Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 877

Archive 870

←

Archive 875

Archive 876

Archive 877

Archive 878

Archive 879

Archive 880

Psycho series article

I have wrote an article on my sandbox, intending it to go on Psycho Series until I realised it is create protected. It is the only online series of its kind and has over 1 billion views; I think that is easily both A7 qualified and WP:NOTABLE. I think the reason it was create protected was because people probably made very poor articles. How do I get this article created? IWI (chat) 23:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi IWI. If you create a draft article which is accepted, the reviewer can move it to the protected title. —teb728 t c 00:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

teb728, ImprovedWikiImprovment has created a draft, in their sandbox, and has submitted it for review. If the reviewing editor accepts it, they will sort out moving it to the right place. However, ImprovedWikiImprovment, although your current draft has 56 references, as far as I can see only one, or possibly two, of them are independent reliable sources - and they are both about one single incident, not the channel in general. (The two are Variety, and possibly Tubefilter, but see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Blogs count towards notability?). Unless you find some more independent reliable sources that cover the channel at more length, I don't think it will establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Actually I hadn't submitted it until teb728 instructed me to do so. The article is about the online series, which inspried a Streamy Award winning documentary. It's very much a cult series, which may explain my difficulty finding sources. Also the source numbers 2 and 3 are also independent from the creator (which aren't reliable in of themselves but prove the preceding point). IWI (chat) 00:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There is also source number 6. IWI (chat) 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

IWI: I said that if you create an article which is accepted protection would not be a problem; I didn't say anything about submitting the current content of your sandbox. You mentioned WP:NOTABLE; so I assumed you knew we were looking for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Teb728: I do but these drafts usually take weeks to be reviewed, so I put it forward now. I’m not sure if many exist, due to the nature of the series. IWI (chat) 01:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I now understand your comment was effectively hypothetical. IWI (chat) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m completely confused as to the extent that Notability extends. I now have 11 secondary sources, at least 3 from reliable sources. When did this strictness start; there are articles on Wikipedia with one overall source that somehow make it through while a Streamy Award nominated online series (with a completely unique format) with over a billion views is rejected. If this were a TV series, there would be no argument. Another example of many user's tendency to instantly disregard anything from YouTube unless you have 67 secondary sources from the New York Times and Washington Post. Completely absurd. IWI (chat) 02:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Pinging Cullen because he is fair. IWI (chat) 11:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment. In order to establish notability, you need to provide references to multiple independent reliable secondary sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. I am only seeing one source that meets that standard, the article in Variety. We do not require anywhere near 67 sources and far more publications are acceptable than the New York Times and the Washington Post. Official YouTube videos are acceptable, if issued by a media organization with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. What you describe as "strictness" has been our standard for the nearly ten years that I have been editing, and longer. The USA Today and Hollywood Reporter sources do not provide significant coverage of the topic, since in both cases the series is mentioned only as an entry in a long list. Your first job is to establish that the series is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I suggest that you find at least two or three other reliable sources comparable to the Variety source in depth of coverage. Eliminate all of the YouTube links and the summaries of each episode. Present a much briefer and much better referenced draft. If additional sources of the required quality are not available, then the series is not notable and no acceptable article can be written. Because the title is salted, any attempt to recreate the article will be subject to heightened scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to actually look at what I have written properly, unlike some others. Yes the 67 reference thing was an exaggeration for dramatic effect. I should repeat that the article was salted because very poor articles were created. IWI (chat) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Therefore, you must write a very good draft for it to be accepted, ImprovedWikiImprovment, that makes a compelling case for notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: With all due respect, I'm pretty certain this is less of a notability thing and more of a "youtube? can't be notable" thing. WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline as well (which as I don't have to tell you, doesn't have to be followed); don't you think an exception or even a complete WP:IAR could be used here since (I reiterate) it is the only notable series of its kind with one billion overall views. I've been here for four years myself and you only seem to get this much "WP:NOTABILITY" enforcement on anything from the internet; that kind of overall mentality, in my opinion, is harmful to the project, suppressing internet series and anything else from YouTube (even though this platform is one of the most popular forms of media, essentially online TV). I would understand (and agree) if this was something with 100,000 views that was completely generic, but this is the opposite. The notability guideline aims to protect the project from articles about useless things: ask yourself, is it serving that purpose here, all information in the article is verifiable and not original research. There is even an IMDb about it. IWI (chat) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The reason there isn't significant coverage is due to the fact that is wasn't revealed the series was actually a series (i.e. it was depicted as real) until its conclusion in 2016 and so until then, it was just viewed by the outside world as a dysfunctional family and this is the exact reason why it is unique and therefore notable. I contacted the creator (Jesse Ridgway) to see if he knew of any articles, and he said, "There has never been too many articles or press written about the Psycho Series, it's still very much a cult-classic." IWI (chat) 00:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

IAR, ImprovedWikiImprovment? I do not think so. There is a reason why four administrators have deleted previous versions of this article, and the notion that a fifth administrator will overrule them based on ignoring rules is ludicrous. You must demonstrate notability convincingly if you hope to create an article about this topic. Your theory about why significant coverage is lacking seems weak to me, but it does not matter. If that coverage doesn't exist, then there will be no article. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Since every edit one makes should improve the encyclopedia and I am not going to get anywhere with this, I will leave it. No article. There is no if, coverage does not exist; I've looked everywhere. As Beyond My Ken put it in his Thoughts essay: "When two admins tell you that black is white, it is fruitless to continue to try to show them that black is black and white is white." IWI (chat) 00:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The draft is deleted. IWI (chat) 00:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Getting the page I wrote accepted.

Hello Really appreciate the help here. I'm building up to doing a page on the 2008 mass drownings at Loch Awe in Scotland but wanted to start with something smaller first. I've done a page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Moon_(author) I maybe added too many sources, because when I tried before I didn't have enough. So maybe now some are not good enough quality but I could really use some feedback here. I thought the Fulbright scholarship page would be very good as a source and 5 or 6 independent newspaper stories would be enough I thought too? I could cut it right down and remove a lot of sources if that helps? Any help appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevand357 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kevand357: The biggest problem is that there are no in-line citations, just external links. A scholarship is not a source.

You can see how to add in-line citations in in point 3 of this section of a guide I wrote, and how to list those references in the last section of that guide. This section of that guide explains how to write articles that won't get rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The newspaper articles are not about Robert Moon. David notMD (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Permission to change title(s)

Senator John Boozman is the sponsor of the bill that is now in Congress for approval to designate the Butterfield Trail as a National Historic Trail. When the bill is approved, there will be an increased interest by the public. As a result, searches on the internet will lead some to Wikipedia. In preparation, I have recently added a significant amount to the history of Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company in Wikipedia under the heading of “Butterfield Overland Mail.” Some have used inaccurate secondary references and I have made corrections based on cross-referenced primary source references. There is a related category on Wikipedia under the heading of “John Warren Butterfield.” This is supposed to be the president of the Overland Mail Company. The name is inaccurate. About a month ago I added a paragraph to the site explaining the confusion over his name. Because of the importance for having an accurate biography for John Butterfield, considering the bill in Congress, I am about to add a comprehensive biography, which includes changing the title from “John Warren Butterfield” to “John Butterfield.” I hope this is acceptable to Wikipedia’s policies. Eventually I will be editing the categories mentioned so that the subjects will be linked by redirects. Also, will be adding much artwork in the future. There is no doubt, based on many primary source references that I have listed on the site, that his correct name was “John Butterfield.” Kirby Sanders had the Congressional authority given by Public Law 111-11 signed by President Barack Obama on March 30, 2009, to develop the Resource Study Act to support the bill now in Congress for approval. Kirby and I have discussed many of the inaccuracies to be corrected for this famous Old West enterprise, which included John Butterfield’s name. Other related subjects will also be linked by redirects, such as the history of the Overland Mail Company’s stage stations. At present, in Wikipedia, the stations are listed but there are inaccuracies including some that are not Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company stage stations. I will be correcting some of these. But would also like permission to change the titles of some of the stations to reflect a more accurate title. Many simply have the word “Station” in their title. I would like to change these to “Stage Station.” The reason being is that the Butterfield Trail followed a natural corridor through the southwest that later became basically the same route for the railroad in 1880. The train stations often took the historic name of some of Butterfield’s nearby stage stations. To distinguish the difference in Wikipedia, the word “Stage” should be added to the category of Butterfield’s stage stations.I may have been a little “long-winded” on this subject, but want to make sure I adhere strictly to Wikipedia’s policies. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Anyone feel qualified to be Bold enough to change the article name from John Warren Butterfield to John Butterfield, and then delete the second and third paragraphs of the lead, which would then be entirely unnecessary content added as evidence that John Butterfield is John Butterfield? David notMD (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by your statement. I apologize if I was not clear enough in my above explanation. I have not deleted anything from the "John Warren Butterfield" site. The second and third paragraphs were added by me about a month ago under my heading of "Confusion concerning John Butterfield’s Name." Those two paragraphs give clear primary source references that the president of the Overland Mail Company was "John Butterfield" and not "John Warren Butterfield." The original entries for "John Warren Butterfield give no reference for the middle name. I provided a reference for a John Warren Butterfield that is a different person to show where the confusion may be. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

What I recommended was a change in the article title to "John Warren" and the deletion of the two paragraphs as no longer needed. What Ian Thompson did was delete the two paragraphs (as original research) and left the JWB name intact. I will start a discussion at the Talk of that page, pinging Ian, to see if we can get this resolved. David notMD (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

For the curious, the person who created the article in 2008 named it John Warren Butterfield even though the reference cited has the name as "John Butterfield." Thus, original error. IMO no evidence needed to justify a name change. David notMD (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Gerald T. Ahnert, your two paragraphs on the name would be appropriate on a talk page (or a forum like the Teahouse), but not in an article: You combined facts from sources to reach your own conclusion which is not given in the sources. Wikipedia’s core policy of No original research does not allow that in an article. That presumably is why the paragraphs were removed from the article.

More generally, from what you say above you seem to prefer primary sources, but Wikipedia tends to prefer secondary sources. —teb728 t c 00:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

OK I moved it to John Butterfield (stagecoach operator)--the plain name is a disambiguation page. Is it OK to use the redirect for all the references to the old title? —teb728 t c 01:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That got the job done. This was extremely important as many have used the misinformation. Just as a comment: The subject of Butterfield's Overland Mail Company on the Southern Overland Trail has not had anywhere near as much research done as the Central Overland Trail. Because of my fifty years of research and writing about the subject, I have written articles for The Overland Journal and Desert Tracks correcting some of the history based on new information. These are publications of the Oregon-California Trails Association. I have also written two books on the subject. I have been asked by historians such as Roger Dheshi, California Parks Service to correct their site and to write articles which now appear on their site. There are many others such as the Shiloh Museum of the Ozarks, the Encyclopedia of Arizona History, Dr. Aaron Wright, Archaeology Southwest, Santa Clarita Valley History site, and Linda Hodgkins, Postal History Foundation who have also asked for my assistance. You have stated that I prefer primary source references for Wikipedia. Not entirely, but in some cases there has been new information that I have recently uncovered that corrects some of the errors based on secondary references on Wikipedia sites concerning this subject. I might add that some of the noted published works also have significant errors. It is not just my opinion, but many confirmed by Kirby Sanders, who had the Congressional authority to develop the Resource Study Act to support the bill in Congress for the Butterfield Trail. I have found additional new information because of recent questions asked of me by National Park Service Historian Frank Norris. I was just developing a bio for John Butterfield with much new information to add to Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that I will have to now limit the bio as I am not allowed to use primary source references. As an example I assume I will not be allowed to quote from a newspaper account about the 1869 death of John Butterfield. Is this true? Your answer will give me a better understanding. Thanks again. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Editing Question

Do I have to provide a source for something as trivial as a fact or a certain number if it has already been confirmed by multiple wikipedia pages that are related to this subject. 02:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's truly trivial, no. However, just because the information is available on other Wikipedia pages does not mean that a reader will necessarily know about that information–be sure that the information in question is actually trivial, and if you have a source on hand, you may as well cite it. For more information, see WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Publish an article of a company

Hi! How can publish an page about the company? I have just published but it has been deleted by Wikipedia. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolina Gomez Apache (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Carolina Gomez Apache: welcome to the Teahouse. A few days ago you received very detailed instructions on your user talk page. Please read those first, and make sure to comply with the instructions regarding conflict of interest. You have also received some advice at the Help desk - your archived thread is here. If anything is still unclear, please come back and ask. --bonadea contributions talk 07:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi

Dear Sir,

I am Masroor Chaudhary. I am new member of wikipedia. I want to add some thing of Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi article on wikipedia page. Unfortunately it is not added and it is minor edit. How can i edit. I want to add this line - She was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah "Zamindar" of vill. Hayaghat Bilaspur, Dist. Darbhanga. Please advice me.

I am waiting to hear from you soonest.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary

Dist: Darbhanga. Bihar India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Masroor Chaudhary, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please look at the message GeorgeCustersSabre left on your user talk page: the information which you have five times introduced to the article Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi has been reverted by different editors because you have not given a published source for the information. Wikipedia cannot accept any information which has not been published in a reliable source: personal knowledge is not acceptable, because a reader has no way of checking its accuracy.

I realise you are a new editor, and not familiar with the ways of Wikipedia; but I must tell you that to keep on making a change which other people revert, is called edit warring, and is not allowed. Anybody may make an edit; but according to BOLD, once somebody else reverts your edit, you must discuss the matter with them rather than simply reapply your edit.

Nobody is saying that the information you have introduced is wrong, and I'm sure that you are wanting to help us improve Wikipedia; but until you can find a reliable published source for the information, it cannot be accepted into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding Daily article pageviews to talkpages

Hello Teahouse,

I noticed a Wikipedia article which had the Daily article pageviews on its talkpage, which seemed like an interesting and useful way to track this information. I added the same template to the Wear it Purple Day talkpage, and it seemed like it worked. Is there a reason why this parameter isn't automatically included in talkpages? Or is it considered contentious, or do people use other pageview tools like the linked out ones in Page information?

Thank you for your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

As each time it's viewed it means multiple new queries to the server, adding it to all 6,916,924 articles would cause significant performance issues. By all means feel free to add it to talkpages where you feel it would be genuinely useful, such as those that see significant peaks and troughs in readership. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent this makes sense! It does seem good for articles relating to anniversaries and such. I appreciate your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

Kumano Kodo Teahouse - this image is free for use on Wikimedia Commons

Auchi central mosque, Edo State, Nigeria. This image is also free to be added to a relevant page

How can I post pictures when editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osarobo123 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Osarobo123 and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question really depends whether you mean 'how do I upload my own photos for use on Wikipedia?' or whether you mean 'How do I insert an existing, validly-licenced image from Wikimedia Commons into a Wikipedia page? (like the ones I've just added here for you.) Anything you upload MUST be your own copyright material, and not some image taken from another website without permission. Your best starting place is to read the guidance at Wikipedia:Uploading images, then come back here for further specific help if you get stuck. But note that if you click on either of those images to go to the Wikimedia Commons page where they're located, you will see a small 'W' icon just above the top of the image, with the words 'Use this file'. Click that, and you get a popup on screen - copy the first line of text and insert that into the top of the relevant section of an article, and click Preview, and you'll see your image now added to that page. You can add your own caption before 'Publishing changes' to save the edit. I hope this is sufficient to get you started. Oh, and don't forget to sign every Talk page post each time you leave a message. You do that by typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) at the end of your post. Your username and timestamp then get added automatically. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Contributions

Hi, Ive made a couple of contributions. My question is how do i know if the articles ive edited have been approved or have been rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opticaafrica (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Opticaafrica. You can monitor articles that you edit or are interested in by using the "Contributions" and "Watchlist" tabs at the top of your screen when you are logged in. Please read Help: User contributions and Help: Watchlist, which explain the details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

To add to Cullen328's reply, from the Contributions or Watchlist pages you can click on the history link for the relevant article to see subsequent edits, which may have relevant edit summaries if your edits have been reverted. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You have made edits to two articles. All you have changed has been reverted, i.e., reversed. You can go to the articles and click on View history at the top to see that the editor after you did the revert and left an answer why. The editor also left a note on your Talk page. Think of this as a learning experience. The "good faith" part of the comments acknowledged that your intentions were to improve the articles (versus vandalism). David notMD (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox for Scenic Points

Was trying to find an infobox for scenic viewpoints like Glacier Point or Ladies View, but could not find any. Can see that the infobox help guide recommends getting consensus before creating a new infobox (understandably), but it was not clear to me where that consensus would be sought? I was trawling through the infobox help pages and could not find an area to propose new infoboxes? Would be happy to design an infobox for scenic viewpoints, but the fact that there is not already such an infobox makes me think that this is for a reason? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey there Britishfinance. This is actually something I myself have been wondering, so after seeing your post here I looked around a bit. I was able to find Help:Infobox#Designing an infobox, which states "Prototype your new design in your own user space. Once prototyped, propose the infobox changes to the appropriate WikiProject and gain consensus before deploying your new design in the template namespace." So if you think a new infobox needs to be created, I suppose the best place to do so would be the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. For this case, maybe Travel and Tourism will do? The problem is, if it's not a very active project, you may not get many responses. Hopefully this helps you out a bit.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that SkyGazer 512. I will check it out. I'm glad that someone else has also considered this too. I do think that it would make sense given the other travel (or geographic) infoboxes in use. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

adding to Wikipedia

I would love to add to the Maryland License plate "Specialty Plates" I live in Maryland and have been observing and collecting a database on Maryland Plates. How do I get started to ADD to the Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdvanet (talk • contribs) 15:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mdvanet. Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse.

There's nothing you need to do to get started: you've created an account (optional, but recommended) and have already edited to post this question. But if you edit an article without understanding the basics of how Wikipedia works (as opposed to a wiki in general), your edit is likely to get reverted and frustration may ensue for all.

The point here is that Wikipedia articles summarise what existing (reliably) published sources say about a matter. If you can find a book or a scholarly paper on Maryland speciality plates, you could summarise what that paper said in a Wikipedia article. But Wikipedia does not accept original research, which is what your project sounds like. I suggest having a look at the five pillars, and then trying the Wikipedia Adventure. Cheers, --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Google integration

If a living person has a Google knowledge panel and a Wiki page, how do you ensure the two are integrated? I'm specifically asking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Bastian. I do have a COI, which is noted on my user page. Thanks! Avgalatl (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Google has no connection to Wikipedia or Wikimedia and we have no control over their output. The algorithms they use are a heavily-protected commercial secret so we can't say how their information is selected (although much of the material they credit to "Wikipedia" is almost certainly actually drawn from Wikidata); for more specific information, you'd need to ask Google direct (www.google.com/contact). ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Restricted pages

What do you do if you have an important piece of information to add to a page but it is restricted? This information is quite important and could really help any people looking at the page. The page is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Sugg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyw004 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Mollyw004: welcome to the Teahouse! You can request edits like this: Go to the article's talk page, Talk:Joe Sugg and post an edit request there. Copy this code: {{edit semi-protected}} and paste it into a new section on the talk page, and then write your request below. You'll need to provide independent sources for whatever information it is you want to include. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

more than a 1000 edits after my last teahouse post, I ask you guys, what should I do next. Should I become an Admin?

I really need your help guys in giving your opinion of what you want from me as an editor. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks --I love rpgs (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving hundreds of images to Commons does not make you Admin ready. Keep calm and edit on. David notMD (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You aren't going to become an admin for at least 2 years regardless of what you do on Wikipedia. Fortunately for you, being an admin is a thankless job that you don't really want. If you want to be more involved administratively, I recommend reading pages like Requested moves, Articles for deletion, or good article reviews. You can also write and improve articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

but @Power~enwiki: if admins are such a "thankless job" then why are there so many admins on wikipedia? Also BU Rob 13 became an admin in less than a year after his registration--I love rpgs [please ping me! ] 17:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13 hadn't just been kicked off Commons for disruption after failing to reply to a single one of the 58 complaints on their talkpage, for one thing… ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Loose Women" and also assistance and guidance

Hi my name is Luke Jarvis, my account is lukejarvis1994

I have been doing ITV Daytime chat show "Loose Women" have been doing this for the last couple of months of the information and also to update it. The reason I am writing this because I just help for someone to help me bring back the episodes of the weeks the panellists is on and also the last 19 years I feel it would benefit for anyone to know whose on and also to keep track.

However I another thing to ask I need assistance and guidance of how to use the Wikipedia full title of talking about or URL of any page I am talking or even asking about and also the cite of the sources I am using or writing.

Finally I would like to say Thank You very much for the invitation to the Teahouse.

I would like to say it would be very much appreciated for anyone to help me and I will try and reply to anything when I can. If there is any help or support for the programmes in the UK let me know. I am very openly honest what I do and say and I am 100% of my effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeJarvis1994 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Appears you have been editing Loose Women and List of Loose Women presenters for months, so not clear what your problems are. Is this about how to cite? Lastly, sign your comments by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Article translated from German

Hi there! I had an article about Datacolor rejected due to unreliable secondary sources. I had translated the original article from German (Datacolor page to create an English version, as this company is based in New Jersey, so this would be useful. Does anyone have any recommendations of how to correctly translate an existing article with appropriate sources so that it does not get rejected again? I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, so any tips would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Jacri11 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jacri11 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd be happy to try to help you out to explain the issues with the article and how you can fix them. The problem with the article, as you said, is sourcing. You did not provide multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and significantly cover the topic, as required by the notability guidelines for companies. Of the two sources you provided, the first one was the company's website, which is not considered independent as it was created by the company; anyone can make a company and then make a website, so this reference can't be used to establish notability. The second ref is the company's profile on Owler, which, similarly, doesn't meet the strict guidelines needed to be a good reference for notability establishing, because isn't considered reliable nor independent. An example of a good source would be a New York Times article about the company written by someone not affiliated with it. The best thing to do would be to just keep searching for good sources; if none exist, then the article may unfortunately not be suitable for Wikipedia. Getting an article accepted is one of the most tricky things for new users, so please don't get discouraged. If you have a question as to whether a source would help establish notability, please don't hesitate to ask here or on my talk page. Does this help you out some?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, different language Wikipedias have different policies on notability, so just because the German Wikipedia has an article, that doesn't necessarily mean that a translated version of the article would be allowed in the English Wikipedia. shoy (reactions) 16:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512 and shoy This is extremely helpful. I will continue to search for better and more reliable sources. Thank you so much for your responses - I appreciate it! Jacri11 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, Jacri11; I'm glad I could help. Good luck and again, if you have any more questions feel free to ask here. :-)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to Lithuania

Is there a page where everyone on vikipedia can read and say their opinion. I want to write something on such page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan311 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathan311: there's the miscellaneous section of the Village Pump. However, depending on what you want to write about, there may be a talk page more specifically oriented to that topic that could potentially be a more appropriate venue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathan311: But, please be aware we have no pages for chit-chat or for discussing personal opinions in the way that online forums (fora) offer. We only discuss matters relevant to editing Wikipedia or editing a particular article (where you would use that article's Talk Page to raise issues about the article's content). You might like to read WP:NOTFORUM to get an idea what we don't accept as part of expressing opinions. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The user who started this section has started a discussion at Talk:Lithuania#Location, but failed to give any arguments or sources to support his claims. In the end, he started accusing and insulting me. I have written more than once that he needs to give arguments and support his claims with sources, but every time he just acted like I was the one who wanted to change something even after I wrote my arguments and/or supported them. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

My advice - if this is about Lithuania start a new discussion there. I will point out that as of this moment the article reads "...is a country in the Baltic region of Europe." If this is about your opinion of other editors, the best advice is "don't." One guideline of Wikipedia is comment on comments, but do not disparage the person who wrote them. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

How to creating new article?

Greetings everyone my question is how to create new Wikipedia article about internet relay design on Wikipedia? I have manuscripts prepared and I wish to transmit to article format hopefully on the morrow for benefitting all. I have read a few help channels but I am no closer to achieving this goal and I would appreciate helps. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not publish original research. Unless you have a third party source for this information it (probably) shouldn't be published on Wikipedia. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Refquest. Please read Your first article and you may also find The Wikipedia Adventure worth completing. I noticed that you are using the word "manuscripts" which usually refers to unpublished documents. Only published sources are acceptable in an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Yes thank you I have read these pages. I would like helpful guidance please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Refquest, please ask a specific question. "Helpful guidance" is just too vague. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

My specific question is how do I creating new article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The information on how to do that is in a link which you were given above: WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello David and good evening, I have read this link but I require actual guidance. Providing me with link I have reading is not helpful. Furthermore, mentioning that I was already given the unhelpful link may to be considered rude. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Refquest: Your first article and The Wikipedia Adventure constitute the standard advice every new editor gets. David (not me, the other David) is being helpful, not rude. Second, Wikipedia runs on civility. Calling a helpful person rude, a person who volunteers their own time to answer questions, is - rude. Third, my guess is you want to write an article based on your own efforts ("manuscripts prepared"). That is not allowed at Wikipedia. Last, please sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Refquest. If you did not find the Your first article page helpful, and would like to immediately start writing, you can use the Article Wizard. The first steps there are reminders but it will eventually get you to your first draft. Also, I hope you have noted the suggestions of the others here just so you can avoid your efforts getting wasted. Even if you were able to write an article, it will be rejected if it did not meet the standards. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Accounts without User pages

As I read through the teahouse I see a lot of usernames, but in red. They do not have user pages. How is that a person can have a user name, but not a user:page?Oldperson (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Just signing up for Wikipedia doesn't in and of itself create a user page for the user. The user in question needs to manually create it themselves and many users (not just vandals) probably don't want to bother creating one. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] When a user creates an account, it automatically comes with the potential for a user page, but no account holder is obliged to have a user page, and many do not bother to create one if they don't want to say anything about themselves as a Wikipedia editor, which is what the page is really intended for. (You may have noticed that I have deliberately remained one step further back and have never opened an account at all, despite being an active editor for over 15 years.)

It's trivially easy for the user to create their user page; they simply have to click on the red link of their user name, be taken to a message that says essentially "this page doesn't exist yet", and then type something (anything) to get it started.

Creating an account also creates the potential for a user Talk page to allow communication with them, such as welcoming them to Wikipedia, leaving useful links to help them edit, and notifying them if they have inadvertently (or, sometimes, deliberately) breached Wikipedia protocols in some way. Any other user can activate the talk page, in the same manner as previously described, to perform these functions and usually someone does. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First time contributor

I recently posted my first article, Rodent Research Hardware System. This is a set of enclosures for rodents used on the ISS. In the list of suggested improvements was "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.". The article is about research hardware developed by NASA and provides a summary of the research that has been done and that is currently planned. NASA has the final say on all research that will use the system. Almost all links I used for the article are in the NASA.gov or NASA.org domains. My effort was to provide simple factual information about the program. Much of the research that the experiments involved in is ongoing and does not have published results. It is unclear to me in this case what, "independent, third-party source" would be any more reliable than NASA. Where I did reference information where NASA was not the primary authoritative source I did make an effort to use a third party. For example in an explanation of the requirements for one mission I referenced the source document of the guidelines they were seeking to comply with - https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf. I found an older article, Scientific research on the International Space Station, that also almost exclusively references NASA sources. Can someone clarify what type of references are being sought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCO11163 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather than items published by NASA about NASA, it would be preferable to cite articles written about NASA (and its activities) by independent journalists in magazines and journals edited and published by organisations independent of NASA (i.e. "third parties"), such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Sky and Telescope, Science, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, etc., etc.

Such publications are what are termed Secondary sources, as opposed to documentation by NASA (or Government grant-issuing bodies) which would be Primary sources. (Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a Tertiary source.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

UDP banner

• Hi, we're having trouble removing this 'UDP' banner because a more senior member keeps reinstating it (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Ricks). The article has been gone over with a fine toothed comb and no one is even sure if it was paid for at any time. The point here is that this isn't a black and white issue (after researching on wiki) and that the problem (if there is even a problem(!)) is between a *suspected* paid poster and our senior member, not with the page. Recent comments seem to be ignored. Please help. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a duplicate copy of a post you placed on Talk:Jim Ricks half an hour previously. That page really seems the best place for your request to be answered by involved editors, rather than here, and we do ask people not to post in more than one place at a time as this then just duplicates volunteer effort. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:Ok, I am only seeking help and didn't know about that rule.Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The article was created 26 September by NeedaAnsari00, who claims to be an engineer from/in India. SAME DAY, Herperian Nguyen started massive number of edits to article. On 9 December, Genericname23 started editing, and has been a frequent editor to the exclusion of almost anything else. G was separately accused of being a sock on another article, dismissed accusation, but a cloud remains. Hard to believe that three people from far corners of the word fascinated with Jim Ricks. Not seeing fire, but smelling smoke. At minimum, I concur with the UDP and COI banners. David notMD (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

New article move to incorrect location

I am part of the Wiki Scholars program and while moving a new article live I incorrectly sent it to the wrong location. It appears to be my talk page? but as a live article? I was hoping to either put it back in my sandbox (not sure this is possible) or in the correct main space. Apologies as I am new at this and missed something while exploring Move related training and articles. Please see below.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Carol7288/sandbox2&redirect=no

Thanks for the help! Carol7288 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Carol7288

Hello Carol7288. It looks like everything has been done correctly, it's just that when moving pages, Wikipedia leaves a redirect by default, because it is often helpful for people who are looking for the page. If you want the redirect removed, you can simply copy {{db-u1}} to the top of the page (that is, the redirect page [1] and not Etta Haynie Maddox), and an administrator should be around to delete it shortly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carol7288, Welcome to Tea House. You sand box is empty now. Your aticle Etta Haynie Maddox is in the pool of new page waiting in review. You still could edit the page. If you want the page to move to draft space so you would take your time to edit it as it might have a lot more for development, then I would move it for you. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance Template has been placed on this article. How do i contact the placer of the same and convey that reliable secondary sources have been used

Hello My first article got published recently and I got a notification of Page Issue stating that it may not meet the notability clause. I contacted fellow wikipedians over chat and shared that the references were indeed from reliable secondary sources . Some agreed and some gave suggestions for better organization of the content and quoting of the sources. I listened to the advice and did accordingly.

But still the Maintenance template has not disappeared. What can be done to address this concern?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushrut_Badhe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talk • contribs) 04:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pavankum Welcome to Tea House. The tag is removed. Thank you for your contribution and editing. Cheers CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Article names and WP:COMMONNAME

Hello, someone has recently renamed this article about sports athlete from "Igor" to "Ihor". Now, according to Wikipedia's article titles usage, a "Common name is preferred" and according to English sources related to this athlete, his common name is "Igor". Here are few sources that mention him as such: http://www.the-sports.org/igor-dziuba-speed-skating-spf202823.html http://speedskatingresults.com/index.php?p=17&s=3809 http://www.schaatsstatistieken.nl/index.php?file=schaatser&code=1983121401 http://www.speedskatingbase.eu/?section=skaters&subsection=skater&skaterid=4910

There are absolutely 0 sources that mention him by the name "Ihor". So, if I understood WP:COMMONNAME correctly, the article title should be changed back to "Igor Dziuba". Or am I missing something else and WP:COMMONNAME does not apply in this case?Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom Welcome to Tea house. Yes, WP:COMMONNAME does apply in this case. I have moved the page back to Igor Dziuba. As you might know Ihor is the Ukrainian name similar that of Russian Igor. I think the editor change the name because the subject is an Ukrainian and not knowing the WP:COMMONNAME do apply here in Wikipedia. The article do need independent, reliable sources to support the notability and the content of the claimed, and those database lists which recording of the subject competitions are considered not reliable and / or not independent. Since you were born in former USSR and presumably know Russian language/Eastern Slavic language and if you could find some sources to support the content claimed and add them into the page, it would be highly appreciate. I just hate to see the page might be one day to be nominated for deletion/PROP as no sources are provided. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Making a new page

I am trying to make an article on a celebrity as they did not already have a pafe but I am now sure now to fully publish it. I’m not sure whether some has to check it and see is it publishable or do I just publish it myself. I’m quite confused Mollyw004 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mollyw004 Welcome to Tea house. If you referred to Draft:Oli White and Draft:Mariangeli Collado, they are not ready to be submitted for review. Please read WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to write an article and provide inline citation. If the above articles are not what you had in mind, then pls pop back here and provide the link to the article so we may help you in more specify manner. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Help me to create New article

Hi my name is Jenne josp. I want to create few articles related to information . Help me please to create foresight group international article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenne josp (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Start by reading Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you conclude "Sure, I have those sources, no problem", then continue with Wikipedia:Your first article. If not, choose something else to work on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Syntax problem

I'm editing an article in which I don't want a hyphenated word to break at the end of the line. I have seen some kind of "no break" syntax used on WP, but nothing I've come up with is working. Can you refer me to the article which covers this subject?--Quisqualis (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. Try looking at MOS:HYPHEN. I think what you're looking for is right above MOS:SHY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That worked a treat. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Recurrent vandalism of a section of small arms articles

Hello,

For a few months, I have been edited articles about military weapons and small arms and therefore I have added them to my watchlist. It seems that a floating IP, generally from Thailand, is adding unsourced countries in the "users" section. Sometimes the reference of another user is added as the reference of a new "random" user.

Could a filter be added to the anti-vandalism bots : if someone is adding a lot of country templates without adding a new reference, he will be automatically reverted ?

Some edits (it has been for months) : [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

--Le Petit Chat (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Maghfoor Ahmad Ijazi

Hello Sir, Good Day

Once again Masroor Chaudhary (New comer) is with you. I want to say that Noorun nisa, Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi and Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah were my Grand Mother and grand Father respectively. This is solid fact that Noorun nisa was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah. There are many proof and evidences regarding this marriage but unfortunately, i don't know where these evidences are preserved. So, i cannot provide you any evidences regarding this marriage and i know that also wikipedia accept only reliable sources for editing. I hope that you will consider on this matter.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary Dist. Darbhanga, Bihar India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Masroor Chaudhary, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume your question relates to Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi. You are right that Wikipedia can only accept information based upon sources that other users are able to find and confirm. It can be very frustrating to have to leave out information simply because it cannot be proven, but that is precisely how Wikipedia operates. It is far better to have a short article full of provable statements, than a longer one containing a mixture of statements, where nobody knows which ones are right, wrong, or added for mischievous reasons. Luckily, it is often the relatively trivial information that has to be left out of for lack of references, and you are best not to try to add information from your personal knowledge, no matter how close your family ties. Thank you so much for your interest in improving Wikipedia. Please remember to sign talk page posts using four keyboard tilde characters (like this ~~~~), rather than type your name manually, as this leaves both a timestamp and link to your userpage which others find helpful. And if you want to know more about how Wikipedia works, we have an interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure which you might like to try out. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk)

How to write an Wikipedia article

Hello, i am a newbie, and i want to write an article. unfortunately i mess up. Actually every time i try to write an article it shows me to the page where is a list of actions i can do: 1 . sandbox, improve and article wizard. please help me solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by გრინვეი (talk • contribs) 07:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi გრინვეი - please take a look at WP:YFA, which gives some good process information on how to write your first article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi გრინვეი and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have started a new article at Draft:Greenway Georgia. We can help you to improve the English, but at present the draft has no references to establish WP:Notability, so it will not be accepted. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners and add some references, preferably in English, but they can be in any language. The criteria on English Wikipedia might be more strict than those in Georgia. For example, YouTube is not considered to be a WP:Reliable source. Dbfirs 08:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)