, and the message on your user talk page, explain why the draft was declined. In those messages, the words in blue are wikilinks to further detailed advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Noodlebomberplays. Please read and study our notability guideline for musicians and also Your first article. A SoundCloud link is worthless for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Taxobox Image Size

Hi everyone, I was finishing a page about a animal Genus, and got a picture to upload on the taxobox. My problem is, it doesn't fits properly, ~60% of the box. How do I improve this part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeónHormiga (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. After this edit the image is now centred rather than being offset. The syntax is described at Template:Taxobox#Images. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, new guy here, starting out. Any tips?

Would help a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conrad Bairagi (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Conrad Bairagi. I suggest that you start by reading the Five pillars of Wikipedia and familiarizing yourself with our Core content policies. There are many useful links at Help:Contents, and you can always ask specific questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, in future please sign posts on talk pages, and discussion pages like this one, with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please unlock the 91st Scripps National Spelling Bee wiki page

I have important and relevant information for the page, but it appears another editor higher up has locked it because of a disagreement with him. It would be great if you review the page history and hopefully unlock it, as there was no vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfson (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Appears you want to add all the names of the contestants (children) in the upcoming event 91st Scripps National Spelling Bee and the other edit does not, citing policy. That person rightfully started a discussion on the article's talk page. Take you debate there. A different editor put on a lock because of your edit war. There was no accusation of vandalism. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The place to discuss changes to the page is at Talk:91st Scripps National Spelling Bee, but it has also been discussed at WP:ANI#91st Scripps National Spelling Bee. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Translator of article's subject: SME or COI?

I'm creating several pages for modern Tunisian authors, as part of WikiProject Tunisia. (I'm somewhat new at it, though.) To decide which authors to include, I'm looking at those that were included in an issue on Modern Tunisian Literature in a major literary magazine. So I have an objective standard I'm following.

But, I'm an Arabic-English translator, and I've published translations for two of these authors. (One of the two I know personally, the other I do not though I have communicated with her for the translation work.)

So does that make me a SME or a COI editor? I'm planning on adding a "connected contributer" template to the author who I know personally, but what about the other one? Does having translated an author's work give me a conflict of interest?

Thanks! Larapsodia (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

authority control template not picking up Wikidata info - ambiguous article name to blame?

Resolved

Hi, I'm hard at work on Charles Neville (musician) and did some checking and maintenance of metadata at Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1065628, but I can't get later picked up by new article's authority control template. Should I add VIAF, etc. manually or edit Wikidata to point to new en-wiki article or what? Thanks. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you needed to purge the enwiki page after the enwiki page had been linked to the wikidata page? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

All fixed; perhaps just my browser cache needed clearing, as I did nothing else. Thanks - the purge link helped. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Reporting

There's a kid who looks no older than 12 years old, adding shows that don't exist. You'll find him at the top of my history named 'Eturner112'

I've looked through a few of his edits and some of them look helpful, but some of the recent ones aren't.

One example is the 2012-2014 Bad Education (TV series) which he's added to multiple lists as 'Bad Education - The Series' and 'Bad Education - The Second Period' neither of which exist, with years ranging from 2008-2017 and 2014-2017.

And a second example of a show he added is 'Ruffy-Tuff & Elliot's Sunday Night Takeaway' which is another show that doesn't exist. As soon as I saw it I thought he's blatantly taking the mick out of Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway. A quick Google later and it takes me to his Youtube channel where he has the opening titles of Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway in a playlist named 'Ruffy-Tuff & Elliot's Sunday Night Takeaway'.

There's probably more additions of shows that don't exist in his history.

So I was wondering if there was a way to report him so someone to keep an eye on him?

Danstarr69 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. The user is now blocked for 2 weeks. Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The user's block has expired. Vermont (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't look at his talk page until now, and it looks like his false edits have been going on a long time. Adding Films that don't exist. Adding TV shows that don't exist. Film/TV companies/producers/directors etc added to shows/films they have nothing to do with. Adding redirects to unrelated subjects disambiguation pages etc. He's good at making them look legitimate.

Danstarr69 (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

They haven't edited since their block was instituted. Perhaps they gave up. Vermont (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. see here Nick Moyes (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont @Nick Moyes I was just looking through my edits to see if any have been changed, and noticed he was back again, so came here to say that.

His edits to Hotel Transylvania look legit, but not his edits to British Comedy Films.

He's deleted the Genre section. Changed the Studios section to say Content Advice. Proceeded to delete the studios and add content advice which he probably made up. Added those two non-existent films An American Holiday and Another American Holiday for the millionth time. And changed the British Board of Film Classification's to American ones.

Danstarr69 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked him. Let me know if new accounts start adding these hoax films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)